Page 1 of 53

CALIFORNIA
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 53

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 18

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 21

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

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

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 37

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 39

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

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 48
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 53

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.” 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 53

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obligated for alcohol impaired driving countermeasures. Caltrans' Division of Traffic Operations provided 

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

local roads. 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. The projects evaluated in this report are funded by the Collision Reduction Category, 

which includes both federal HSIP and State highway funds. 

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015 and 

continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) with only minor changes. The FAST Act 

confirmed the overall purpose of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 

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

improvements. 

Caltrans uses raw collision data on the state highway system from California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS (Statewide 

Integrated Traffic Record System) database. Raw collision data were later imported and reconfigured in to the 

Transportation System Network (TSN) Caltrans database. The purpose of having another system database is to provide 

users the ability to select and export data based on certain needs. According to 2014 Collision Data on California State 

Highways, there were 15,079.1 road miles and 178,325.2 million vehicle miles traveled. Total collision rate was 0.81 

collisions per million vehicle miles and 0.28 fatal + injury per million vehicle miles. There were a total of 144,423 

collisions which consisted of 94,539 property damage only, 48,754 collisions with injury, and 1,130 fatal. Among the 

total collisions, there were a total of 1,260 persons killed and 70,753 injured. Caltrans estimates that these collisions 

resulted in societal economic losses of approximately $19.6 billion assuming collision costs for various injury severities 

derived by the National Safety Council. High concentration collisions locations are identified and 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 

Monitoring Programs: Cross Median Collisions, Two and Three Lane Cross Centerline Collisions, Wrong Way Collisions, 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 53

and Pedestrian Collisions. The HSIP and other State programs have contributed to making highways safer through the 

implementation of highway safety projects.

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.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 53

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Traffic Operations addresses the state highway system and local agencies address all other public roads. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic Operations and Local Assistance

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

At the Division of Local Assistance, there is a competitive application process; however, there is no competitive 

application process at the State. All HSIP projects are funded when HQ approves and concurs based on if a 

project meets minimum criteria such as with a minimum collision threshold, effective countermeasures 

selection, safety index greater than or equal to 200, and all required documents are submitted. 

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

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

data-driven methodology for ranking local roadway (non-State owned and operated) project applications on a 

statewide basis. This tool was developed by the DLA in conjunction with the University of California, 

Berkeley, Safe Transportation Research and Education Center. The DLA HSIP also provides the Local 

Roadway Safety Manual for California local road owners and directly incorporates UC Berkeley’s 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 53

Transportation Injury Mapping System website to assist applicants applying for local HSIP funds. These tools 

and resources encourage local agencies to proactively analyze their roadway networks for the highest crash 

locations and develop and submit applications with the greatest chance of reducing fatalities and serious injuries 

using low cost proven systemic countermeasures. The DLA HSIP application process is also open and available 

to the tribes that would like to submit an application for HSIP funds. However, due to lack of time, resources, 

experience and data at the tribes very few applications if any are submitted.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Planning 

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Research Innovation and System Information 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

On the State Highway System, the Traffic Safety and Mobility Program in Headquarters within the Division of Traffic 

Operations works with the Division of Planning, Division of Programming, Division of Research Innovation and System 

Information, and 12 Caltrans district offices to develop Project Initiation Documents to program projects. For local roads, 

Caltrans Division of Local Assistance (DLA) staff manage the local agency share of HSIP funds in conjunction with its local 

agency partners. The DLA prepares the HSIP guidelines and solicits project applications from local agencies. 

Traffic Operations annually provide a list of high collision concentration locations to 12 districts. Each district’s traffic 

investigation is required to investigate and respond with possible safety improvement recommendation and 

countermeasures. Traffic Operations is to concur with district’s response and recommendation before any major safety 

improvement project can be initiated.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Academia/University

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 53

Describe coordination with external partners.

Caltrans has been working with 400 stakeholders from 170 public & private agencies including tribal agency, local 

technical assistance program, and universities to develop CA-SHSP. Projects developed are consistent with SHSP 

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

Caltrans coordinates with FHWA by asking for guidance and interpretation of HSIP funding criteria and other FHWA 

legislative requirements.

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

HSIP (no subprograms) 

Roadway Departure

Pedestrian Safety

Wrong Way Driving 

Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline Collision Monitoring Pro 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 53

HSIP (no subprograms)*- based on benefit/cost analysis in term of safety index greater than 200 and the effective 

cost of countermeasures.

Wrong Way Driving* - based on minimum collision threshold and effective countermeasures.

Median Barrier - based on minimum collision threshold and effective countermeasures.

Roadway Departure (Run of Road) - based on minimum collision threshold and effective countermeasures.

2-3-lane cross centerline collision monitoring program - based on minimum collision threshold and effective 

countermeasures.

Pedestrian Safety - based on minimum collision threshold and effective countermeasures.

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/20/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 53

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-meet minimum criteria

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

At the Division of Local Assistance, there is a competitive application process; however, there is no competitive 

application process at the State. All HSIP projects are funded when HQ approves and concurs based on if a 

project meets minimum criteria such as with a minimum collision threshold, effective countermeasures 

selection, safety index greater than or equal to 200, and all required documents are submitted. 

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/1977 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only Volume Median width Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 53

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Any project that meets the established Median Barrier criteria for project selection can be programmed

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Collision and volume warrants : 100 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/20/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 53

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-meet minimum criteria : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/15/2004 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 53

Other-see the optional description 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes on 

Wet Pavement 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Fatal and injury crashes 

resulting in Overturned Vehicle 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-see the optional description for this question 

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-see the optional description for this question 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

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

segments selected based on collision frequency, roadway type, geometric characteristics and traffic volume. : 

100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 53

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-crash frequency and crash rate : 100

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 53

Program: Other--2 and 3 Ln Cross Centerline 

Collision Monitoring Pro 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/15/1985 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only 

Other-See optional description 

pertaining to this subprogram 

Volume 

Lane miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-All projects meeting established criteria can be programmed

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 53

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Crash frequency and rate : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 60.5 

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

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

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

Other-Median Barrier (see optional description) 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 53

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Currently, we are not using HSM to support HSIP; however, we are trying to integrate the HSM to support HSIP efforts 

in the future, including identification of investigation locations and cost/benefit analysis.

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

The 2014 HSIP Guidelines are now updated to 2017 HSIP Guidelines for HSIP implementation. Update of 

methods of reviewing safety projects and including collisions reduced calculations. Pedestrian safety 

monitoring program is now also included. A HSIP Program Assessment was completed in 2016 from which a 

gap analysis was developed and will be tracked until all gaps are filled.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 53

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

<p style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;fontfamily:'Verdana',sans-serif;letter-spacing:.75pt;">Based on state fiscal year calendar - starting from July 1 2016 

- June 30, 2017</span><em></em></p> 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $573,013,200 $390,723,720 68.19%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$8,161,498 $8,161,498 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $24,628,967 $24,628,967 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $47,364,675 $47,364,675 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$15,726,725 $15,726,725 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$32,349,217 $32,349,217 100%

State and Local Funds $696,513,200 $220,000,000 31.59%

Totals $1,397,757,482 $738,954,802 52.87%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

More HSIP funds are expected to be obligated by end of fiscal year, June 30, 2018. 

Funding Category Descriptions: HSIP (23 U.S.C 148) is Federal HSIP Funding for Caltrans State and Local 

side; State and Local Funds are combination of Federal HSIP Funding and State HSIP Funding, which includes 

State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds. 

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

$123,500,000 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 53

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

$97,000,000 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

$0 

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

$0 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

There is no Non-Infrastructure Safety Projects from the State; however, Division of Local Assistance has NonInfrastructure Safety Projects. They are funded by State HSIP but not Federal HSIP.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

In the past year, local HSIP project delivery has been enforced through (1) monthly update of delivery status report 

posted in the DLA website, (2) HSIP manager’s phone calls and emails to district focal-point contacts responsible for 

monitoring project delivery, (3) the set drop-dead dates for late projects in various previous project cycles, (4) 

requesting local agencies to send HSIP program an official delivery commitment letter for project delay request, and (5) 

efforts made by various Local Advisory Committee members. This is proved to be successful and is now a Local HSIP 

policy that all current projects programmed need to have construction authorization within five years of being 

programmed. Project delivery delay flags are held in place for PE Authorization and Construction Authorization to alarm 

local agencies with delayed project flags that they will be ineligible to apply any future HSIP funding until these flags are 

cleared.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 53

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

The DLA is investigating with the help of locals and FHWA the delay that is caused by unnecessary 

environmental requirements in streamlining HSIP projects. Also, we may discuss the set aside program, 

SSARP, in the next annual report since the SSARP hasn’t been completed yet.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 53

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Safety 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

33 Signal heads $5000000 $7000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

12,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Safety

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Note: CA Highway Safety Improvement Program list of projects table is different from Division of Local Assistance HSIP list of projects table. For example, CA HSIP keeps track of certain information that are available and pertaining to 

our programs and operations.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 53

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatalities 4,240 3,995 3,434 3,090 2,720 2,816 2,966 3,107 3,102

Serious Injuries 13,089 13,133 11,943 10,369 10,423 10,607 10,864 10,664 10,995

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.286 1.209 1.054 0.953 0.839 0.866 0.908 0.944 0.927

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.969 3.975 3.666 3.198 3.215 3.263 3.324 3.240 3.285

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

919 823 791 714 760 807 878 951 933

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

3,135 3,110 2,990 3,070 3,031 3,121 3,207 3,080 3,209
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 53

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 53

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 53

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Dates are preset from 2010 to 2014.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Caltrans requested the latest SWITRS data (raw data that contains all roadway types in CA) available through 

our external partner - California Highway Patrol. Working on raw data to extract data from Caltrans state 

highway system has been a challenge to achieve high level of confidence. SWITRS - Statewide Integrated 

Traffic Records System (Database).We also use FARS to cross check our numbers. Caltrans uses SWITRS data 

for all their numbers and rates.

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

Year 2014

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

153 0.68

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4100

4200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 53

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

423 0.39

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 53

Year 2014

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 2,942.2 10,710.6 0.9 3.27

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 53

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 53

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 53

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 53

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 53

10000

10200

10400

10600

10800

11000

11200

11400

11600

11800

12000

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 53

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

State Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 53

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Caltrans has not using Functional Classification as stated above from its TSN Database since 2002. It has its 

own definition of Functional Classification. 

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

We input annual collision data for the years requested, and the ORT application generates a graph of 5-yr 

rolling average.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 3590.8 

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

State Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 53

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

2018 performance target is a “vision” based target that is based on a year-year 

decrease of 7.69% from 2017 and onward. CA Highway System Only = 1,354 

Fatalities*. For example, when CA State Highway System collision trend is 

decreasing, but all CA roadway types collision trend is increasing then SHSP can 

address and focus on other challenge areas that are not within the CA State Highway 

System. 

Number of Serious Injuries 12823.4 

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

2018 performance target method is a “vision” based target that is based on a year-year 

decrease of 7.69% from 2017 and onward. CA Highway System Only = 3,521 Serious 

Injuries*. For example, when CA State Highway System collision trend is decreasing, 

but all CA roadway types collision trend is increasing then SHSP can address and 

focus on other challenge areas that are not within the CA State Highway System. 

Fatality Rate 1.029 

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

2018 performance target, Fatality Rate, is “vision” based on all roadway types within 

CA using a 5-yr rolling average and 100M vehicle miles traveled. CA Highway 

System Only = 0.754 Fatality Rate*. For example, when CA State Highway System 

collision trend is decreasing, but all CA roadway types collision trend is increasing 

then SHSP can address and focus on other challenge areas that are not within the CA 

State Highway System. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.831 

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

2018 performance target, Serious Injury Rate, is “vision” based on all roadway types 

within CA using a 5-yr rolling average and 100M vehicle miles traveled. CA Highway 

System Only = 3.45 Serious Injury Rate*. For example, when CA State Highway 

System collision trend is decreasing, but all CA roadway types collision trend is 

increasing then SHSP can address and focus on other challenge areas that are not 

within the CA State Highway System. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 4271.1 

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

2018 performance target method is a “vision” based target that is based on a year-year 

decrease of 7.69% from 2017 and onwards. CA Highway System Only = 550 both 

Fatalities* and Serious Injuries*. For example, when CA State Highway System 

collision trend is decreasing, but all CA roadway types collision trend is increasing 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 53

then SHSP can address and focus on other challenge areas that are not within the CA 

State Highway System. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

In order to get to .0 instead of .4 we will have to change a number for one of the five years and then we would 

no longer match OTS. The .4 is a result of using the identical numbers for the five years that OTS used.

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

targets. 

The State has had training and a series of workshops with MPOs and other stakeholders to set the safety performance 

targets for 2018.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The HRRR special rule does not apply to California for this reporting period, as it has been determined that the 5-year 

average fatality rate on rural roads in California does not increase from 2007-2011 to 2009-2013.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

150 156 156 172 185 190 198

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

218 189 184 227 206 223 288
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 53

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 53

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

There are two ways to measure effectiveness such as B/C ratio and Performance Target Values. Safety 

improvement projects are measured based on performance values (number of collision reduced over the life of the 

project). For example, determine the number of collisions reduced over the life of the project is an indication of the total 

number of lives potentially saving over life of the project. Another method is benefit-cost analysis. This method is to 

measure the effectiveness of the safety improvement project by evaluating the change in number of collisions and crash 

rate from a 3-yr before and 3-yr after the project completion. Based on B/C ratio, the result are B/C Ratio = 4.25 for 10-

yr projects, and B/C Ratio = 8.50 for 20-yr projects that is an indication that the State's program is effective because B/C 

Ratio is greater than 2.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Division of Local Assistance increases in obligation for local safety projects, HSIP now programs 

approximately $110 Million dollars per year in the 2017 HSIP-FTIP Backup List, which was refreshed last 

November. It continued efforts of the Local HSIP Advisory committee on effective implementation of the HSIP 

program, including the SSARP, and other anticipated set-aside sub-programs. It also increased awareness of 

safety and data-driven process. This awareness has been discussed in four or five Local Advisory Committee 

meetings in conjunction with the future MIRE requirement, and SHSP collision-reduction targets associated 

with traffic fatality and serious injuries in any road networks. HSIP program guidelines was updated in June 

2017 and will continue to evolve with the oncoming federal/state requirement. Both State and Division of Local 

Assistance completed a number of Road Safety Audits (RSA).

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 53

Yes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.

One new monitoring programs of the HSIP sub-program was included. Pedestrian Safety Monitoring Program is now also 

SHOPP funded and implemented as safety improvement projects.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2014

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Work Zones Construction Zone 60 266 0.02 0.09

Reduce Occurrance & 

Conseq of Leaving 

Roadway & Head-On 

Colli

Head on 717 3,151 0.23 1.03

Increase Use of Safety 

Belts and Child Safety 

Seats

Safety Belts 1,092 3,643 0.36 1.19

Reduce Young Driver 

Fatalities

Young Driver 435 2,381 0.14 0.78

Improve Intersection and 

Interchange Safety

Intersections 1,374 3,880 0.45 1.27

Make Walking and Street 

Crossing Safer

Vehicle/pedestrian 789 2,156 0.26 0.7

Improve Safety for Older 

Roadway Users

Older Roadway 

Users

716 2,536 0.23 0.83

Reduce Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

Speed-related 484 2,783 0.16 0.91

Improve Commercial 

Vehicle Safety

Truck-related 320 747 0.1 0.24

Improve Motorcycle 

Safety

Motorcycle Safety 517 2,406 0.17 0.78

Improve Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 144 1,053 0.05 0.34
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 53

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 53

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

For other SHSP emphasis areas such as Emergency Medical Services, Driver Licensing and Competency, and 

Distracted Driving, we don’t have data.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 53

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Caltrans has not completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period. Caltrans 

seldom conducts countermeasure effectiveness evaluations and typically refers to the CMF Clearinghouse for 

countermeasure effectiveness.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 53

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

12-ORA-241 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Roadside - other 3.00 3.00 74.00 56.00 77.00 59.00

06-MAD-99 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 22.00 8.00 23.00 8.00

10-MPA-49 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1.00 1.00

08-SBD-010 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

5.00 5.00 133.00 101.00 138.00 106.00

5-SLO-166 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

1.00 1.00 2.00

08-SBD-018 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

08-RIV-015 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 19.00 12.00 19.00 12.00

05-SLO-101 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - concrete 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00

01-HUM-101 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

1.00 1.00

02-TRI-299 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Alignment Vertical alignment 

or elevation 

change

1.00 1.00

06-KIN-041 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

04-ALA-084 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

1.00 1.00 10.00 9.00 11.00 10.00
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

04-SOL-080 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 11.00 21.00 630.00 703.00 641.00 724.00

08-RIV-074 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

12-ORA-005 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

5.00 5.00

07-LA-134 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 8.00 9.00 577.00 619.00 585.00 628.00

08-SBD-015 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

2.00 2.00

12-ORA-039 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

05-SCR-017 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 30.00 4.00 31.00 4.00

05-MON-101 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 22.00 32.00 22.00 32.00

01-LAK-020 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

2.00 2.00

01-DN-HUM-101 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

02-TEH-005 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

08-RIV-SBD-062 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

3.00 22.00 20.00 22.00 23.00

06-KER-033 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00

03-NEV-080 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1.00 1.00
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

06-TUL/MAD-099 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 6.00 2.00 7.00 2.00

04-ALA-880 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

1.00 1.00

06-FRE-005 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 5.00 8.00 5.00 8.00

05-SLO-046 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

1.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

05-SCR-017 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.00 4.00

07-LA-090 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00

04-SCL-082 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1.00 1.00

07-LA-405 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 2.00 6.00 2.00 6.00

12-ORA-005 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00

03-SAC/ED-005 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

38.00 21.00 38.00 21.00

08-RIV-010 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - concrete 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00

08-RIV-010 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - other 1.00 2.00 16.00 24.00 17.00 26.00

10-SJ-005 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

9.00 9.00 9.00 17.00 18.00 26.00

02-LAS-395 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

4.00 2.00 45.00 38.00 49.00 40.00
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

112-ORA-055 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

07-LA-014 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.00 93.00 106.00 97.00 106.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

These projects were completed on state highway system. Benefit/Cost analysis was done based on all of these completed projects rather than as an individually project. For the life of the project of 10-year, the B/C = 4.25 with about 291.5 collisions 

reduce per year. For the life of the project of 20-year, the B/C = 8.50 with about 145.75 collisions reduce per year.

Note: A safety improvement project at a location reduces a collision pattern depending on the countermeasure, but sometime it may also increase another type of collision pattern.

For example at the location 04-SOL-080, Rural Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways, Roadside, the countermeasure was to install a barrier-metal (metal beam guardrail). Overall collisions of 3 years before were 11 fatal collisions; 

however, after 3 years of project completion, overall collisions were 21 fatal collisions. The cross median head-on collision pattern was reduced, but other types of collision patterns increased. Therefore; this location may need another investigation to 

reduce other types of collision patterns.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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

Sub-programs such as multi-lane cross median collision monitoring program, 2&3-lane cross center-line collision monitoring program, and wrong way collision monitoring program have shown that from 2009 to 2014, the total number of 

collisions have been decreasing.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 53

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/01/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019

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

 2020

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 23.6 76.4 0 100 0 100

Route Number (8) 23.6 76.4

Route/Street Name (9) 23.6 76.4

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

23.6 76.4

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

23.6 76.4 0 100

Surface Type (23) 23.6 76.4 0 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

23.6 76.4 0 100 0 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

23.6 76.4 0 100 0 100

Segment Length (13) 23.6 76.4

Direction of Inventory (18) 23.6 76.4

Functional Class (19) 23.6 76.4 0 100 0 100

Median Type (54) 23.6 76.4
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 53

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 23.6 76.4

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

23.6 76.4

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

23.6 76.4 0 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

23.6 76.4 0 100

AADT Year (80) 23.6 76.4

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

23.6 76.4 0 100 0 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 53

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

Interchange Type (182) 100 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

23.60 76.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

For Non Local Paved Roads - Segment, State is completed 23.6% and Non-State is completed 76.4%. For other Roadway Types such as Intersection, Ramp, Local Paved Roads and Unpaved Roads, State is either completed 100% and NonState is completed 0% or State is completed 0% and Non-State is completed 100%.

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

Executive (TRCC) Traffic Records Coordinating Committee adopted a plan on how to collect MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads. A team was formed on how to implement the plan and had an initial kick-off meeting on 

August 29, 2017.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form CHP 555 Collision Report Form Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual TASAS Coding Manual Yes (TASAS) Traffic Accident Surveillance and 

Analysis System Coding Manual Definition

Yes (TASAS) Traffic Accident Surveillance and 

Analysis System Coding Manual Definition

Yes

Crash Database Statewide Integrated Traffic Record 

System

Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary TSAR Reference Card Yes TSAR Reference Card Yes TSAR Reference Card Yes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Currently, States use different definitions and coding conventions to report serious injuries in their motor vehicle crash databases. However, by April 14, 2019, all States will be required to use the definition for “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” verbatim from 

the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), 4th Edition. Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/hsip/docs/ca-hsip-2017.pdf
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 53

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

Assessment was done by reviewing and updating the HSIP Guidelines. Result of HSIP assessment was to update the 2014 HSIP Guidelines to 2017 HSIP Guidelines including contents to better explain eligible criteria, options, limitations, countermeasures, and 

other recommendations.
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 53

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2017 STATE HSIP GUIDELINES FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

LOCAL_HSIP_ORT_Data_2017_Report.xlsx

Caltrans-Approved-Projects-Fiscal-16-17-HSIP-Report.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 California Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 53

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of 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. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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