Page 1 of 51

CALIFORNIA

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 51

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 8

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 8

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................10

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................23

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................26

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................31

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................31

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................37

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................39

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................40

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................40

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................40

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................45

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................46

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................50

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................51
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 51

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.”
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 51

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obligated for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures. Caltrans' Division of Safety Programs provided 

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

(DLA) for local roads. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on 

December 4, 2015 and continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) with only minor changes. 

The FAST Act confirmed the overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway 

safety improvements.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

In May 2020, Caltrans formed a new Safety Programs Division to lead and champion the new traffic safety 

paradigm throughout Caltrans. The historical processes and procedures of the State’s HSIP are a key 

component of implementing new safety strategies and Caltrans will use this HSIP annual report to identify 

opportunities to continuously improve the HSIP process.

The Office of Safety Programs is now under the Direction of the Chief Safety Officer and the Division of Safety 

Programs. Caltrans' 2021 Strategic Management Plan incorporated a Safe System Approach and adopted 

several new strategies to achieve the first goal of Safety. The Division of Safety Programs worked with 

stakeholders to incorporate the safe System approach into the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) and Implementation plan and continues to support implementation. Additional commitments and action 

are tied to the California State Transportation Agency 2019 Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force 

recommendations.

HSIP projects are the Department’s highest priority. A pilot program is underway to deliver safety projects in 

the shortest timeframe possible by expediting the programming and delivery of safety improvement projects. 

To continue the goal of protecting the safety of all road users, particularly our most vulnerable road users such 

as bicyclists and pedestrians, we are incorporating equity as we work towards zero deaths.

Caltrans has embarked on developing a holistic safety program that will focus on the "4 Pillars of Traffic Safety

1. Doubling down on what works.

2. Accelerating advanced technology

3. Implementing a Safe System approach

4. Institutionalizing equity.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 51

SAFETY IMPACT GUIDANCE: 

On December 18, 2020, The Division of Safety Programs Adopted Interim Local Development 

Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance is to provide instructions to district 

staff and other California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) personnel, lead agencies, developers, and 

consultants conducting safety reviews for proposed land use projects and plan affecting the State Highway 

System. This guidance

• Address how to increase State Highway System vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety through 

documented, appropriate and targeted improvements.

• Establishes the safety impact review expectations for Caltrans and lead agencies during processes to 

comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

• Can be used by lead agencies, developers, and consultants as a model for analyzing the safety 

impacts of proposed land use projects and plans on local roadways.

• Prioritizes vulnerable users and communities; enhances safety for pedestrians, bicycle, transit and 

vehicular modes; and applies both reactive and systemic perspectives. Supports the shift away from 

using Level of Service (LOS) as a metric of analysis under CEQA, in accordance with implementing 

Senate Assembly Bill 743 (SB 743, Steinberg: Chaptered by Secretary of State, Chapter 386, Statutes 

of 2013), and complements the “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide” 

(dated May 20, 2020). 

CRASH TERMINOLOGY:

On June 30th, 2021 The Division of Safety Programs issued a recommendation that all California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans) personnel officially adopt the terms “crash,” “collision,” and “incident” in lieu of the 

term “accident” when discussing traffic crashes. This deliberate change in terminology will support Caltrans’ 

safety initiatives and will align Caltrans with other state and federal entities, who have already adopted this 

change in support of greater accuracy and consistency.

The HSIP and Asset Management units are working together to identify, collect and manage datasets. 

Integrating safety datasets are integral to developing a robust safety program and fundamental to making 

informed decisions about safety strategies and investments. It is necessary to develop a program to integrate 

proactive safety (systemic) into asset management and meet the goals of the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) and Federal HSIP requirements.

PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES: 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is dedicated to public and employee safety. This year, 

Caltrans has issued specific policies to implement three Proven Safety Countermeasures:

Rumble Strips

• Rumble strips are a Proven Safety Countermeasure for Reducing Rural Roadway Departures in the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and alert inattentive or drowsy drivers that their vehicle is 

drifting out of their lane onto the shoulder or into the opposing lane. This reduces severe fatal and injury 

roadway departure crashes, including cross centerline collisions.

Retroreflective Backplates
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 51

• Studies by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate a resulting significant reduction in 

collisions occurring late at night or during early morning hours. This treatment will also be valuable 

during the Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events where traffic signals at intersections in areas of 

power outages become inactive and dark, posing safety risk to motorists. During these instances, 

motorist may not be aware of their approach to a signalized intersection with cross-traffic that has 

become dark, and therefore may not stop as is required by the California Vehicle Code 21800.As part 

of an effort to reduce the risk of collisions at signalized intersections that become dark during PSPS, 

and increase the visibility of signals overall, Caltrans will implement the installation of retroreflective 

bordered backplates on all traffic signals that can accommodate these backplates. The installation 

entails placing a new backplate containing a two-inch yellow retroreflective border with Type XI 

sheeting around the perimeter of the face of traffic signal backplates owned and maintained by 

Caltrans.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (scheduled for September 2021)

• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) specifically addresses Strategic Highway Safety Plan’s “Intersections” 

and “Pedestrian” Challenge Areas by providing an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be 

incorporated into pedestrian safety projects and become routine practice. Implementing LPI is an 

excellent strategy to realize the multi-modal vision and achieve goals of enhancing pedestrian safety 

throughout California with a goal to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero, as outlined in 

these supporting policy documents:

o California Transportation Plan 2050 

o Caltrans Strategic Plan 2020-2024 

o Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2020-2024 

o Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure Toward an Active California-State Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Plan 

DATA: Caltrans uses collision data from California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Record 

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

System Network (TSN) Caltrans database, which includes volume and inventory data.

SHSP: Caltrans has been working with 400 stakeholders from 170 public & private agencies including tribes, 

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

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

roads. SB137 allows local agencies to expedite the delivery of safety projects on local roads by exchanging 

federal dollars for state dollar on a one for one ratio. The mission is to deliver safety projects in the shortest 

timeframe possible by expediting the program and delivery of safety improvement projects on local roads. The 

overall goal is to achieve significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries by reducing the time it 

takes to plan and implement safety projects to the next phase of project development.

The current California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was approved and became effective March 

2021. The current SHSP spans the years 2020-2024, with the next update scheduled for 2025. A SHSP 

Dashboard was developed to provide SHSP implementers with direct access to crash data to support datadriven implementation of the SHSP. The dashboard currently uses finalized crash data from the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The 

Dashboard allows for filtering of the number and characteristics of fatal and serious injury crashes over the last 

10 years. Some filtering options include:

• SHSP Challenge Area

• Crash Severity 

• Location: District, County, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and City

• Crash Cause 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 51

• Crash Time 

• Crash Party and Victim Demographics 

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

projects and help to reduce fatal and serious injuries on all roads.

California did not meet or make significant progress on four out of the five 2019 safety performance targets. 

Therefore, it was required to develop a HSIP Implementation Plan to be delivered to FHWA on October 

1,2021. During the development of the HSIP Implementation Plan, the State engaged both internal and 

external stakeholders to determine program needs and potential solutions. The stakeholder outreach contained 

two different components: internal interviews of Caltrans staff associated with implementation of the HSIP and 

an internal/external online stakeholder survey. The HSIP Implementation Plan has identified an opportunity to 

develop a strategic stakeholder engagement and communications strategy for the implementation of the 

SHSP, HSIP, and target setting to increase local and regional collaboration and participation in the process. 

This strategy will be developed through the collaborative process of the oversight structure of the SHSP and 

will be used to ensure that local and regional input is received at key decision points in the process related to 

target setting, HSIP and SHSP implementation.

The Executive Leadership agreed to institutionalize the following four guiding principles into the 

Implementation Plan to make the SHSP more reflective of new thought and safety strategies: Integrate Equity, 

Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What Works, and Accelerate Advanced Technology. 

Under the Integrate Equity principle, Caltrans proposes to increase participation from people and agencies that 

represent traditionally underserved populations to ensure outreach activities include or target those 

populations.

Caltrans continues with its efforts to meet MIRE FDE requirements by September 30, 2026. Caltrans has 

executed a contract that will aid in getting MIRE FDE on all non-state public roads.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 51

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 Division of Safety Programs administers the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for the state 

highway system and The Division of Local Assistance administers the HSIP funds for local and tribal roads.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Headquarters and District Divisions of Safety Programs and Division of Local Assistance

In May 2020, a new Safety Programs Division was created under Director’s Office. State HSIP staff were 

relocated from Traffic Operations Division to the Division of Safety Programs.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Approval provided by the HQ Divisions of Safety Programs and Local Assistance via Statewide Competitive 

Application Process.

Projects are prioritized based on SHSP Focus Areas, crash data, and crash reduction factors.

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

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

consistent, data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and operated) project 

applications on a statewide basis. This tool, known as HSIP Analyzer, was developed by DLA. DLA also 

provides the Local Roadway Safety Manual for California local road owners and directly incorporates UC 

Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. 

These tools and resources encourage local agencies to proactively analyze their roadway networks for the 

highest crash locations to develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing fatalities and 

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

open and available to the tribes that would like to submit an application for HSIP funds. DLA also provides set 

aside funding for low cost systemic countermeasures where collisions are not required as part of the 

application. Funding is limited for each set aside and one application for each set aside per agency.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 51

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Research Innovation and system performance

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Due to the Traffic Collisions Record (TCR) backlog reduction efforts, Caltrans switched the network screening 

from quarterly to annually to allow the districts to investigate more recent collisions in a more timely manner. 

This change did not omit any collisions from this network screening process.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Tribal Agency

• Other-Emergency Response Team

Describe coordination with external partners.

Meeting over the summer of 2021, state transportation leaders decided that achieving zero deaths and serious 

injuries on public roadways required a pivot to be even bolder and have more focused efforts. . The group 

agreed to institutionalize the following guiding principles into a revised SHSP to make the SHSP more 

reflective of new thought and safety strategies: Integrate Equity, Implement Safe System Approach, Double 

Down on What Works, and Accelerate Advanced Technology. Following the “Integrate Equity” principle, the 

SHSP increased participation from persons or agencies that represent traditionally underserved populations or 

stakeholders to ensure input and outreach is more inclusive..

As part of the HSIP Implementation Plan 2021& 2022, the State engaged both internal and external 

stakeholders to determine program needs and potential solutions. The stakeholder outreach contained two 

different components: internal interviews of Caltrans staff associated with implementation of the HSIP and an 

internal/external online stakeholder survey. Also, HSIP Implementation plan has identified an opportunity to 

develop a strategic stakeholder engagement and communications strategy for the implementation of the 

SHSP, HSIP, and target setting to increase local and regional collaboration and participation in the process. 

This strategy will be developed through the collaborative process of the oversight structure of the SHSP, and 

will be used to ensure that local and regional input is received at key decision points in the process related to 

target setting, HSIP and SHSP implementation.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 51

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

elaborate. 

In May, 2020, a new Safety Programs Division has been created under Director’s Office. State HSIP staff were 

relocated under the Division of Safety Programs, and began to establish policies and procedures that prioritize 

the reduction of fatal and serous injuries over all crashes and will have a revised HSIP Guidelines in 2021/22 

fiscal year.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/hsip/f0017926-ca-hsip-2017.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• HSIP (no subprograms)

• Local Safety

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Systemic Wrong Way

• Other-Crossover Collision Monitoring Program

• Other-Systemic Pedestrian State Highway System

• Other-Pedestrian HCCL State Highway System

The Median Barrier is combined with the 2 and 3 lane cross Centerline collisions monitoring program to form 

the newly created -Crossover Collision Monitoring Program.

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:4/20/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

• Other-High Collision Concentration Location

• Other-integrate equity, Implement Safe System Approach, Double down on what works

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 51

• All crashes • Volume

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

• Other-Data and Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:4/20/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

• Other-High Collision Concentration Location

• Other-integrate equity, Implement Safe System Approach, Double down on what works

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 51

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

• Other-Data and Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria :100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

HSIP Projects are evaluated to meet a minimum Safety Index of 230, which is a benefit cost ratio of 2:1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 51

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Systemic approach

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

Local Agencies take the lead in identifying projects within their own jurisdictions based on Local HSIP 

guidance

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Other-set asides:1

This program is dedicated for local roads, however funding can be for state highways but needs approval from 

Caltrans.

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/20/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 51

• Other-High Collision Concentration Location

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

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.

Division of Local Assistance identifies and reorts

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

Other-meet minimum criteria:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:11/15/2004

What is the justification for this program? 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 51

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-see the optional 

description

• Volume

• Lane miles

• Other-Fatal and injury crashes 

on Wet Pavement 

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-Fatal and injury crashes 

resulting in Overturned Vehicle 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-see the optional description for this question

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-see the optional description for this question

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

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

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

traffic volume. :100

Total Relative Weight:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:1/15/1985
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 51

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

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-crash frequency and crash rate:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Program: Other-Systemic Wrong Way

Date of Program Methodology:3/16/2021

What is the justification for this program? 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 51

• 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

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Wrong Way Notification

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be programmed.

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

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

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

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-All Projects meeting established criteria:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Program: Other-Crossover Collision Monitoring Program

Date of Program Methodology:1/15/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 51

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal crashes only • Volume

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be programmed

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

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

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

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-All Projects meeting established criteria:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

The Median Barrier is combined with the 2 and 3 lane cross Centerline collisions monitoring program to form 

the newly created -Crossover Collision Monitoring Program

Program: Other-Systemic Pedestrian State Highway System

Date of Program Methodology:9/11/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

• Other-Part of the 4 Pillars of the Division of Safety Programs

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set aside within HSIP funds
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 51

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Fatal and Injury

• Volume

• Population

• Other-Disadvantaged 

Community

• Other-Employment Data

• Other-Intersections on the State 

Highway System

• Other-Number of Lanes on 

Mainline and Cross Street

• Other-Control Features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Probability of specific crash types

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-Systemic Locationsto be incorporated into existing SHOPP 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 

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-See Below:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerating Advance Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 

Using ArcGIS software, the identified systemic locations were then prioritized using a point-scoring system with 

the following factors and weights:

• Number of collisions (fatalities plus injuries) (55%) 

• Estimated pedestrian volume based on UC Berkeley SafeTREC study results and American 

Community Survey population and employment data (25%)

• Disadvantaged community status based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (10%) 

• Vulnerable populations (10%) consisting of:

o Senior (age 65 and older) population density based on the American Community Survey (2.5%)

o Youth (under age 15) population density based on the American Community Survey (2.5%)

o School proximity from the California School Campus Database (5%) 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 51

Program: Other-Pedestrian HCCL State Highway System

Date of Program Methodology:7/31/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

• Other-Part of the 4 Pillars of the Division of Safety Program

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set aside within HSIP funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Fatal and Injury

• Population

• Other-Disadvantaged 

Community

• Other-Employment Data

• Other-pedestria-related High 

Collision Concentration 

Locations (HCCLs)

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Pedestrian Related HCCL 

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-Pedestrian Safety Improvement Monitoring 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-See Below:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Integrate Equity, Accelerate Advanced Technology, Implement Safe System Approach, Double Down on What 

Works 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 51

In collaboration with the Division of Research Innovation and System Information, the Identified HCCLs were 

then prioritized using a point-scoring system with the following factors and weights:

• Number of collisions (fatalities plus injuries) (50%) 

• Estimated pedestrian volume based on UC Berkeley SafeTREC study results and American 

Community Survey population and employment data (25%)

• Disadvantaged community status based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (10%) 

• Vulnerable populations (10%) consisting of:

o Senior (age 65 and older) population density based on the American Community Survey (2.5%)

o Youth (under age 15) population density based on the American Community Survey (2.5%)

o School proximity from the California School Campus Database (5%) 

• Repeated crash characteristics based on identical primary collision factor (5%)

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 40

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Clear Zone Improvements

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Rumble Strips

• Wrong way driving treatments

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

• Other-Benefit Cost Ratio

We are in the process of implementing Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF) to identify potential 

countermeasures.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

Caltrans is currently researching and reviewing connective vehicles and ITS technologies This includes 

existing studies at Caltrans as well as participating in the SHSP Emerging Technologies Challenge Area team, 

which is a new challenge area in the SHSP 2020 – 2024 for which Caltrans has designated a challenge area 

co-lead. Some examples of the ongoing efforts are the development of a Caltrans Statewide Connected and 

Automated Vehicle Implementation Plan, research on using near-miss technology to collect and evaluate traffic 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 51

safety, and researching the use of LIDAR to assess sight distance on highways. When the State HSIP has 

data on the application of emerging technologies, the state will incorporate these technologies into the HSIP.

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.

Integrating HSM methodology into the network screening and cost/benefit processes with a 2023 goal. 

Incorporating HSM methods into project alternative analysis

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

elaborate.

Local HSIP and State highway HSIP use the cost/benefit methodology as a qualifying criteria for HSIP funds 

with some differences. For State highway HSIP, the benefit / cost tool, called the safety index, is used for 

projects at spot locations whereas Local HSIP utilizes the benefit / cost methodology for both spot and 

systemic type of projects. The Local HSIP utilizes set asides for low cost countermeasures. For cycle 10 which 

is the current call for Local HSIP projects, pedestrian crossing enhancements at non-signalized locations, edge 

line striping, guardrail upgrades and tribal roads are ones that local agencies can select from. These set asides 

do not require crash data to receive HSIP funding but is limited to a maximum dollar amount per agency and 

only specific low cost countermeasures can be selected.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 51

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

This is based on State fiscal year calendar - July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $394,794,000 $501,671,481 127.07%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $1,780,792 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$78,158,140 $38,834,673 49.69%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $39,235,969 0%

State and Local Funds $9,658,140 $9,658,140 100%

Local HSIP (23 U.S.C 148) $110,000,673 $92,873,816 84.43%

Totals $592,610,953 $684,054,871 115.43%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C 148(g)(1)) and Penalty Funds(23 U.S.C. 154) has ended, currently there is no 

programmed amount, the $1,780,792 shown under HRRR obligated is funds left over from previous 

programmed projects.

Other Federal-aid Funds such as ( i.e. STBG, NSPP) have no programmed amount. The obligated amount of 

$39,235,969 shown under other Federal-aid Funds Obligated was received from the Office of Federal 

Resources.

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

safety projects?

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

$110,000,673:

Note: this number is noted in the table above to distinguish between state HSIP and Local HSIP. HSIP funds 

are split 50/50 between state and local roads and administered separately.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 51

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

$0

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

$0

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.

As noted in previous annual reports, local HSIP continues to improve project delivery by enforcing our project 

delivery policies by providing (1) monthly update of delivery status reports posted on the DLA website, (2) 

HSIP manager’s phone calls and emails to district focal-point contacts responsible for monitoring project 

delivery, (3) setting deadlines for late projects in various previous project cycles, (4) requesting local agencies 

to send HSIP program an official delivery commitment letter for project delay request, and (5) efforts made by 

various Local HSIP Advisory Committee members. Because of these ongoing efforts, over 90% of the Local 

HSIP projects have been delivered on time.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

In FFY 20/21, Local HSIP utilized the option of transferring federal HSIP funds back to the state HSIP in return 

for state highway funds on a dollar for dollar bases as described under California Senate Bill 137. The funds 

exchanged will not change the purpose for which the funds were for under federal legislation requirements. A 

total of $40M was exchanged and will be used to fund preliminary engineering. This change will help local 

agencies deliver their safety projects more efficiently, less support costs and improved project delivery. Only a 

portion of the Obligated Amount (OA) was exchanged since there are other projects within the project delivery 

pipeline that will need the remaining federal funds for construction and closeout.

Local HSIP is moving ahead with requiring local agencies to have an approved Local Road Safety Plans 

(LRSP) or equivalent in order to be eligible to receive HSIP grant funds starting in 2022 which is Cycle 11. 

Approximately 370 agencies have either a plan that is completed or is in progress. 

The State HSIP is now part of the newly formed Division of Safety Programs where HSIP is elevating the focus 

and approach to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Toward Zero Deaths goal.

To expedite the programming of Safety projects they are funded under the State Highway Operations and 

Protection Program (SHOPP) reservation resources entitling eligible projects for continuous programming at 

every California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting that are held approximately every other month.

To avoid delays when developing a Project Initiation Document for Safety Improvement projects, every effort 

must be made to focus on addressing the Safety need only, to avoid scope creep which can delay or disqualify 

the improvement as a Safety project.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 51

This pilot will reduce the time from when a Safety project is conceptually approved to when it is programmed. 

The Conceptual Report includes substantial project information currently reported at the Project Initiation 

Document phase. By simply transferring this information from the Conceptual Report to the Project Initiation 

Document, significant rework is avoided reducing the amount of time and resources to develop the Project 

Initiation Document . The proposed process is anticipated to reduce the time it takes from the beginning of the 

conceptual approval process to the completion of the Project Initiation Document by four (4) to six (6) months.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 51

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

01-HUM-036 

PM10.5/10.8

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

.3 Miles $3068000 $6063000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

01-MEN-001 

PM 6.5/9.5

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

3.0 Miles $940000 $940000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

03-NEV-020 

PM 29.7/30.9

Roadside Increase clear 

zone – outside of 

curve

1 Miles $8914000 $12499000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

03-NEV-020 

PM 37.1/39.8

Roadside Increase clear 

zone – outside of 

curve

2.7 Miles $28890000 $39480000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

03-SAC-VAR 

PM VAR

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

Var Ramp 

Locations

$3380000 $3945000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

04-ALA-580 

PM R1.3/R6.0

Lighting Lighting - other 4.7 Miles $3203000 $3945000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Environmental Environmental 

mitigation for 

lighting 

impacts on 

species 

habitat

05-MON-001 

PM 

74.8/R102.0

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

27.2 Miles $1643000 $2529000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

05-SBT-025 

PM 54.0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

Intersections $3380000 $3945000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

05-SLO-101 

PM 38.5/39.4

Roadway Roadway - other 0.9 Miles $2851000 $5368000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialInterstate0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

05-SLO-101 

PM 27.9

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

0.9 Lanes $402000 $2161000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

03-SAC-050 

PM VAR

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 27.2 Access points $1643000 $2529000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

05-SLO-001 

PM VAR

Roadway Rumble strips –

other

3.0 VAR 

centerline 

$2466000 $3801000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 51

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

and edgeline 

rumble strips

05-SB-135 PM 

17.3/17.6

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists – other

0.3 Miles $1716000 $3782000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

05-SB-166 PM 

8.1

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

1 Intersections $785000 $1758000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

06-FRE-041 

PM 6.0/ R20.8

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

13.4 Miles $981000 $2930000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

06-KER-178 

PM 10.4/57.0

Roadway Rumble strips –

other

47.4 Miles $2728000 $6513000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

06-TUL-063 

PM 12.1/ 

R30.1

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

18 Miles $1339000 $3163000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

06-TUL-065 

PM 0.0/R 19.3

Roadway Rumble strips –

other

19.3 Miles $2118000 $3947000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

07-LA-001 

PM18.9/19.9

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

1 Numbers $3500000 $6406000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

07-LA-005 PM 

18.0

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1 Numbers $1446000 $3687000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

07-LA-110 

PM25.8/30.6

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic 

message signs

1 Numbers $0 $2835000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Convert 

outside lane to 

a dynamic 

lane/shoulder 

that canswitch 

between the 

two 

depending on 

prevaili

08-SANB-259-

PM 1.1/1.2

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

.1 Miles $527000 $1666000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

10-MER-152 

PM 21.0

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

1 Intersections $1394000 $4041000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 51

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

11-SD-008 PM 

5.6

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

2 Numbers $2006000 $3188000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

12-ORA-022 

PM R1.2

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

1 Intersections $672000 $1835000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot modify 

existing traffic 

signal, add 

safety lighting, 

refresh 

pavement 

marking, ADA 

upgrade

12-ORA-039 

PM 9.7

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

other

1 Intersections $890000 $2234000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

12-ORA-057 

PM 15.6

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

1 Access points $554000 $1308000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

12-ORA-0091 

R1.8/R3.4

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1.6 Miles $3097000 $5513000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

02-TEH-005 

PM 36.3/41.6

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

5.3 Miles $5295000 $7800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Improve 

median clear 

recovery zone 

and 

wideninside 

shoulder

03-NEV-080 

PM R10.1/29.5

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

21 Access points $9444000 $9335000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Replace 

guardrail with 

concrete 

barrier to 

reduce 

maintence call 

outs

03-PLA-080 

PM 1.3/63.5 

Roadside Barrier - other 62.2 Miles $3086000 $3750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrail

03-SAC-VAR Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

Locations $1974000 $2750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Lane 

Departure

03-YOL-016 

PM 27.5/28.3

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing 

crosswalk

Access points $3813000 $7167000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 51

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

03-YOL-050 

PM 0.0/3.0

Roadside Barrier - other 3 Miles $2439000 $3529000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Upgrade 

guardrail

04-ALA-580 

PM VAR

Roadside Barrier - other Various 

locations 

upgrading 

guardrail

$0 $5492000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrail

04-ALA-580 

PM VAR

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists – other

Accessible 

pedestrian 

signals, 

countdown 

timers and 

upgrade 

crosswalk 

markings

$0 $9128000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

05-SBA- VarVARPedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists – other

Install 

accessible 

pedestrian 

Signals 

(APS), push 

buttons, 

countdown 

ped 

signals(CPS), 

other

$1190000 $4580000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

06-TUL-VARVARRoadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

Signs $2022000 $4682000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

07-LA-002 

PM26.4/79.5

Roadside Barrier - other 53.1 Miles $17809000 $24238000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrail

07-LA-039 PM 

32.2/38.4

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

6.2 Miles $4210000 $7883000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrail and 

end 

treatments

07-LA-091 PM 

6.3/8.1

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

2 Miles $2310000 $3446000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

07-LA-VARVARRoadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

Signs $2100000 $5155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

07-VEN-101-

SB PM 

0.0/R38.9

Roadside Roadside - other 38.9 Miles $11636000 $17669000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Guardrail 

upgrade
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 51

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

07-VEN-NB101 PM 

0.9/R39.2

Roadside Roadside - other 38.3 Miles $10252000 $14810000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrails, 

end 

treatments, 

and bridge 

connections, 

and 

vegetation 

control

08-SBD-040 

PM 

R100.0/R125.0

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

25.0 Miles $30506000 $40106000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

09-KER-178-

VAR-VAR

Roadway Roadway - other upgrade 

guardrails, 

end 

treatments, 

and bridge 

trasnistion 

railings

$2740000 $4562000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrails, 

end 

treatments, 

and bridge 

trasnistion 

railings

09-MNO-395 

PM R6.9/T9.6

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

3.0 Miles $14811000 $22451000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

10-AMA-088 

PM7.9/R65.8

Roadway Roadway - other 57.9 Miles $4130000 $6064000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

10-MER-152 

PM26.3/R40.7

Roadway Roadway - other 14.4 Miles $2767000 $4957000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive upgrade 

guardrail

11-SD-005 PM 

R55.6/R70.0

Roadside Barrier – cable 14.4 Miles $5989000 $8493000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Proactive Roadway 

Departure

11-SD-008-

VAR

Roadway Roadway - other upgrade 

guardrail and 

end 

treatments 

$3823000 $6718000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

proactive Roadway 

Departure

The projects inputted above are state HSIP programmed projects You will find the state local HSIP programmed projects attached.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 51

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 2,966 3,107 3,102 3,387 3,837 3,884 3,798 3,606 3,814

Serious Injuries 10,864 10,664 10,995 11,942 13,701 14,201 16,158 16,427 15,342

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.910 0.900 0.930 1.010 1.130 1.130 1.090 1.060 0.919

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.320 3.240 3.290 3.560 4.030 4.130 4.630 4.820 4.379

Number nonmotorized fatalities782 881 838 1,009 1,130 1,125 1,174 1,195 1,137

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

2,743 2,710 2,795 2,803 3,017 3,175 3,399 3,503 2,990
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 51

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 51

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 51

2020 numbers are provisional as of July 2021

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 51

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

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 0 0 0
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 51

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

1,580.6 5,386.6 0.82 2.81

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

The SWITERS and Caltrans database does not allow at this time for query break down by classification for 

local roads.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

The annual trend in fatalities and serious injuries in 2020 is in the upward direction. Although the annual trend 

is moving in the wrong direction, Caltrans look to reverse the trend and move toward the long-term goal of zero 

fatalities and serious injuries by 2050. 

Caltrans is working with University of California, Berkley (UCB) to help implement the safe system approach. 

The Safe System approach (SSA) to road safety is a fundamental shift in how we define the safety challenge, 

implement safety interventions, and evaluate progress. These include reframing core principles of our 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 51

traditional safety approach in several ways. The SSA aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road 

users through a holistic view of the roadway system by affirming that fatal and serious injuries on the roadways 

can be prevented when safety is prioritized across all components of the road system. Caltrans’ Division of 

safety programs has undertaken several initiatives to address several components of SSA: safe roads, safe 

speeds, and safe road use. The ongoing Proactive Safety programs (Pedestrian Safety, Bicyclist Safety, and 

Wrong Way Driver) have embraced and implemented the principles of SSA.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:3491.8

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

The available data from FARS was used to determine the average trend between 2017 and 2019. The average 

trend decreased the number of fatalities by 3.61% annually and the five-year rolling average was used to 

establish the 2022 target. The decrease in the number of fatalities aligns with the goal of the California 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to move toward zero fatalities and serious injuries. In March of 2021, 

the Federal Highway Administration apportioned $226 million dollars to California to fund safety projects that 

focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on California's roads under the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program. 

Number of Serious Injuries:16704.2

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

The available data from SWITRS was used to determine the average trend between 2018 and 2019. The 

average trend increased the number of serious injuries by 1.66% annually and the five-year rolling average 

was used to establish the 2022 target. The serious injury definition changed to include suspected serious 

injuries and was implemented in the middle of 2017. The first full year (2018) of including suspected serious 

injuries resulted in an increase of 17.93% from the last full year (2016) of the previous definition. In March of 

2021, the Federal Highway Administration apportioned $226 million dollars to California to fund safety projects 

that focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on California's roads under the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program.

Fatality Rate:1.042

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

Based on the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled from 2015-2019, the average trend 

decreased the fatality rate by 2.00% annually. The five-year rolling average was then used to establish the 

2022 target. The decrease in the fatality rate aligns with the goal of the California Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) to move toward zero fatalities and serious injuries. In March of 2021, the Federal Highway 

Administration apportioned $226 million dollars to California to fund safety projects that focus on reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries on California's roads under the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Serious Injury Rate:4.879

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

Based on the serious injury rate from 2015-2019, the average trend increased by 1.66% annually. The fiveyear rolling average was used to establish the 2022 target. The serious injury definition changed to include 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 51

suspected serious injuries and was implemented in the middle of 2017. The first full year (2018) of including 

suspected serious injuries resulted in an increase of 17.93% from the last full year (2016) of the previous 

definition. In March of 2021, the Federal Highway Administration apportioned $226 million dollars to California 

to fund safety projects that focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on California's roads under the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:4684.4

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

The average trend decreased the number of fatalities by 3.61% and increased the number of serious injuries 

by 1.66%. The five-year rolling average was based on the average trends to establish the 2022 target. In 

March of 2021, the Federal Highway Administration apportioned $226 million dollars to California to fund safety 

projects that focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on California's roads under the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program.

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

safety performance targets. 

Since safety targets are applicable to all public roads in the California, regional and local jurisdictions should be 

collaboratively involved in the safety target setting process. In line with this, on July 27, 2021, a virtual 

workshop was held to discuss the 2022 SPMTs with the MPOs and other vested stakeholders. During this 

workshop, three possible scenarios for setting the 2021 targets were discussed. They included: (1) an 

aspirational trend such as reaching zero fatalities by 2050; (2) a target based on estimated impacts from 

completed activities and projects; and (3) a trend line, which extrapolates the existing changes in fatalities and 

serious injuries into the future.

The current approach is the third scenario that uses a trend line. The trend line approach extrapolates the 

existing changes in fatalities and serious injuries into the future and is a data-driven process that estimates the 

impacts of external factors and safety improvements based on collision history.

Caltrans and Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) met prior to the July 27th meeting, to discuss and agree on the 

methodology to set the three core safety performance targets (C1 - C3), that OTS and Caltrans are required to 

agree upon and must be included in the HSP and HSIP.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 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 3518.0 3787.8

Number of Serious Injuries 13740.4 15165.8

Fatality Rate 1.023 1.066

Serious Injury Rate 3.994 4.398

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

4147.4 4369.0
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 51

The 2020 target for number of fatalities used a target line to reach zero fatalities by 2050 (with 2016 numbers 

as the baseline numbers), and this methodology was similarly done by several States in the nation. The 

percent reduction for the number of serious injuries was 1.5%. Based on the data available at the time of 

reporting, Caltrans will not meet any of the targets set for 2020. Since Caltrans set aspirational goals 

consistent with the SHSP, there will be a difference in the target and the actual outcome. Caltrans is committed 

to safety and this approach will require aggressive implementation efforts to improve performance.

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

391 416 434 540 487 517 492

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

636 695 799 927 1,011 1,179 1,270

Caltrans has Older Driver Challenge Area as well as a Pedestrian Challenge are that takes into consideration 

Pedestrians over the age of 65.

These numbers have been updated to represent Older Driver and Older Pedestrians for both Fatalities and 

Serious injuries.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 51

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Other-3 - year before and after

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

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

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

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

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

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

projects by using method of Benefit-Cost Analysis and data criteria.

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

the State's program level evaluations.

Caltrans is continually working towards zero deaths and serious injuries on our roadways, based on the

measures stated above we need to do more. We are looking with our partners both at the local and state level 

to work together to develop strategies aimed at eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries on our 

roadways.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Other-SHSP Crash Data Dash Board

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)

Aggressive Driving/ 

Speed Management

All 1,102.2 4,353.8 0.32 1.27

Aging Drivers All 571.6 1,879.4 0.17 0.55
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 51

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)

Bicyclists All 165.2 1,017.6 0.05 0.3

Commercial Vehicles All 387.8 859.8 0.11 0.25

Distracting Driving All 157.6 690.6 0.05 0.2

Impaired Driving All 1,289.8 3,417 0.37 0.99

Intersections All 755 3,608.6 0.22 1.05

Lane Departures All 1,699.8 6,218.6 0.5 1.81

Motorcyclists All 526.8 2,933.4 0.15 0.85

Occupant Protection All 719 1,694.2 0.21 0.49

Pedestrians All 963.2 2,194.4 0.28 0.64

Work Zones All 62 192.4 0.02 0.06

Young Drivers All 448 1,901 0.13 0.55
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 51

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Fatalities

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

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Serious Injuries

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

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 51

Data as of November 2020

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

Fatality Rate

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

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Serious Injury Rate

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

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 51

In this reporting period, Caltrans has not completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period. Caltrans seldom conducts countermeasure effectiveness evaluations and typically refers to 

the CMF clearinghouse for countermeasure effectiveness.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 51

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)

Please see 

attached Excel 

spreadsheets

Both the State Highway System and Local Roads are attached.

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

Caltrans understands the benefit of reviewing current processes and performance standards to determine how best to revise existing and/or establish new procedures. Reviewing past performance is used to determine ways to 

substantially improve the effectiveness and transparency of safety implementation.

The HSIP review provides, an opportunity to identify best practices nationally and worldwide that could be incorporated into the program, and discuss safety goals for specific targets.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 51

Compliance Assessment

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

 03/15/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2020 To: 2024

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

 2025

The current California SHSP was approved in 1/21/2020, the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committee decided in order to address the desire for bolder and broader actions to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, revised and 

signed in 3/2021 to include four new guiding principles: Integrate Equity, Implement a Safe Systems Approach, Double Down on what works, and Accelerate Advanced Technology.

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

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

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 51

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

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 51

For this year, the MIRE FDE compliance is based on the information from HPMS.

If the HPMS of local road information is full extend (e.g. mandatory), then the item that is related to it in MIRE FDE is considered 100%. If the HPMS is partial extend (e.g. optional), then the item is considered 0%. For Non-state, 

the percentage is reflecting on what is being reported under HPMS, it does not reflect the completeness and quality of data. Some datasets require extensive update and cleanup.

Notes:

1. For Non-state, the percentage is reflecting on what is being reported under HPMS, it does not reflect the completeness and quality of data. Some datasets require extensive update and cleanup.

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]

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 83.33 75.00 25.00 63.64 0.00 0.00 77.78 0.00 0.00

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

2. For State, the percentage is reflecting on the current data being maintained in TSN, it does not reflect the completeness and quality of data.

3. 100% assumes it's in the TSN for the state highway system or reported in HPMS for local roads that is full extend.

4. 0% assumes is reported in HPMS for local roads that is sampling or partial extend.

5. 0% is based on the TSN has no local raods information including "Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point" element

6. "n/a" assumes in the TSN there are no functional class 7 roads or unpaved roads as part of the state highway system.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 51

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

Caltrans continues with its efforts to meet MIRE FDE requirements by September 30, 2026. Caltrans has executed a contract that will aid in getting MIRE FDE on all non-state public roads.
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 51

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP-2017-Final.pdf

Project Implementation:

Local HSIP Authorized Projects FY20-21 .xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

#46 Before and After Submitted Report including Functional Classification HSIP 2017 

v09.20.2021.xlsx

Local Roads HSIP_BCR_2021#46.xlsx

Local Roads HSIP_BCR_2021#46.xlsx

#46 Before and After Submitted Report including Functional Classification HSIP 2017 

v09.20.2021.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2021 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 51

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.