FISCAL YEAR 2012/13

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ANNUAL REPORT

Prepared by

California Department of Transportation

Division of Traffic Operations

Division of Rail

Division of Local Assistance

Submitted to

Federal Highway Administration

California Division

August 2013

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this information is available in various languages, Braille, large print, on 

audio-cassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to the 

California Department of Transportation, Office of Business & Economic Opportunity - MS #79, 1823 14th Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 324-1700, toll free 1-866-810-6346, FAX (916) 324-1949.
ii

CONTENTS

List of Tables........................................................................................................................v

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

I. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Overview.................................................................................................................... 1

Statewide Collision Data, Fatality Rates, Older Driver and Older Pedestrian Rates 

and Travel Trends..................................................................................... 3

Summary of Projects Awarded in Fiscal Year 2012/13.............................................. 6

Program Evaluation of Completed Projects............................................................... 9

II. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - LOCAL ROADWAY

Overview.................................................................................................................. 10

Program Evaluation ..................................................................................................11

III. HIGH-RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM

Overview.................................................................................................................. 12

Program Evaluation ................................................................................................. 13
iii

IV. RAILWAY-HIGHWAY AT-GRADE CROSSINGS PROGRAM

Overview.................................................................................................................. 13

Project Summary...................................................................................................... 15

Program Evaluation ................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A........................................................................................................................17

County Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 17

Improvement Type Codes........................................................................................ 17

Functional Classification Codes .............................................................................. 18

Appendix B........................................................................................................................33

Functional Classifications........................................................................................ 33

Project Types............................................................................................................ 33
iv

TABLES

Table 1. 65 and Older Pedestrian Performance Measure per million people ................. 6

Table 2. 65 and Older Driver Performance Measure per million people........................ 6

Table 3. Summary of Projects Awarded in FY 2012/13 ................................................. 8

Table 4. Percent Change in Collisions on Highway Locations....................................... 9

Table 5. HSIP Project Summary ....................................................................................11

Table 6. HR3 Program Project Summary ..................................................................... 13

Table 7. Public Crossings in California ........................................................................ 15

Table A1. Completed Projects for HSIP Evaluation.................................................. 19-22

Table A2. Highway Locations and Study Time Periods for HSIP Evaluations.......... 23-27

Table A3. Collision Data for Highway Locations for HSIP Evaluation 

(3 Years Before Vs. 3 Years After)............................................................. 28-32

Table B1. Completed Projects for the Railway-Highway At-Grade Crossings 

Program........................................................................................................... 34
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 1

Introduction

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or “MAP–21” (Pub. L. 112–141, 

126 Stat. 405) was signed in to 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.

In accordance with title 23 Code of Federal Regulations sections 924.15(a)(1) and 

924.15(a)(2), 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, for railway-highway crossings, (23 U.S.C. § 130(g)), and for high-risk rural 

roads (HR3) (23 U.S.C. § 148(g)).

The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Division of Traffic 

Operations provided information for this report for the State HSIP, the Division of Rail for 

the Railway-Highway At-Grade Crossings Program, and the Division of Local Assistance for 

the local HSIP and HR3 Program.

I. Highway Safety Improvement Program—State Highways

Overview

This section of the HSIP Annual Report provides a review of statewide collision data, 

fatality rate trends, and travel trends on the State Highway System (SHS) and a summary of 

awarded safety projects in State fiscal year (FY) 2012/13. Also included is an evaluation of 

the effectiveness of safety projects that were completed between July 1, 2008, and

June 30, 2009, by analyzing three years of before-and-after collision history, including an

assessment of the benefit-cost ratio of these projects.

The purpose of the HSIP is to reduce the number and severity of collisions and their 

associated costs. Caltrans implements the HSIP for State highways by programming and 

funding projects in the Collision Reduction Category, one of eight categories that make up 

the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The Collision Reduction 

Category is further divided into two programs: Safety Improvement, and Collision Severity 

Reduction. The Safety Improvement Program is among Caltrans’ top priorities in the SHOPP 

and as a result, all projects that meet the criteria for the Safety Improvement Program are

funded. These criteria include a benefit-cost analysis that evaluates the safety benefit of 

these projects in terms of collision costs saved and the cost of constructing the improvement. 

The projects evaluated in this report include all projects funded by the Collision Reduction 

Category, which includes both federal HSIP and State highway funds. 
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 2

In California, federal HSIP funding is shared between the State Highway System and 

the local roadway system, with State and local HSIPs receiving approximately $123 million

and $65.6 million respectively in fiscal year 2012/13. The Railway-Highway At-Grade 

Crossings Program currently provides about $16 million each year in federal highway funds 

to improve eligible grade crossings. Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act or 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 $40 million was transferred to 

California Office of Traffic Safety for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures. These 

funds will be used to further support the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The 

remaining $28 million were allocated towards hazard elimination safety projects in 

accordance with MAP 21 guidelines.

Caltrans uses the Transportation System Network database to identify locations with 

significantly high collision concentrations. The identified locations are systematically 

investigated to determine probable causes of the collisions in order to implement effective 

countermeasures to improve safety. Other locations identified for investigation and possible 

implementation of countermeasures are generated from three Monitoring Programs: Cross 

Median Collision, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision, and Wrong Way 

Collision. As of February 2012, Caltrans has implemented a 5-year “California Roadway 

Departure Safety Implementation Plan” which identified over 7,000 locations for possible 

low cost countermeasures to systematically implement on many state highways in an effort to 

reduce roadway departure crashes. Nearly 2,900 traffic safety investigations were processed 

in FY 2012/13. Each investigation consists of a detailed analysis of collision history, a 

collision diagram, a field investigation, and a review of roadway geometrics. Each 

investigation has a recommendation, which is either a specific safety action or a 

determination of no further action. Improvements can range from maintenance work orders 

or sign installation orders to Major or Minor improvement projects.1

 Each recommendation 

is monitored to ensure implementation.

 

1 Major projects have an estimated project cost of $1,000,000 or more. Minor A projects have an estimated cost 

from $270,001 to $999,999, and Minor B projects cost $270,000 or less.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 3

Statewide Collision Data, Fatality Rates, Older Driver and Older Pedestrian 

Rates and Travel Trends

During the 2011 calendar year, 1,059 fatal collisions, 46,656 injury collisions, and 

85,062 property-damage-only (PDO) collisions were reported on the SHS. Caltrans

estimates that these collisions resulted in losses of approximately $9.034 billion.

2

Over the past ten years, the HSIP and other State programs have made highways safer 

through the implementation of highway safety projects. This fact is evident from the fatality 

rate trends shown in Figure 1. In the ten-year period between 2002 and 2011, the fatality rate 

on all State highways has decreased 39 percent (from 1.09 to 0.66 fatalities per 100 million 

vehicle miles). For the same period, the fatality rate on freeways decreased 36 percent (from 

0.70 to 0.45 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles) and on non-freeways it decreased

38 percent (from 2.76 to 1.70 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles).

The latest ten-year travel trend on the SHS is shown in Figure 2. Between 2002 and 

2011, annual travel on all highways increased 1.9 percent (from 172.6 to 175.8 billion 

vehicle miles). During the same period, annual travel on freeways increased 6.7 percent 

(from 140.4 to 145.5 billion vehicle miles) and on non-freeways it decreased 5.9 percent 

(from 32.2 to 30.3 billion vehicle miles). Freeway travel accounts for 82.8 percent of travel 

on the SHS even though freeway road miles account for only 28.9 percent of the SHS. 

MAP-21 is putting focus in certain areas; accordingly, older driver and pedestrian rates per 

capita are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. In both performance measures, the 5 year moving 

average for fatal, injury and fatal + injury from 2008 to 2010 are trending downward and 

therefore the implementation of the special rule as set by MAP 21 does not apply at this time. 

These numbers are from all roadways in the state, not just state highways. Although there 

was a slight increase in the fatality rate between 2010 and 2011, one year of increase is not a 

true indicator that fatality rate will continue to trend upward.

 

2 Collision costs used by Caltrans are based on the Comprehensive Cost Method. In addition to accounting for the 

monetary effects of a collision, the Comprehensive Cost Method also considers the effects of a collision on a person’s 

whole life, including loss of household production, loss of quality of life, and vocational rehabilitation. Current costs 

for collisions on California roadways are $4,779,300 for fatal collisions, $75,900 for injury collisions, and $5,100 for 

PDO collisions. Fatal: $4,779,300 * 1,059 Fatal = $5.06B, Injury: $75,900 * 46,656 Injuries = $3.54B, 

PDO: $5,100 * 85,062 PDO = $0.434B
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 4

Figure 1

STATEWIDE FATALITY RATE TRENDS ON CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAYS

FROM 2002 THROUGH 2011

(CALENDAR YEAR)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fwy 0.70 0.72 0.70 0.73 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.51 0.44 0.45

Non-Fwy 2.76 2.68 2.42 2.72 2.39 2.28 1.85 1.78 1.57 1.70

All Hwys 1.09 1.08 1.02 1.10 1.01 0.94 0.81 0.74 0.64 0.66

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Fatalities/100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Non-freeways

All Highways

Freeways
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 5

Figure 2

STATEWIDE TRAVEL TRENDS ON CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAYS

FROM 2002 THROUGH 2011

(CALENDAR YEAR)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fwy 140.4 142.7 146.8 148.8 148.9 149.2 144.5 145.2 145.3 145.5

Non-Fwy 32.2 32.1 33.3 33.6 33.6 33.4 31.9 31.3 31.0 30.3

All Hwys 172.6 174.9 180.2 182.4 182.5 182.6 176.4 176.5 176.3 175.8

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Billion Vehicle Miles Traveled

All Highways

Freeways

Non-freeways
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 6

Table 1

65 AND OLDER PEDESTRIAN PERFORMANCE MEASURE

(per million people)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fatality Rate 4.45 4.43 4.25 4.81 3.55 4.01 4.17

Injury Rate* 34.95 35.27 35.15 35.49 35.25 36.21 32.82

Fatality and Injury Rate* 39.4 39.7 39.39 39.95 38.08 39.14 37.11

Table 2

65 AND OLDER DRIVER PERFORMANCE MEASURE

(per million people)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fatality Rate 13.12 12.21 12.31 12.34 10.88 10.32 10.10

Injury Rate* 673.15 634.84 615.42 604.88 570.19 572.55 594.45

Fatality and Injury Rate* 686.27 647.05 627.73 617.21 581.07 582.87 604.55

*Includes all levels of injury

Summary of Projects Awarded in Fiscal Year 2012/13

The reductions in fatality rates have been accomplished by implementing safety 

projects. Many other improvements such as tree trimming, restriping, or installing warning 

signs that were requested by Traffic Operations staff and performed by Maintenance staff in 

the districts also contributed to improved safety. During FY 2012/13, there were 55 Major 

and Minor A safety projects awarded at a cost of $100.9 million. The total cost of awarded 

Major and Minor A safety projects for the past five years is shown in Figure 3.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 7

Figure 3

TOTAL COSTS OF AWARDED MAJOR AND MINOR A SAFETY PROJECTS

ON CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAYS

FROM FY 2008/09 THROUGH FY 2012/13

Projects awarded in FY 2012/13 range from spot improvements such as new or 

modified signal installations or curve improvement to statewide systematic improvements 

such as the Clean-Up-the-Roadside Environment Program, the Cross Median Collision

Monitoring Program, and the Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring 

Program. All of these project types are consistent with one or more of the 17 challenge areas

identified in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), specifically:

• Challenge Area 2: Reduce the occurrence and consequence of leaving the roadway and

 head-on collisions.

• Challenge Area 5: Improve driver decisions about rights-of-way and turning.

• Challenge Area 7: Improve intersection and interchange safety for roadway users.

• Challenge Area 8: Make walking and street crossing safer.

• Challenge Area 9: Improve safety for older roadway users.

• Challenge Area 11: Improve commercial vehicle safety.

• Challenge Area 12: Improve motorcycle safety.

• Challenge Area 13: Improve bicycling safety.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

$ Cost (millions)

State Fiscal Year

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 8

The following narrative describes the safety improvement projects that were awarded in 

FY 2012/13. Table 3 provides a summary of the improvement types and project costs.

Intersection Improvements. Projects include left channelization, intersection lighting, and

new or modify traffic signal installation. There were 14 intersection improvement projects 

awarded for a cost of $7.6 million. These projects are consistent with SHSP challenge 

areas 5, 7, 8, and 13.

Roadway/Structure Improvements. Projects include curve improvements, shoulder and 

centerline rumble strips, shoulder widening, and wet pavement improvements (high friction 

surface treatment, open-graded asphalt concrete and drainage improvements). There were 

14 projects awarded for a cost of $25.2 million. These projects are consistent with SHSP 

challenge areas 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 13.

Roadside Improvements. Projects include new metal beam guardrail, rockfall mitigation, 

crash cushion and guardrail end treatment upgrades, and windscreens. There were 

14 projects awarded for a cost of $33.2 million. These projects fall under the Collision 

Severity Reduction Program. These projects are consistent with SHSP challenge area 2.

Two- and Three-Lane Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Program. Projects include

centerline and shoulder rumble strips. There were five projects awarded for a cost of 

$26.4 million over 45 miles. These projects are consistent with SHSP challenge area 2.

Cross Median Collision Monitoring Program. Projects include installation of thrie beam,

and concrete median barriers. There were eight median barrier projects awarded for a cost 

of $8.5 million. The mileage breakdown for new median barriers is 9.4 miles of thrie beam

and 6.0 miles of concrete. These projects are consistent with SHSP challenge area 2.

Table 3

SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AWARDED IN FY 2012/13

Improvement Category No. of Projects Cost ($million)

Intersection Improvements 14 7.6

Roadway/Structure Improvements 14 25.2

Roadside Improvements 14 33.2

Two- and Three-Lane Cross Centerline Collision

Monitoring Program 5 26.4

Cross Median Collision Monitoring Program 8 8.5

Total 55 100.9
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 9

Program Evaluation of Completed Projects

The effectiveness of the HSIP was measured by comparing collision data before and after the 

improvements were completed. Three years of collision data before the improvements was

compared with three years of collision data after the improvements. A total of 111 projects, 

provided in Appendix A, Table A1, were considered in the evaluation. Analysis of collision 

data was based on 157 highway locations, provided in Appendix A, Table A2, as some of 

the 111 projects contained more than one highway location. The cost of implementing 

improvement for the 157 highway locations was $215.3 million. The annual savings, in 

terms of reductions in collision frequency and severity, was estimated at $149.6 million. This 

translates to an average savings of $2.99 billion or a benefit-cost ratio of 13.8 to 1, assuming 

a project life of 20 years. Corresponding collision data for the highway locations is provided 

in Appendix A, Table A3.

A statistical analysis of the before-and-after collision data for the 157 highway locations 

shows a 18.4 percent reduction of fatal collisions, a 1.3 percent increase of injury collisions, 

and a 0.4 percent increase of PDO collisions. Fatalities were reduced by 21.7 percent and

there were no changes in the number of persons injured. The increases in PDO and injury 

collisions were not statistically significant. The percent changes and the corresponding

statistical significance are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

PERCENT CHANGE IN COLLISIONS ON HIGHWAY LOCATIONS

Collision 

Type

% Increase: (+)

% Reduction: (-)

Standard

Deviation

Statistically

Significant* t-statistics

Fatal Collisions -18.4 ±7.0% Yes 2.64

Injury Collisions +1.3 ±1.4% No 0.99

PDO +0.4 ±1.0% No 0.37

Fatalities -21.7 ±6.4% Yes 3.40

Persons Injured 0.0 ±1.1% No 0.00

* Test of statistical significance determines the probability that the result in question has occurred at a specified level 

of confidence and not by chance alone.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 10

II. Highway Safety Improvement Program—Local Roadways

Overview

In California, HSIP funding is split between the State Highway System and the local 

roadway system. In the 2013 Federal Fiscal Year (FFY), the local HSIP received 

approximately $67 million for HSIP and High-Risk Rural Road (HR3) eligible projects. (See 

section IV “High Risk Rural Roads Program” for more details.) Caltrans’ Division of Local 

Assistance (DLA) staff manages the local agency share of HSIP funds. In conjunction with 

its local agency partners, the division prepares HSIP guidelines and solicits project 

applications from local agencies every one to two years.

Working with the University of California Berkeley (UCB)–Safe Transportation 

Research and Education Center, the DLA developed an HSIP application benefit-cost tool to 

provide a better and more consistent method for ranking project applications on a statewide 

basis. This new application tool compares project cost to collision cost savings. Between 

2008 and 2012, the Division of Local Assistance (DLA) worked closely with UCB and 

FHWA to make significant improvements to the overall effectiveness of the local-HSIP. 

These program improvements include the new benefit-cost tool, the development of the new 

Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners, and the direct 

incorporation of the UCB Transportation Injury Mapping System website. These 

improvements focused on encouraging local agencies to: proactively analyze their roadway 

networks for the highest crash locations; and develop and submit applications with greatest 

chance of reducing fatalities and serious injuries. These improvements allow the DLA to 

fairly evaluate applications and select projects based on a non-subjective, data driven 

process. With these program improvements in place, DLA is now focusing on improving the 

program obligation rates and overall delivery.

Project Summary

Caltrans has completed five cycles of project solicitation, review, prioritization, and 

selection. The sixth project solicitation began on April 29, 2013 with applications due July 

26, 2013 and the final selection of projects expected by October 2013. All federal HSIP 

funds apportioned to the State and directed to local agency roadways have been or will be 

assigned to projects from one of these six cycles. All projects in the first five cycles have 

been programmed in each agency’s respective Federal Transportation Improvement Program 

(FTIP). Projects in Cycle 6 are expected to include approximately $150 million in HSIP 

funding, which will be amended into the 2013 FTIP. A summary of current HSIP projects is 

shown in Table 5. Links to the complete list of approved projects, along with the delivery 

status of each project are available on the Internet at 

<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm>.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 11

Table 5

HSIP PROJECT SUMMARY*

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Total

Program Release Date 6/21/2007 7/17/2008 1/26/2010 2/23/2011 10/19/2012

Number of Approved 

Projects 91 156 113 167 221 748

Program Plan 

($millions) 28.4 60.1 48.3 73.1 110.3 320

Federal Funds 

Obligated ($millions) 25.0 45.2 23.1 32.1 1.8 118

FTIP Amendment 

Completed 89 156 112 166 184 707

Preliminary 

Engineering 

Authorization 

Completed 88 154 110 163 12 527

Construction 

Authorization 

Completed 80 124 70 55 0 329

Project Closed Out 

and Completed 55 59 10 3 0 127

* Data as of 3/31/2013.

Program Evaluation

Individual project evaluations will not occur until a project has been exposed to 

routine traffic for a minimum of two years after construction has been completed. The DLA 

will conduct project evaluations as required by the FHWA and anticipates completing the 

program evaluation requirements per FHWA’s new Online Reporting Tool that is being rolled 

out and is eventually expected to be used nation-wide annual reports.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 12

III. High-Risk Rural Roads Program

Overview

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) introduced a set-aside provision called the High Risk Rural Road 

(HR3) Program to correct or improve hazardous road locations and features. The High Risk 

Rural Roads program’s funding set- aside was eliminated in MAP–21, and now requires 

High Risk Rural Roads program–eligible projects to be funded through the HSIP.

Section 1112 of MAP-21 changed the definition of a “high risk rural road” in Title 23 

United States Code section 148(a)(1) to: “any roadway functionally classified as a rural major 

or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in 

accordance with an updated State Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” MAP-21 also established a 

special rule for HR3 safety in title 23 United States Code section 148(g)(1), which states: "If 

the fatality rate on rural roads in a State increases over the most recent 2-year period for which 

data are available, that State shall be required to obligate in the next fiscal year for projects on 

high risk rural roads an amount equal to at least 200 percent of the amount of funds the State 

received for fiscal year 2009 for high risk rural roads under subsection (f) of this section, as in 

effect on the day before the date of enactment of the MAP-21."

Project Summary

Since the HR3 Program was established under SAFETEA–LU, Caltrans completed 

three cycles of project solicitation, review, prioritization, and selection. All projects have been 

programmed in the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Starting with 

the third of these three cycles and moving forward, the HR3 eligible projects are being tracked 

within the Local HSIP program. A summary of HR3 projects from the first two cycles is 

shown in Table 6. Links to the complete list of approved projects are available on the Internet 

at <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HR3/>. All information relating to the third 

HR3 cycle is included in the fifth cycle of the Local HSIP program and reported in the Local 

HSIP portion of this report.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 13

Table 6

HR3 PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY*

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Total

Program Release Date 4/30/2007 7/9/2008

Number of Applications 68 71 139

Number of Approved Projects 35 30 65

Program Plan ($millions) 20.6 18.2 38.8

Federal Funds Obligated ($millions) 16.1 9.5 25.6

FTIP Amendment Completed 35 30 65

Preliminary Engineering Authorization Completed 35 30 65

Construction Authorization Completed 30 18 48

Project Closed Out and Completed 13 7 20

* Data as of 6/10/2013.

Program Evaluation

Individual project evaluations will not occur until a project has been exposed to 

routine traffic for a minimum of two years after construction has been completed. The 

Division of Local Assistance will conduct project evaluations as directed by the FHWA and 

anticipates completing the program evaluation requirements per FHWA’s new Online 

Reporting Tool that is being rolled out and is eventually expected to be used for nation-wide

annual reports. 

IV. Railway-Highway At-Grade Crossings Program

Overview

The purpose of the Railway-Highway At-Grade Crossings Program (Program) is to 

reduce the number and severity of highway collisions by eliminating hazards to vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians at existing railroad crossings. California has received 

approximately $16 million each year for this Program through FFY 2013.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) determines project selection for 

the Program. The CPUC annually updates the list of crossings it deems eligible for funding 

and transmits the list to Caltrans. Caltrans then delivers the projects as identified by the 

CPUC.

One of the provisions of the HSIP requires that funds be split equally between State 

highways and local roads. The State does not allocate funding in this manner because 

the Program funds are only a small part of the overall group of funds to which the federal 
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 14

requirement applies. Even in instances where 100 percent of the Program funds are spent on 

local roads, it does not significantly affect the State’s overall compliance in meeting the HSIP 

requirement. The CPUC reviews and prioritizes State highway crossings in the same manner 

as crossings on local roads, ensuring that the Program goal of eliminating hazards at existing 

crossings considers the overall priority of crossings statewide and that State highway 

crossings and local road crossings are treated equally in identifying and addressing needs in 

the State.

A number of factors are used in determining eligibility for funding and respective 

ranking, including the use of a hazard index formula and other site-specific factors as 

required by statute. The hazard index formula used is as described in section III, part B, of 

the FHWA Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition.

3

 In 

addition, the State’s experience from post-collision investigations is used to identify common 

hazards specific to an area, type of crossing, or corridor of crossings.

The CPUC determines the modifications required at each crossing in consultation 

with the Diagnostic Team. The Diagnostic Team is comprised of experts from railroad and 

roadway agencies. Modifications to improve safety include the installation or upgrade 

of active grade crossing equipment, such as flashers, gates, cantilevers, light-emitting diodes, 

signal interconnections, and constant time warning detection, as well as crossing approach 

improvements, such as medians, traffic signals, presignals, curbing, guardrails, illumination, 

and road closures.

Caltrans uses the project recommendations and cost estimates to submit the eligible 

crossings to the regional transportation planning agencies, metropolitan transportation 

commissions, or local transportation commissions. Caltrans requests that they program the 

projects into the FTIP by amendment for the program year of the Program priority list. Upon 

verification that the FTIP has been amended for the project in question, Caltrans provides the 

programming documentation, estimates, environmental assessments, and right-of-way 

certifications to the FHWA, which upon approval of the material submitted, obligates the 

funds. Caltrans then negotiates and executes contracts with railroads and local agencies to 

construct the projects.

The CPUC maintains and updates a database that contains information about all 

public crossings in the State, shown in Table 7. The CPUC develops, updates, and maintains 

the crossing inventory as part of its routine duties. On average, the inventory is updated 

every five years through site visits. Data that cannot be obtained by reviewing the site 

conditions, such as vehicular and rail volumes, is obtained through direct contact with 

the railroad and local agencies. However, this data is often out of date. The CPUC has 

completed the upgrading and is now implementing its crossing database. The CPUC is 

further working on a coordinating inventory project plan. This will allow for improved 

 

3 <http://www.ite.org/bookstore/gradecrossing/sec03.htm#b>, accessed August 23, 2010.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 15

analysis in identifying locations for Program funding. MAP-21 continued allowing the 

CPUC to use up to 2 percent of Program funds to implement the plan.

Table 7

PUBLIC CROSSINGS IN CALIFORNIA*

At-Grade

Total At-Grade 

Crossings

Grade 

Passive Flasher Gated Separated

1915 633 3540 6088 1733

* This table excludes light-rail crossings, which are not eligible under the Program in California.

Project Summary

During FFY 2013, no new projects were initiated on State highway crossings; 

however, 70 grade crossing improvement projects on local streets and roads were under 

construction. The total estimated cost of these projects is $46.24 million. The projects 

generally include the installation of active grade crossing warning devices and improvements 

to the crossing approaches. The approach improvements may include median islands, traffic 

signal improvements, and pedestrian path of travel improvements.

Program Evaluation

Since the inception of the Program, the number of collisions and resultant fatalities 

and injuries has declined even though the number of collisions has remained stable in recent 

years. In addition, when viewed in light of the increase in train and vehicular traffic 

volumes, the ratio of collisions to volume continues to decline. It is difficult to demonstrate 

quantitatively how much of these reductions are due specifically to the Program versus other 

improvements that have been incorporated into the rail and highway systems over the past 

several decades. Another limitation in providing quantitative data about the Program’s 

effectiveness is the small sample size of projects and collision data. Collisions at crossings 

are usually infrequent and a longer evaluation period and larger number of projects are 

needed before conclusive evaluation with reasonable level of statistical confidence can be 

made.

Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, construction of 14 projects that included 

20 crossings were completed. These projects are listed in Appendix B, Table B1. All the 

crossings are public, vehicular, and at-grade railway-highway crossings. 

The actual federal fiscal year funding of these projects ranges between 2001 and 

2008, which is a reflection of how improved the process has become from identification to 
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 16

construction. Collision statistics before project completion are not necessarily reflective of 

the improvement made or reason for nomination. To help better reflect the actual data, 

a five-year precollision history was used. A significant emphasis by both the CPUC 

and Caltrans on improvements to the Program is to reduce the amount of time between 

a project identified for Program funding and actual construction is yielding positive results. 

Regarding benefit-cost consideration, it is unlikely that any meaningful conclusions 

can be drawn based on the type of implemented improvement. Although some improvements 

are less cost-sensitive based on implementation location, the cost of any improvement 

can vary widely because of the great variability in specific conditions at each crossing 

and variables in labor and materials cost from region to region, railroad to railroad, 

and agency to agency; no single or average cost can be attributed to any specific 

improvement. Benefit-cost is considered in the project by project-level ranking and analysis. 

It plays an important role in project selection to ensure the maximum use of Program funds.

Many benefits of the program are not directly quantifiable. When a crossing is 

improved all necessary and required improvements are made, not just the improvements 

related to mitigating the known collision history. For example, though a crossing may not 

have had any pedestrian incidents, the pedestrian pathways are reviewed and often are 

improved, providing a defined path of travel with additional pedestrian warning that was not 

there before. Similarly, all crossings where no medians are present pose a risk of gate 

drive-around. Each location is individually analyzed and median treatments may be 

installed, reducing the future risk of a collision. These types of improvements are known to 

prevent collisions from occurring in the future.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 17

Appendix A

The following abbreviations and codes were used in Tables A1 and A2:

County Abbreviations

ALA ......Alameda

ALP.......Alpine

AMA .....Amador

BUT.......Butte

CAL.......Calaveras

COL.......Colusa

CC.........Contra Costa

DN.........Del Norte

ED .........El Dorado

FRE .......Fresno

GLE.......Glenn

HUM .....Humboldt

IMP .......Imperial

INY .......Inyo

KER.......Kern

KIN .......Kings

LAK ......Lake

LAS.......Lassen

LA .........Los Angeles

MAD .....Madera

MRN.....Marin

MPA......Mariposa

MEN .....Mendocino

MER .....Merced

MOD.....Modoc

MNO.....Mono

MON.....Monterey

NAP ......Napa

NEV......Nevada

ORA......Orange

PLA.......Placer

PLU.......Plumas

RIV .......Riverside

SAC ......Sacramento

SBT.......San Benito

SBD ......San Bernardino

SD.........San Diego

SF..........San Francisco

SJ ..........San Joaquin

SLO.......San Luis Obispo

SM ........ San Mateo

SB......... Santa Barbara

SCL....... Santa Clara

SCR ...... Santa Cruz

SHA...... Shasta

SIE........ Sierra

SIS ........ Siskiyou

SOL ...... Solano

SON...... Sonoma

STA....... Stanislaus

SUT ...... Sutter

TEH ......Tehama

TRI .......Trinity

TUL......Tulare

TUO......Tuolumne

VEN...... Ventura

YOL...... Yolo

YUB ..... Yuba

Improvement Type Codes

1. Intersection Improvements

A. Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal and/or signal phasing.

B. Construct/improve channelization, turn lanes, speed change lanes, etc.

C. Install/improve signing and marking.

D. Install flashing beacon.

E. Install a skid resistant surface.

F. Install/improve lighting.

G. Install priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections.

H. Improve sight distance.

I. Other (describe).

2. Roadway and Structure Improvements

A. Widen pavement and/or shoulder (including adding a passing lane to remedy an 

unsafe condition).

B. Install rumble strips or other warning devices.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 18

C. Install a skid-resistant surface.

D. Install/improve signing, pavement marking, and/or delineation.

E. Install/improve roadway lighting.

F. Construct/modify median.

G. Realign roadway.

H. Construct access management (driveways, median openings, etc.) modifications.

I. Install a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash 

potential (or high potential for severe crashes).

J. Add or retrofit structures or take other measures to eliminate or reduce vehicle 

wildlife collisions.

K. Plan integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational 

activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to 

work zone safety.

L. Superelevation/Cross Slope.

M. Auxiliary Lane/Acceleration Lane.

N. Other (describe).

3. Roadside Improvements

A. Eliminate/mitigate roadside obstacle(s).

B. Install/upgrade guardrails, barriers (including temporary barriers between 

construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers), 

and crash attenuators.

C. Other (describe).

4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

A. Construct improvements that enhance pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of 

the disabled.

B. Construct a traffic calming feature.

C. Install and maintain signs (including fluorescent and yellow green signs) at 

pedestrian bicycle crossings and in school zones.

D. Other (describe).

5. Other Improvements

A. Improve safety-conscious planning.

B. Improve the collection and analysis of crash data.

C. Other (describe).

Functional Classification Codes

1 – Interstate

2 – Other Freeways or Expressways

3 – Other Principal Arterial

4 – Minor Arterial

5 – Major Collector

6 – Minor Collector

7 – Local 
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 19

Table A1

COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Project

No. District County* Route Post Mile

Improvement

Type*

Project Cost

$1,000

1 1 LAK 29 4.15/4.33 1B $855 

2 1 LAK 29 10.90/11.40 1B $916 

3 1 LAK 29 15.01/15.29 2A $1,137 

4 1 LAK 29 R40.02/R40.53 2C $936 

5 1 LAK 53 2.960 1B $437 

6 1 DN 101 14.39/14.82 2C $566 

7 1 HUM 101 28.16/35.75 3B $1,294 

8 1 HUM 101 R8.87/R10.17 2L $956 

9 1 MEN 101 69.3/69.7 2G $2,264 

10 1 DN 199 27.00/27.50 2C $4,556 

11 1 DN 199 9.12/9.52 2C $255 

12 1 HUM 255 0.112 1B $331 

13 2 TEH 36 L41.01 1A $286 

14 2 PLU 49 2.75/7.00 2A $3,524 

15 2 PLU 70 29.59/29.67 2L $361 

16 2 SIS 89 3.00/4.00 2G $2,469 

17 2 TRI 299 18.70/18.90 2A $587 

18 2 LAS 395 30.70/56.70 2A $32,480 

19 3 NEV/SIE 49 2.30/R3.80 3B $1,042 

20 3 NEV, PLA, 

SAC, SUT 49 VARIOUS 2C $1,541 

21 3 ED 50 60.25/60.45 2L $838 

22 3 BUT 70 11.55 1A $4,195 

23 3 YUB, SUT, 

BUT 70 VARIOUS 2B $317 

24 3 PLA 80 4.220 2C $219 

25 3 PLA/NEV 80 44.5/55.0, 68.6/2.5, 

16.6/28.0 2B $189 

26 3 PLA/NEV 80 R58.70/R58.90 2M $4,405 

27 4 SCL 9 0.0/7.1 (009)

0/6.1 (152) 2B $333 

28 4 ALA 13 R9.19 3B $315 

29 4 ALA 84 21.00/23.10 2G $21,640 

30 4 SCL 85 R17.80/R19.60 3B $3,643 

31 4 ALA 580 R5.82/R5.94 3B $139 

32 4 SOL

80, 505, 

780 VARIOUS 3A $4,056 

*See pages 17–18 for county abbreviations and improvement type codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 20

Table A1

COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Project

No. District County* Route Post Mile

Improvement

Type*

Project Cost 

$1,000

(Continued from page 19)

33 4 ALA 880, 580, 

24, 13 VARIOUS 3A $3,967 

34 5 SCR 1 15.34/16.80 3B $3,630 

35 5 SLO 1 17.11 1A $265 

36 5 SB 1 26.7/27.6 2C $486 

37 5 MON 1

74.70/R90.90

L4.20/R4.30

R0.2

3B $674 

38 5 SB 101 41.00/47.30 3B $287 

39 5 SLO 101 64.98/R69.30 3B $616 

40 5 MON 101 80.70/85.60 3B $4,391 

41 5 SB 101 R12.83/24.90 3B $1,331 

42 5 SB 101 R50.80/54.00 3B $2,969 

43 5 SB 101 R51.11/R80.22 3B $1,349 

44 5 MON 101 R6.75/R24.00 3B $417 

45 5 SCR 129 0.54 1A $300

46 5 SCR 129 7.90/8.15 2G $2,430 

47 5 MON 156 R1.82/T5.13 2B $74 

48 5 SLO 166 42.50/43.70 44.70/45.10 2G $3,660 

49 5 SB 192 17.00/17.30 2A $523 

50 5 MON 198 4.35/4.65 2G $648 

51 6 KER 33 36.65 2A $295 

52 6 MAD 41 9.25 1B $1,314 

53 6 MAD 41 19.80/20.02 1A $1,087 

54 6 KER 58 R55.20 1A $663 

55 6 TUL 63 22.57 1A $707 

56 6 KER 99 36.27 1A $455 

57 6 MAD 99 24.34/26.80 2B $1,063 

58 6 MAD 99 R7.27 1A $1,078 

59 6 KER 119 30.41 1A $323 

60 6 KER 178 97.60 1D, 1H $306 

61 6 FRE 180 127.00/137.00 3B $869 

62 6 FRE 198 14.35/14.55 2A, $187 

63 6 KER 395 0.00/T14.79 2A $5,765 

64 7 LA 1 19.40/32.00 4A $204 

65 7 LA 5 13.11/13.46 3B $970 

*See pages 17–18 for county abbreviations and improvement type codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 21

Table A1

COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Project

No. District County* Route Post Mile

Improvement

Type*

Project Cost 

$1,000

(Continued from page 20)

66 7 LA 10 R4.70/R13.20 3B $278 

67 7 LA 10, 101, 

110 VARIOUS 3A $1,505 

68 7 VEN 33 5.97/57.31 3B $2,772 

69 7 VEN 101 0.40/30.90 3B $4,272 

70 7 LA 101 34.20/38.19 3B $3,901 

71 7 LA 101 33.20/33.40 3B $450 

72 7 LA 105 R0.54 2C $527 

73 7 LA 110 21.40/23.50 2C $2,056 

74 7 VEN

LA 126 0.00/34.60, 0.00/45.80 3B $1,324 

75 7 LA 138 44.42 2D $129 

76 7 LA 170 14.50/20.60 3B $2,566 

77 7 LA 187 6.49 1A $581 

78 7 LA 213 0.31/1.06 3B $248 

79 7 LA 605 21.98 3B $221 

80 8 RIV 10 52.34/57.60 3B $960 

81 8 SBD 15 86.20/185.80 2F $27,857 

82 8 SBD 18 110.84 1A $74 

83 8 SBD 38 48.43 1A $460 

84 8 SBD 38 0.75/1.50 1A $85 

85 8 RIV 60 22.20/26.50 2B $144 

86 8 SBD 62 17.10/17.80 1B $1,248 

87 8 RIV 74 0.00 /11.83 2B $195 

88 8 SBD 83 10.59 1A $79 

89 8 SBD 95 11.25/17.50 2A $367 

90 10 MPA 49 12.13 1B $1,686 

91 10 STA 99 R10.30/R12.20 3B $2,773 

92 10 STA 99 R15.13/R15.60 2B $158 

93 10 MER 152 21.05 1A $301 

94 11 SD 67 9.30/22.80 2B, 3B $553 

95 11 SD 79 10.20/18.00, 17.40/30.00 2B, 3B $589 

96 11 IMP 86 15.32 1A $589 

97 11 SD

5, 8, 15, 78, 

94, 125, 

805

VARIOUS 3B $6,600 

* See pages 17–18 for county abbreviations and improvement type codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 22

Table A1

COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Project

No. District County* Route Post Mile

Improvement

Type*

Project Cost 

$1,000

(Continued from page 21)

98 12 ORA 5 28.41 2C $106 

99 12 ORA 5 30.32 2C $163 

100 12 ORA 22 R10.30/R12.20 1A $201 

101 12 ORA 22 R10.40 2D $710 

102 12 ORA 22 R10.44 2C $200 

103 12 ORA 39 4.13 1F $86 

104 12 ORA 55 R4.47/R4.96 2A $139 

105 12 ORA 57 21.20 1A $388 

106 12 ORA 74 13.30/16.60 2A $36,887 

107 12 ORA 91 13.68/14.26 2M $659 

108 12 ORA 405 13.16/13.38 2A $876 

109 12 ORA 405 13.66 2C $170 

110 12 ORA 405 13.90 2C $144 

111 12 ORA 405 16.79 2E $200 

* See pages 17–18 for county abbreviations and improvement type codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 23

Table A2

HIGHWAY LOCATIONS AND STUDY TIME PERIODS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Seg. 

ID Dist. Rte. Co.

Begin 

Post 

Mile

End 

Post 

Mile

Functional 

Classification

Code*

Before Time Period After Time Period

From To From To

Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr.

1 1 29 LAK 4.150 4.330 4 8 27 05 8 27 08 8 27 08 6 30 11

2 1 29 LAK 10.900 11.400 4 8 27 05 8 27 08 8 27 08 8 27 11

3 1 29 LAK 15.010 15.290 4 1 20 06 1 20 09 1 20 09 6 30 11

4 1 29 LAK 40.020 40.530 3 12 9 05 12 9 08 12 9 08 6 30 11

5 1 53 LAK 2.960 2.960 3 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 6 30 11

6 1 101 DN 14.390 14.820 3 6 30 06 6 30 09 6 30 09 6 30 11

7 1 101 HUM 8.870 10.170 3 11 4 05 11 4 08 11 4 08 6 30 11

8 1 101 HUM 28.160 35.750 3 10 27 05 10 27 08 10 27 08 10 27 11

9 1 101 MEN 69.300 69.700 3 3 18 06 3 18 09 3 18 09 6 30 11

10 1 199 DN 9.120 9.520 3 11 25 06 11 25 09 11 25 09 6 30 11

11 1 199 DN 27.000 27.500 3 12 24 05 12 24 08 12 24 08 12 24 11

12 1 255 HUM 0.112 0.112 4 2 19 06 2 19 09 2 19 09 6 30 11

13 2 36 TEH 41.010 41.010 3 9 4 05 9 4 08 9 4 08 6 30 11

14 2 49 PLU 2.750 7.000 4 8 8 05 8 8 08 8 8 08 6 30 11

15 2 70 PLU 29.590 29.670 4 7 18 05 7 18 08 7 18 08 6 30 11

16 2 89 SIS 3.000 4.000 3 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 10 10 11

17 2 299 TRI 18.700 18.900 3 11 20 06 11 20 09 11 20 09 6 30 11

18 2 395 LAS 30.700 56.700 3 11 13 05 11 13 08 11 13 08 11 13 11

19 3 49 NEV 2.300 3.800 3 9 22 05 9 22 08 9 22 08 9 22 11

20 3 49 NEV 21.900 22.044 4 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

21 3 49 NEV 22.208 23.200 4 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

22 3 50 ED 60.250 60.450 3 11 20 05 11 20 08 11 20 08 6 30 11

23 3 51 SAC 5.100 5.900 2 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

24 3 70 BUT 0.000 13.510 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

25 3 70 BUT 11.550 11.550 3 11 25 05 11 25 08 11 25 08 11 25 11

26 3 70 YUB 15.510 25.820 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

27 3 80 NEV 2.500 12.062 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

28 3 80 NEV 13.075 16.600 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

29 3 80 NEV 58.712 58.834 1 11 20 05 11 20 08 11 20 08 11 20 11

30 3 80 NEV 58.836 58.899 1 11 20 05 11 20 08 11 20 08 11 20 11

* See page 18 for functional classification codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 24

Table A2

HIGHWAY LOCATIONS AND STUDY TIME PERIODS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Seg. 

ID Dist. Rte. Co.

Begin 

Post 

Mile

End 

Post 

Mile

Functional 

Classification

Code*

Before Time Period After Time Period

From To From To

Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr.

(Continued from page 23)

31 3 80 PLA 4.220 4.220 1 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

32 3 80 PLA 16.600 28.000 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

33 3 80 PLA 44.500 55.000 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

34 3 80 PLA 55.008 66.920 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

35 3 80 PLA 58.700 58.711 1 11 20 05 11 20 08 11 20 08 11 20 11

36 3 80 PLA 66.907 68.600 1 8 18 05 8 18 08 8 18 08 8 18 11

37 3 99 BUT 0.000 19.700 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

38 3 99 BUT 32.200 32.700 2 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

39 3 99 SUT 11.700 13.300 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

40 3 99 SUT 19.500 20.000 3 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

41 3 99 SUT 19.857 20.500 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

42 3 99 SUT 21.200 22.300 3 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

43 3 99 SUT 34.973 36.155 3,4 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

44 3 99 SUT 36.286 42.389 4 8 13 06 8 13 09 8 13 09 6 30 11

45 4 9 SCL 0.000 7.100 5, 4 6 4 06 6 4 09 6 4 09 6 4 11

46 4 13 ALA 4.262 8.670 2 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 10 10 11

47 4 13 ALA 9.199 9.199 2 9 3 05 9 3 08 9 3 08 6 30 11

48 4 24 ALA 4.230 5.650 2 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 10 10 11

49 4 80 SOL 13.000 42.000 1 8 25 05 8 25 08 8 25 08 6 30 11

50 4 84 ALA 21.000 23.100 3 10 31 05 10 31 08 10 31 08 10 31 11

51 4 85 SCL 17.800 19.600 2 6 15 06 6 15 09 6 15 09 6 15 11

52 4 101 SCL 28.500 29.122 2 6 15 06 6 15 09 6 15 09 6 15 11

53 4 101 SCL 29.029 31.500 2 6 15 06 6 15 09 6 15 09 6 15 11

54 4 152 SCL 0.000 6.100 5 6 4 06 6 4 09 6 4 09 6 4 11

55 4 505 SOL 0.200 0.700 1 8 25 05 8 25 08 8 25 08 6 30 11

56 4 580 ALA 5.820 5.940 1 3 30 06 3 30 09 3 30 09 6 30 11

57 4 580 ALA 20.790 45.470 1 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 10 10 11

58 4 780 SOL 1.500 7.300 1 8 25 05 8 25 08 8 25 08 6 30 11

59 4 880 ALA 28.620 29.910 1 10 10 05 10 10 08 10 10 08 10 10 11

60 5 1 MON 74.700 75.135 3 2 25 06 2 25 09 2 25 09 2 25 11

61 5 1 MON 75.224 91.019 2, 3 2 25 06 2 25 09 2 25 09 2 25 11

62 5 1 MON 91.261 91.600 3 2 25 06 2 25 09 2 25 09 2 25 11 * See page 18 for functional classification codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 25

Table A2

HIGHWAY LOCATIONS AND STUDY TIME PERIODS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Seg. 

ID Dist. Rte. Co.

Begin 

Post 

Mile

End 

Post 

Mile

Functional 

Classification

Code*

Before Time Period After Time Period

From To From To

Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr.

(Continued from page 24)

63 5 1 SB 26.700 27.600 3 12 17 05 12 17 08 12 17 08 6 30 11

64 5 1 SCR 15.340 16.800 2 10 30 05 10 30 08 10 30 08 10 30 11

65 5 1 SLO 17.110 17.110 3 2 27 06 2 27 09 2 27 09 2 27 11

66 5 68 MON 4.200 4.300 3 2 25 06 2 25 09 2 25 09 2 25 11

67 5 101 MON 2.100 7.630 3 3 26 06 3 26 09 3 26 09 3 26 11

68 5 101 MON 6.750 24.050 3 3 27 06 3 27 09 3 27 09 3 27 11

69 5 101 MON 80.700 85.600 3, 2 6 29 06 6 29 09 6 29 09 6 30 11

70 5 101 SB 12.830 24.900 2 5 5 06 5 5 09 5 5 09 5 5 11

71 5 101 SB 41.000 47.300 3 8 4 05 8 4 08 8 4 08 6 30 11

72 5 101 SB 50.800 54.000 3 9 26 05 9 26 08 9 26 08 6 30 11

73 5 101 SB 51.000 82.200 3, 2 5 28 06 5 28 09 5 28 09 5 28 11

74 5 101 SLO 64.900 67.450 3 3 26 06 3 26 09 3 26 09 3 26 11

75 5 101 SLO 67.456 69.300 3 3 26 06 3 26 09 3 26 09 3 26 11

76 5 129 SCR 0.540 0.541 3 8 6 05 8 6 08 8 6 08 8 6 11

77 5 129 SCR 7.900 8.150 4 4 20 06 4 20 09 4 20 09 4 20 11

78 5 156 MON 0.200 0.201 3 2 25 06 2 25 09 2 25 09 2 25 11

79 5 156 MON 1.820 5.130 3 12 19 06 12 19 09 12 19 09 6 30 11

80 5 166 SLO 42.000 45.000 4 2 23 06 2 23 09 2 23 09 2 23 11

81 5 192 SB 17.000 17.300 4 1 9 06 1 9 09 1 9 09 1 9 11

82 5 198 MON 4.350 4.650 4 5 18 06 5 18 09 5 18 09 5 18 11

83 6 33 KER 36.650 36.650 4 8 21 06 8 21 09 8 21 09 6 30 11

84 6 41 MAD 9.250 9.250 3 8 20 05 8 20 08 8 20 08 6 30 11

85 6 41 MAD 19.800 20.020 3 5 21 06 5 21 09 5 21 09 5 21 11

86 6 58 KER 55.243 55.243 2 6 22 06 6 22 09 6 22 09 6 30 11

87 6 63 TUL 22.570 22.570 3 4 14 06 4 14 09 4 14 09 4 14 11

88 6 99 KER 36.276 36.276 3 12 19 05 12 19 08 12 19 08 6 30 11

89 6 99 MAD 7.270 7.270 3 12 15 05 12 15 08 12 15 08 6 30 11

90 6 99 MAD 24.340 26.800 2 7 24 05 7 24 08 7 24 08 6 30 11

91 6 119 KER 30.410 30.410 4 3 17 06 3 17 09 3 17 09 6 30 11

92 6 178 KER 97.601 97.601 3 12 22 05 12 22 08 12 22 08 6 30 11

93 6 180 FRE 127.00 137.00 3 4 2 6 4 2 9 4 2 9 6 30 11

94 6 198 FRE 14.357 14.557 4 8 29 05 8 29 08 8 29 08 8 29 11

* See page 18 for functional classification codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 26

Table A2

HIGHWAY LOCATIONS AND STUDY TIME PERIODS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Seg. 

ID Dist. Rte. Co.

Begin 

Post 

Mile

End 

Post 

Mile

Functional 

Classification

Code*

Before Time Period After Time Period

From To From To

Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr.

(Continued from page 25)

95 6 395 KER 0.000 0.470 3 2 17 06 2 17 09 2 17 09 6 30 11

96 6 395 KER 0.854 1.448 3 2 17 06 2 17 09 2 17 09 6 30 11

97 6 395 KER 1.469 11.680 3 2 17 06 2 17 09 2 17 09 6 30 11

98 6 395 KER 14.548 14.798 3 2 17 06 2 17 09 2 17 09 6 30 11

99 7 1 LA 19.400 32.000 3 3 5 06 3 5 09 3 5 09 6 30 11

100 7 5 LA 13.111 13.466 1 12 3 05 12 3 08 12 3 08 6 30 11

101 7 10 LA 2.155 13.000 1 12 10 05 12 10 08 12 10 08 12 10 11

102 7 10 LA 4.700 13.200 1 8 13 05 8 13 08 8 13 08 6 30 11

103 7 33 VEN 6.000 57.500 3, 4 1 9 06 1 9 09 1 9 09 1 9 11

104 7 101 LA 0.000 9.500 2 12 10 05 12 10 08 12 10 08 12 10 11

105 7 101 LA 17.000 24.000 2 12 10 05 12 10 08 12 10 08 12 10 11

106 7 101 LA 33.200 33.400 2 10 6 6 10 6 9 10 6 9 6 30 11

107 7 101 LA 34.200 38.190 2 3 16 06 3 16 09 3 16 09 3 16 11

108 7 101 VEN 0.000 0.100 2 3 16 06 3 16 09 3 16 09 3 16 11

109 7 101 VEN 0.400 30.900 2 3 11 06 3 11 09 3 11 09 3 11 11

110 7 105 LA 0.540 0.540 3 12 16 05 12 16 08 12 16 08 6 30 11

111 7 110 LA 20.000 25.900 1, 2 12 10 05 12 10 08 12 10 08 12 10 11

112 7 110 LA 21.400 23.500 1, 2 9 11 05 9 11 08 9 11 08 6 30 11

113 7 126 LA 0.000 5.800 3 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

114 7 126 VEN 0.000 4.908 2 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

115 7 126 VEN 5.030 16.519 3, 2 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

116 7 126 VEN 16.520 16.734 3 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

117 7 126 VEN 17.013 22.530 3 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

118 7 126 VEN 22.530 34.625 3 8 28 05 8 28 08 8 28 08 6 30 11

119 7 138 LA 44.424 44.424 3 10 21 05 10 21 08 10 21 08 6 30 11

120 7 170 LA 14.500 20.551 2 12 2 05 12 2 08 12 2 08 6 30 11

121 7 187 LA 6.490 6.490 3 10 21 05 10 21 08 10 21 08 6 30 11

122 7 213 LA 0.310 1.060 3 6 18 6 6 18 9 6 18 9 6 30 11

123 7 605 LA 21.980 21.981 1 4 20 6 4 20 9 4 20 9 6 30 11

124 8 10 RIV 52.340 57.600 1 5 29 06 5 29 09 5 29 09 6 30 11

125 8 15 SBD 86.200 138.68 1 11 9 05 11 9 08 11 9 08 11 9 11

126 8 15 SBD 139.00 185.50 1 11 9 05 11 9 08 11 9 08 11 9 11 * See page 18 for functional classification codes
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 27

Table A2

HIGHWAY LOCATIONS AND STUDY TIME PERIODS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

Seg. 

ID Dist. Rte. Co.

Begin 

Post 

Mile

End 

Post 

Mile

Functional 

Classification

Code*

Before Time Period After Time Period

From To From To

Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr. Mo. Dy. Yr.

(Continued from page 26)

127 8 18 SBD 110.84 110.84 3 12 19 6 12 19 9 12 19 9 6 30 11

128 8 38 SBD 0.750 1.500 3, 1 13 06 1 13 09 1 13 09 6 30 11

129 8 38 SBD 48.439 48.439 3 10 9 05 10 9 08 10 9 08 6 30 11

130 8 60 RIV 22.200 26.500 3 3 5 6 3 5 9 3 5 9 6 30 11

131 8 62 SBD 17.100 17.800 3 4 27 06 4 27 09 4 27 09 6 30 11

132 8 74 RIV 0.000 11.830 4, 3 3 24 6 3 24 9 3 24 9 6 30 11

133 8 83 SBD 10.593 10.593 3 12 18 05 12 18 08 12 18 08 6 30 11

134 8 95 SBD 11.250 17.500 4 2 4 06 2 4 09 2 4 09 2 4 11

135 10 49 MPA 12.139 12.140 4 10 14 05 10 14 08 10 14 08 10 14 11

136 10 99 STA 10.300 12.200 2 4 21 06 4 21 09 4 21 09 4 21 11

137 10 99 STA 15.130 15.600 2 5 22 06 5 22 09 5 22 09 6 30 11

138 10 152 MER 21.058 21.059 3 9 15 05 9 15 08 9 15 08 9 15 11

139 11 67 SD 9.300 22.800 3, 4 12 12 05 12 12 08 12 12 08 6 30 11

140 11 79 SD 10.200 18.000 4 12 15 05 12 15 08 12 15 08 6 30 11

141 11 86 IMP 15.320 15.320 4 8 26 05 8 26 08 8 26 08 6 30 11

142 11 94 SD 17.400 30.000 2, 3 12 15 05 12 15 08 12 15 08 6 30 11

143 11 163 SD 1.200 2.400 2 8 6 05 8 6 08 8 6 08 8 6 11

144 12 5 ORA 28.417 28.417 1 4 2 6 4 2 9 4 2 9 6 30 11

145 12 5 ORA 30.323 30.323 1 7 30 05 7 30 08 7 30 08 6 30 11

146 12 22 ORA 10.307 10.307 2 4 23 06 4 23 09 4 23 09 6 30 11

147 12 22 ORA 10.440 10.440 2 10 28 05 10 28 08 10 28 08 6 30 11

148 12 22 ORA 10.443 10.443 2 10 28 05 10 28 08 10 28 08 10 28 11

149 12 39 ORA 4.131 4.131 3 10 30 05 10 30 08 10 30 08 6 30 11

150 12 55 ORA 4.470 4.960 2 12 16 05 12 16 08 12 16 08 6 30 11

151 12 57 ORA 21.200 21.200 2 6 4 06 6 4 09 6 4 09 6 30 11

152 12 74 ORA 13.300 16.599 4 5 5 06 5 5 09 5 5 09 5 5 11

153 12 91 ORA 13.680 14.260 2 5 28 06 5 28 09 5 28 09 6 30 11

154 12 405 ORA 13.160 13.380 1 2 2 06 2 2 09 2 2 09 2 2 11

155 12 405 ORA 13.663 13.663 1 11 7 6 11 7 9 11 7 9 6 30 11

156 12 405 ORA 13.901 13.901 1 6 15 6 6 15 9 6 15 9 6 30 11

157 12 405 ORA 16.797 16.797 1 4 13 06 4 13 09 4 13 09 6 30 11 * See page 18 for functional classification codes.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 28

Table A3

COLLISION DATA FOR HIGHWAY LOCATIONS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

(3 YEARS BEFORE VS. 3 YEARS AFTER)

Seg 

ID*

Total 

Before

Total 

After

Fatal 

Before

Fatal 

After

Injury 

Before

Injury 

After

PDO 

Before

PDO 

After

Fatality 

Before

Fatality 

After

Injuries

Before

Injuries

After

1 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0

2 3 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 2 7 1

3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

4 15 16 0 1 9 8 6 7 0 1 12 16

5 19 6 0 0 8 5 11 1 0 0 17 8

6 9 12 0 1 3 4 6 7 0 2 4 9

7 12 11 1 0 6 4 5 7 1 0 8 6

8 43 29 3 1 16 12 24 16 3 1 21 15

9 17 7 0 0 2 2 15 5 0 0 2 2

10 12 1 0 0 7 1 5 0 0 0 9 1

11 11 3 0 0 5 3 6 0 0 0 6 3

12 17 6 0 0 12 1 5 5 0 0 19 1

13 12 4 0 0 5 3 7 1 0 0 6 3

14 5 3 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 5 4

15 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1

16 3 2 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 3

17 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0

18 170 133 4 1 40 28 126 104 5 1 68 42

19 16 24 1 1 4 6 11 17 2 1 9 8

20 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2

21 8 5 0 0 6 4 2 1 0 0 14 6

22 21 9 3 0 9 5 9 4 3 0 14 6

23 212 90 1 1 80 38 131 51 1 1 107 62

24 113 105 2 2 42 38 69 65 2 2 72 52

25 22 13 0 0 8 3 14 10 0 0 12 3

26 116 100 1 4 50 35 65 61 1 4 81 60

27 157 84 3 0 45 25 109 59 3 0 69 42

28 111 95 1 0 32 23 78 72 1 0 51 29

29 9 2 0 0 3 0 6 2 0 0 7 0

30 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0

31 23 24 0 0 8 7 15 17 0 0 13 9

32 296 235 2 2 96 81 198 152 3 2 136 107

33 403 347 6 3 109 96 288 248 6 4 231 160

34 280 258 2 2 83 64 195 192 3 2 144 112

35 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

* See Table A2 for segment identification (Seg. ID), location information, and analysis time period.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 29

Table A3

COLLISION DATA FOR HIGHWAY LOCATIONS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

(3 YEARS BEFORE VS. 3 YEARS AFTER)

Seg

ID*

Total 

Before

Total 

After

Fatal 

Before

Fatal 

After

Injury 

Before

Injury 

After

PDO 

Before

PDO 

After

Fatality 

Before

Fatality 

After

Injuries

Before

Injuries

After

(Continued from page 28)

36 28 25 0 0 11 12 17 13 0 0 17 17

37 258 208 6 4 122 83 130 121 6 7 197 134

38 80 58 0 0 25 16 55 42 0 0 40 26

39 13 11 2 1 4 2 7 8 3 2 17 5

40 21 14 0 1 5 5 16 8 0 1 7 11

41 6 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 0

42 6 2 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 4 1

43 39 20 1 1 18 4 20 15 1 1 33 9

44 158 129 2 3 73 44 83 82 2 4 123 74

45 164 97 4 1 90 59 70 37 5 1 114 71

46 203 135 3 0 64 45 136 90 3 0 78 63

47 4 5 0 0 1 3 3 2 0 0 1 3

48 260 192 2 0 74 60 184 132 2 0 99 71

49 3177 2633 22 10 888 819 2267 1804 26 11 1324 1236

50 13 4 0 0 3 2 10 2 0 0 3 2

51 152 135 0 0 49 35 103 100 0 0 65 45

52 82 69 0 1 29 14 53 54 0 2 47 21

53 201 149 2 1 68 39 131 109 2 1 102 64

54 83 107 1 2 29 42 53 63 1 2 44 58

55 13 14 0 0 10 3 3 11 0 0 14 6

56 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0

57 3476 2404 12 14 1058 811 2406 1579 13 14 1497 1171

58 285 281 3 1 96 118 186 162 3 1 128 159

59 389 333 1 2 72 68 316 263 1 2 100 86

60 85 11 0 0 20 1 65 10 0 0 25 1

61 864 556 8 4 250 137 606 415 9 4 353 204

62 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

63 5 6 1 0 2 5 2 1 1 0 7 10

64 365 178 1 0 96 56 268 122 1 0 132 80

65 7 10 0 0 3 6 4 4 0 0 3 8

66 23 12 0 0 7 4 16 8 0 0 10 6

67 30 22 1 1 9 7 20 14 1 1 27 9

68 122 56 3 1 45 15 74 40 3 1 90 18

69 115 79 0 0 35 29 80 50 0 0 60 40

70 1425 942 10 3 421 238 994 701 11 4 609 341

71 116 117 1 0 45 30 70 87 1 0 61 45

72 25 35 0 2 9 12 16 21 0 2 12 26

* See Table A2 for segment identification (Seg. ID), location information, and analysis time period.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 30

Table A3

COLLISION DATA FOR HIGHWAY LOCATIONS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

(3 YEARS BEFORE VS. 3 YEARS AFTER)

Seg 

ID*

Total 

Before

Total 

After

Fatal 

Before

Fatal 

After

Injury 

Before

Injury 

After

PDO 

Before

PDO 

After

Fatality 

Before

Fatality 

After

Injuries

Before

Injuries

After

(Continued from page 29)

73 351 208 12 1 137 84 202 123 18 1 226 132

74 14 10 1 0 2 1 11 9 1 0 4 1

75 10 4 0 1 5 1 5 2 0 1 5 4

76 6 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0

77 27 0 1 0 9 0 17 0 1 0 14 0

78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79 141 125 2 2 51 47 88 76 3 3 91 82

80 18 7 3 2 7 1 8 4 4 1 21 5

81 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

82 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

83 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85 3 5 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 5 3

86 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2

87 9 3 0 0 2 2 7 1 0 0 2 2

88 5 3 0 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 2 1

89 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

90 93 42 4 0 30 10 59 32 4 0 50 17

91 11 2 0 0 6 2 5 0 0 0 7 2

92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

93 5 3 0 0 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 2

94 6 1 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 6 1

95 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

99 902 491 2 1 393 258 507 232 2 1 629 351

100 27 33 0 0 6 7 21 26 0 0 10 11

101 3874 3139 14 9 1116 904 2744 2226 17 10 1572 1336

102 3407 2958 14 9 961 824 2432 2125 17 10 1367 1181

103 511 318 7 9 243 136 261 173 7 10 331 202

104 4125 3165 13 13 1091 854 3021 2298 13 14 1602 1239

105 1783 1468 4 2 643 558 1136 908 4 2 957 815

106 17 7 0 0 9 3 8 4 0 0 10 3

107 287 199 1 4 97 75 189 120 1 5 128 106

108 11 5 0 0 5 1 6 4 0 0 6 1

109 3681 2859 19 14 1073 793 2589 2052 20 14 1537 1115

110 57 43 0 0 15 17 42 26 0 0 18 21

* See Table A2 for segment identification (Seg. ID), location information, and analysis time period.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 31

Table A3

COLLISION DATA FOR HIGHWAY LOCATIONS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

(3 YEARS BEFORE VS. 3 YEARS AFTER)

Seg 

ID*

Total 

Before

Total 

After

Fatal 

Before

Fatal 

After

Injury 

Before

Injury 

After

PDO 

Before

PDO 

After

Fatality 

Before

Fatality 

After

Injuries

Before

Injuries

After

(Continued from page 30)

111 4002 3418 6 7 998 909 2998 2502 6 7 1457 1316

112 1737 1831 0 5 424 472 1313 1354 0 5 625 728

113 85 67 2 0 32 27 51 40 2 0 64 48

114 203 184 1 0 68 55 134 129 1 0 83 82

115 486 286 7 3 155 105 324 178 8 3 228 181

116 9 3 0 0 2 0 7 3 0 0 3 0

117 181 166 2 3 70 52 109 111 3 3 101 78

118 146 131 7 5 59 42 80 84 7 5 94 67

119 25 24 0 0 14 6 11 18 0 0 22 8

120 1377 1079 14 3 496 407 867 669 14 3 818 618

121 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

122 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0

123 9 13 0 0 4 7 5 6 0 0 4 12

124 186 108 3 1 66 27 117 80 4 1 104 38

125 1287 620 33 13 547 225 707 382 45 14 1058 408

126 894 599 27 14 366 235 501 350 30 16 695 427

127 13 6 0 0 9 5 4 1 0 0 19 16

128 50 21 1 0 23 13 26 8 1 0 42 25

129 11 7 0 0 6 3 5 4 0 0 16 4

130 215 150 6 0 70 47 139 103 6 0 107 75

131 42 15 3 1 16 6 23 8 3 1 33 15

132 234 210 14 8 141 107 79 95 14 8 179 135

133 6 2 1 0 2 0 3 2 1 0 4 0

134 19 10 0 2 9 3 10 5 0 2 15 9

135 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 2

136 186 118 0 0 42 34 144 84 0 0 55 48

137 126 74 1 0 36 30 89 44 1 0 53 57

138 19 21 0 0 7 4 12 17 0 0 13 4

139 280 246 14 6 149 113 117 97 16 6 249 182

140 82 50 2 1 54 32 26 17 2 1 69 42

141 16 5 0 0 11 2 5 3 0 0 18 4

142 206 132 6 3 98 68 102 61 6 3 150 122

143 234 134 0 0 77 44 157 90 0 0 106 58

144 5 2 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 1

145 10 9 0 0 1 1 9 8 0 0 1 1

146 4 8 0 0 2 3 2 5 0 0 2 4

147 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

148 22 31 0 0 3 2 19 29 0 0 3 3

* See Table A2 for segment identification (Seg. ID), location information, and analysis time period
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 32

Table A3

COLLISION DATA FOR HIGHWAY LOCATIONS FOR HSIP EVALUATION

(3 YEARS BEFORE VS. 3 YEARS AFTER)

Seg 

ID*

Total 

Before

Total 

After

Fatal 

Before

Fatal 

After

Injury 

Before

Injury 

After

PDO 

Before

PDO 

After

Fatality 

Before

Fatality 

After

Injuries

Before

Injuries

After

(Continued from page 31)

149 93 83 0 0 39 34 54 49 0 0 57 51

150 58 21 0 0 18 8 40 13 0 0 27 14

151 9 4 0 0 1 1 8 3 0 0 2 2

152 71 46 2 2 31 26 38 18 2 2 38 35

153 95 63 0 0 26 22 69 41 0 0 31 25

154 67 36 0 0 25 9 42 27 0 0 39 12

155 13 7 0 0 5 1 8 6 0 0 5 1

156 4 8 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 2

157 6 12 1 0 3 3 2 9 1 0 3 4

* See Table A2 for segment identification (Seg. ID), location information, and analysis time period
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

August 2013

Page 33

Appendix B

The following codes were used in Table B1:

Functional Classifications

3 – Other Principal Arterial

4 – Minor Arterial

5 – Major Collector

6 – Minor Collector

7 – Local

Project Types

1.......Active Grade Crossing Equipment Installation/Upgrade

2.......Roadway Geometry Improvements

3.......Grade Crossing Elimination
Fiscal Year 2012/13 Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report

Page 34

Table B1. 

COMPLETED PROJECTS FOR THE RAILWAY-HIGHWAY AT-GRADE CROSSINGS PROGRAM

Project 

Number Location USDOT

Functional 

Class*

Project 

Type*

Crossing 

Protection

Project Cost ($) Pre project (5 Years) Post project (3 Years)

Non-State 

Hwy

State 

Hwy Fatal Injury PDO Fatal Injury PDO

50R975

(2 xings) Fresno/Uninc 028441E 7 1 Active 689183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fresno/Uninc 028343N 7 1 Active --- --- 1 0 0 0 0 2

53R942

(4 xings) San Bernardino/Uninc 026044A 4 1 Active 679931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Bernardino/Uninc 026045G 7 1 Active --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Bernardino/Uninc 026047V 7 1 Active --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Bernardino/Uninc 026046N 5 1 Active --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

75LX039 

75LX049 Siskiyou/Mt Shasta 748865Y 7 1,2 Active 647498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7500(058) Stanislaus/Uninc 028767V 3 2 Active 250000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

7500(060)

Contra 

Costa/Richmond 029854C 7 1,2 Active 300000 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

7500(061) San Bernardino/Uninc 026072D 7 1 Passive 260052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7500(068) Fresno/Fresno 028585J 3 1,2 Active 690000 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

7500(066) Kern/Uninc 028309G 7 1 Active 325000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7500(070) San Bernardino/Uninc 810913D 3 1,2 Active 500000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

7500(074)

Los 

Angeles/Hawthorne 760602M 4 1,2 Active 388311 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

7500(081) Santa Clara/San Jose 750098A 5 1 Active 450000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

7500(082) Plumas/Uninc 834370H 7 1 Active 450000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7500(083) Plumas/Uninc 834341X 5 1 Active 267574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7500(109)

(3 xings) Madera/Uninc 028627T 7 1,2 Active 320606 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Madera/Uninc 028619B 6 1 Active --- --- 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madera/Uninc 028591M 7 1,2 Active --- --- 0 0 2 0 0 0