Nebraska

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: NE

  
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules,

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”  

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists,

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety

enhancement of     potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway‐highway

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal‐aid

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 13

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 13

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 16

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 24

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 24

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 38

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) .......................................... 41

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 43

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 48

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 53

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................59

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................62
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

It was another successful year for Nebraska’s HSIP program in 2014.  Nearly $15 million was obligated,

with over $17 million planned.  Once again, Nebraska chose to use a portion of its funds for non‐

infrastructure projects that addressed the three behavioral critical emphasis areas of its Strategic

Highway Safety Plan.  

Although High Risk Rural Roads funding was discontinued, Nebraska used HSIP funds for several projects

intended to reduce crashes on county roads.  These included a project to provide up‐to‐date work zone

signs to counties, the third phase of our successful horizontal curve signs project, and the purchase of

two retro‐reflectometers for use by counties to check the retro‐reflectivity of their signs.  The retro‐

reflectometers will be housed at the LTAP office.  In addition, traffic control device packages were

provided to local emergency response agencies as a part of a highly successful Traffic Incident

Management Responder Training Program

Planning for three more roundabouts in Lincoln took place during 2014, as did proposals for adaptive

signal systems in both Omaha and Lincoln.  Trailer‐mounted attenuators were purchased for the NDOR

district trucks to help protect our employees when on the road.  Dynamic Message Sign replacements

were also funded in four districts.

Major infrastructure projects let during 2014 included the reconstruction of the intersection of 90th &

Maple Street in Omaha (N‐64 & N‐133), the reconstruction of a curve on N‐66 north of Ashland, and the

conversion of a 4‐lane stretch of US‐77 in Fremont to a 5‐lane section.
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the

effectiveness of the improvements.  

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

Local road projects are regularly funded under the HSIP. The NDOR's various safety committees identify

potential locations for projects and send this information to local governments for their consideration

as HSIP projects.  City governments are encouraged to submit potential projects to the NDOR for

consideration. Representatives of the state's two largest cities, Omaha and Lincoln, regularly attend

Safety Committee meetings and officials from the smaller cities are always welcome.  Representatives

from the Nebraska LTAP Center and the Nebraska Highway Superintendents Association sit on the High

Risk Rural Road committee, which continues to function despite the loss of dedicated funding.   The

number of projects built on local roads varies from year to year. During State FY 2015 seven HSIP
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

projects let were for local roads. Other local projects, five in FY 2015, are not included in this total

because they are located on state highways.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other‐Traffic Engineering

Other: Other‐Highway Safety

Other: Other‐Local Projects

Other: Other‐Program Management

Other: Other‐Rail & Public Transportation

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

All of the above named disciplines play a role in the HSIP process. Highway Safety prepares collision

diagrams, spot maps, or lists of high accident locations and presents them to committee members at

their monthly meetings. They coordinate with the engineering divisions to get estimated project costs,

from which they calculate benefit‐cost ratios. They also complete evaluations of completed projects and

present them to the group for use in making future decisions. The Traffic Engineering Division is the lead

office for all HSIP activity.  All HSIP projects are approved by either the NDOR Safety Committee or the

Strategic Safety Infrastructure Team. The usual procedure is for an approved HSIP project to be assigned

to Roadway Design Division, Traffic Engineering Division, or the Local Projects Section of Materials and

Research Division as the lead element, depending on the type of project and whether or not it is on a

local road. These units work with Program Management to get the project scheduled and to make sure

it is progressing adequately through the steps in the Clarity software, which is used for project

programming. This includes the important step of working with the Environmental Section to make sure
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

all environmental concerns are met. The lead units either design the project or oversee the design of a

consultant and prepare the project for letting.  If railroad property is involved in the project, Rail &

Public Transportation Division must also be consulted. The Operations Division has taken the lead on

projects involving bridge anti‐icing systems, adaptive signal control, and dynamic message signs, which

require systems engineering analysis. The Governor's Highway Safety Office is responsible for non‐

infrastructure projects addressing driver behavior issues.  The NDOR has begun using the Highway

Safety Manual procedures in the analysis and evaluation of some HSIP projects.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other‐City of Omaha Public Works Department

Other: Other‐City of Lincoln Public Works Department

Other: Other‐FHWA Division Office

Other: Other‐NE Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)

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

the last reporting period.

Multi‐disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other‐Other‐NDOR has developed a Strategic Plan for HSIP and RHCP Expenditures with the

help of FHWA
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

would like to elaborate.

During FY 2015, Nebraska completed an update of its HSIP process document, which was approved by

FHWA.  NDOR also issued an RFP for the purchase of a web‐based automatic collision diagramming

system, to be paid for with HSIP funds.  We are currently in the process of selecting a vendor.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.  

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low‐Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other:      

   

   

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/27/1990

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐Land Use

    Other‐Median Type

    Other‐Number of Lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

Are local roads (non‐state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

The number and type of crashes to address systemic improvements and on occasion the same

methodology as used on state roads.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 3

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Design and Project 1
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Development Time

   

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 9/27/1990

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐Land Use

    Other‐Median Type

    Other‐Number of Lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

The number and type of roadway departure crashes on a particular roadway to address systemic

improvements.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 3

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Design and Project

Development Time

1

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

10   

   

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other  

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other:  

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other:  

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

would like to elaborate.  
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

The NDOR has continued to increase its emphasis on systemic projects in the HSIP program.  This is

evident in the newly developed Strategic Plan for HSIP and RHCP Expenditures.  Systemic projects are

increasing in HSIP planning, and should increase in obligations in future years.

Likewise, the NDOR is increasing its use of the Highway Safety Manual in project evaluations.  This use

should continue to grow in the future.  

  
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 17116800   86 % 14651381   87 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU)       

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds 2802758   14 % 2171421   13 %
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Totals 19919558 100% 16822802 100%

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

$6,317,891.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$1,281,061.00

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

$2,532,080.00

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

$2,346,001.00

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Some local agencies are reluctant to apply for HSIP funds because of the perceived difficulty of following

federal rules.   For example, some counties chose not to take part in the statewide bridge object marker

project due to the time needed to complete project requirements.  The NDOR and LTAP will continue to

encourage counties to take part in future projects of this type.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

A major step in the HSIP implementation process was taken this year when NDOR and FHWA

collaborated on a Strategic Plan for HSIP and RHCP Expenditures.  This plan will allow NDOR to sustain

consistent obligations of HSIP funds.  It provides a list of countermeasures that is intended as an

implementation document for the Nebraska Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).  The document also

lays out a 6‐year plan for HSIP expenditures which incorporates the countermeasures listed in the plan.

NDOR will continue to use a crash data‐driven analysis approach to justify expenditure of HSIP funds,

but will also rely more on a systemic approach, as it is recognized that certain types of crashes occur

randomly throughout the highway system.  National research identifying best practices and FHWA

endorsements of specific practices will also be followed.

  
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

General Listing of ProjectsList each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.

Project Improveme

nt Category

Output HSIP

Cost

TotalCost

FundingCategory

Functional

Classification

AADT Spee

d

RoadwayOwnership

Re

EmA

00787HorizontalCurve Signs,

Phase 3

Roadwaysigns andtrafficcontrolCurve‐relatedwarningsigns and

flashers

Numbers

54646 54646 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

Various ‐ MajorCollector,

Local

50 County

HighwayAgency

RoD

00928BNDOR SafetyEducationCommercials

Non‐infrastructureEducationalefforts

50000 55573 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

StateHighwayAgency

V

12944Lincoln	‐	N.14th &CornhuskerHighway

IntersectiontrafficcontrolModifycontrol ‐ two‐way

1Numbers

279824 1081040 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanMinor

Arterial

13400 40 City of

Municipal Highway

Agency

Inns
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

stop to

roundabout

13147Lincoln	‐	S.Coddington& W. VanDorn Street

IntersectiontrafficcontrolModifycontrol ‐ two‐waystop toroundabout

1Numbers

577466 2357731 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanMinorArterial

10090 40 City of

Municipal HighwayAgency

Inns

13227Lincoln	‐	N.66th Street &

FremontStreet

IntersectiontrafficcontrolModifycontrol ‐ two‐waystop to

roundabout

1Numbers

125755 1204459 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanMajor

Collector

8745 35 City of

Municipal Highway

Agency

Inns

13244Lincoln	‐	N.

Intersectiontraffic

19Numbe

13500 2000000 HSIP

(Section

UrbanPrincipal

29000 40 City of

Municipa

Inns
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

27th StreetAdaptiveSignals

controlModifytraffic signaltiming ‐ signalcoordination

rs 148) Arterial ‐ 

Other

l HighwayAgency

00894Retro‐Reflectometers

Non‐infrastructure Non‐

infrastructure ‐ other

2Numbers

64225 64225 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

Various ‐ Major

Collector or

Local

50 County

HighwayAgency

RoD

00907TrailerMountedAttenuators

Work Zone 51

Numbers

777775 864194 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

StateHighwayAgency

WZo

00928C"Click It or

Ticket"OvertimeEnforcement

Non‐infrastructureEnforcement

100000 111114 HSIP

(Section148)

Not

Applicable

UV

O

00928D"Click It or

Non‐infrastructu

50000 55555 HSIP

(Section

Not U

V
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Ticket" PI&EMessaging

reEducationalefforts

148) Applicable O

00928E "You

Drink, You

Drive, You

Lose"OvertimeEnforcement

Non‐infrastructureEnforcement

250000 277781 HSIP

(Section148)

Not

Applicable

ImD

00928F "YouDrink, YouDrive, YouLose" PI&ECampaign

Non‐infrastructureEducationalefforts

100000 111114 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

ImD

00928GNDOR SafetyEducationCommercials

Non‐infrastructureEducationalefforts

200000 293930 HSIP

(Section148)

Not

Applicable

StateHighwayAgency

V

00928H"Click It orTicket"Enforcement‐	May

Non‐infrastructureEnforcement

275000 275003 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

UVO
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

00928J"Click It or

Ticket" PI&E

Messaging	‐	May

Non‐infrastructureEducationalefforts

200000 200003 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

UV

O

00936StatewideWork ZoneSigns

Work Zone 220291 244768 HSIP

(Section148)

Various ‐ MajorCollectorand Local

CountyHighwayAgency

WZo

00942 "You

Drink, You

Drive, You

Lose"OvertimeEnforcement

Non‐infrastructureEnforcement

207000 230003 HSIP

(Section148)

Not

Applicable

ImD

00942A"You Drink,You Drive,You Lose"PI&ECampaign

Non‐infrastructureEducationalefforts

72000 80003 HSIP

(Section148)

NotApplicable

ImD
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

12831Ithaca	‐	Ashland

AlignmentHorizontalcurverealignment

1Numbers

2350730

10679797

HSIP

(Section148)

Rural Major

Collector

1275 60 State

HighwayAgency

RoD

13231District 1	‐	DMSReplacement

Advancedtechnologyand ITSDynamicmessagesigns

3Numbers

303419 338232 HSIP

(Section148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

29855 75 State

HighwayAgency

RoD

22336Omaha	‐	90th

& MapleStreet

IntersectiongeometryAuxiliarylanes ‐ addleft‐turnlane

4Numbers

1909722

2124341 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanPrincipal

Arterial ‐ Other

53170 40 State

HighwayAgency

Inns

22434Fremont	‐	US‐77, 5th St.to 10th St.

RoadwayRoadwaywidening ‐ add lane(s)

0.29Miles

1028251

1459085 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

12630 25 State

HighwayAgency

RoD
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

alongsegment

22482Omaha	‐	Dodge Street

AdaptiveSignals

IntersectiontrafficcontrolModifytraffic signal

timing ‐ signalcoordination

15Numbers

638190 714200 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanPrincipal

Arterial ‐ Other

49650 40 State

HighwayAgency

Inns

22490District 2	‐	DMSReplacement

Advancedtechnologyand ITSDynamicmessagesigns

3Numbers

287573 322525 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

152130

60 State

HighwayAgency

RoD

22596Omaha	‐	SouthboundI‐680 toEastbound I‐

80 Ramp

RoadwayPavementsurface ‐ high friction

surface

0.42Miles

264142 294591 HSIP

(Section148)

UrbanPrincipal

Arterial ‐ Interstate

73180 60 State

HighwayAgency

RoD

42739District 4	‐	DMS

Advancedtechnologyand ITSDynamic

1Numbers

201048 224486 HSIP

(Section148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ 

19200 75 State

HighwayAgency

RoD
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Replacement message

signs

Interstate

51480Melbeta	‐	Jct.

of N‐92 &L79E

Intersection

geometrySplitterisland ‐ removefrom one or

more

approaches

0.8Miles

750407 1134118 HSIP

(Section148)

Rural

MinorArterial

2585 65 State

HighwayAgency

Inns

61547District 6	‐	DMSReplacement

Advancedtechnologyand ITSDynamicmessagesigns

6Numbers

618030 691800 HSIP

(Section148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

14615 75 State

HighwayAgency

RoD
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 229 212 203 203 204

Number of serious injuries 1898 1858 1795 1732 1667

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.19 1.1 1.06 1.06 1.05

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

9.89 9.69 9.35 8.99 8.61

*Performance measure data is presented using a five‐year rolling average.
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

FunctionClassification

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

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

22.4 89.6 0.85 3.41

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

9.6 85.4 0.9 7.99

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

29.4 174 1.29 7.61

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

32.4 212.2 1.38 9.05

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

7 66 2.93 27.63

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

22.8 149 1.47 9.61

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

32.8 189.4 2.98 17.19

URBAN PRINCIPAL 4.8 52.4 0.35 3.78
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

4.6 68.2 0.54 7.98

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

15.6 257.4 0.69 11.37

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

12 192.2 0.61 9.7

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

2.4 32.6 0.44 5.92

URBAN LOCAL ROADOR STREET

8 97.4 0.72 8.8

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 134 726 0.97 6COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 61 335 2.22 1TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 30 559 0.69 1STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

After two good years in 2010 and 2011, fatalities have begun to trend back upward in 2012‐2014.  The 5‐

year rolling averages for fatalities and fatality rate have held nearly constant over the last three years.  

Serious injuries, on the other hand, have been steadily decreasing.  The 5‐year rolling average for

Serious Injury Rate has dropped from 9.89 in 2010 to 8.61 in 2014.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65.  

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per

capita)

0.3 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.25

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

1.58 1.54 1.52 1.51 1.45

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

1.88 1.85 1.8 1.78 1.71

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

From Nebraska state crash database:

Drivers and Pedestrians age 65 and over:

Year                                             2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013

Fatalities (Driver + Peds)                  36         42         42         41         36         41        29          39         28

Serious Injuries (Drvr + Peds)         215       219        194       210       206       203      206        194       180

Fatalities + Serious Injuries             251       261        236        251       242      244      235        233       208

Population Factor (FHWA)            128       132        133        134       134      135      136        138       142

Fatality + Serious Injury Rate (5‐Yr. Rolling average 2007 ‐ 2011): (236 + 251 +242 + 244 +235)/(133 +

134 + 134 +135 + 136)  =  1.80

Fatality + Serious Injury Rate (5‐Yr. Rolling average 2009‐2013): (242 + 244 +235 + 233 + 208)/(134 + 135

+ 136 + 138 + 142)  =  1.71
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

No
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?  

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other:  

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other‐Development of an NDOR Strategic Plan for HSIP and RCHP Expenditures

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.  
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

During the past year, NDOR developed a Strategic Plan for HSIP and RHCP Expenditures.  This is a multi‐

year plan that lays out certain types of projects that will be funded into the future.  The Plan will allow

NDOR to make better use of its available HSIP funds.
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP‐related SHSPEmphasis Areas

Target CrashType

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Roadway Departure Run‐off‐road 122.4 693.2 0.63 3.58 0 Intersections Intersection

crashes

62.8 829 0.32 4.28 0 
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP Sub‐program Types

Target CrashType

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Intersection Intersections 36.6 369.8 0.3 3 0 CenterlineRumble Strips

Head on 26 59.4 0.21 0.48 0 

RoadwayDeparture

Run‐off‐road 41.6 170.6 0.34 1.38 0 
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year ‐ 2014

Systemic improvement Target

CrashType

Number offatalities

Number ofseriousinjuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injuryrate (perHMVMT)

Ot1

Shoulder Rumble Strips Run‐off‐

road

11.8 65 0.02 0.12 0 

Rumble Strips Head on 5.2 10.8 0.01 0.02 0 Install/Improve Pavement

Marking and/or Delineation

Run‐off‐

road

9.2 64.4 0.23 1.62 0 
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

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

which you would like to elaborate.  

The Nebraska HSIP program continues to be effective in reducing crashes.  Most of our project

evaluations had positive outcomes.  The six evaluations completed in 2014 showed an overall decrease

in crashes of 35%.
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Project EvaluationProvide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).

Location Function

al Class

Improvement Category

Improvement Type Bef‐

Fatal

Bef‐SeriousInjury

Bef‐All

Injuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐Al

Injuris

Omaha ‐ Intersections of19th/20thStreets withCass Street

UrbanMinorArterial

Intersectiongeometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0 2 23 28 53 0 1 16 

Omaha	‐	Intersection ofNorthbound US‐75(Kennedy

Freeway)Ramps/25th Streetand "Q"

Street

UrbanMinorArterial

Intersection

trafficcontrol

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

0 1 9 18 28 0 0 3 
2015 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

GrandIsland	‐	US‐30 &EnglemanRoad

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

Intersectiongeometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

0 2 5 4 11 0 0 0 

North ofPleasantDale	‐	Jct.

of US‐6 &

N‐103

RuralMinorArterial

Intersectiontrafficcontrol

Modify control ‐ two‐way

stop to roundabout

0 0 4 4 8 0 0 2 

SoutheastofBancroft	‐	Jct. of N‐16& N‐51

RuralMinorArterial

Roadside Removal of roadside objects

(trees, poles, etc.)

0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 

East of

Kearney	‐	I‐80	‐	

Removeviaduct,replacewithculvert

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

Roadside Roadside grading 0 1 1 12 14 0 0 0 
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

   
2015 Nebraska     Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.  

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.  

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non‐infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non‐

infrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities,

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.  

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

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

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