North Carolina

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: NC

  
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 7

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 26

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 26

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 29

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 53

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 53

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 69

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) .......................................... 71

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 73

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 78

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 83

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................89

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................91
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The purpose of the North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to provide a

continuous and systematic procedure that identifies, investigates and addresses specific safety concerns

throughout the state. The ultimate goal of the HSIP is to reduce the number of traffic crashes, injuries,

and fatalities by reducing the potential for and the severity of these incidents of public roadways.  

North Carolina recognizes traffic crashes as a significant problem that continues to challenge the state.

In 2014, there were over 250,000 reported traffic crashes that resulted in 1,277 persons killed and over

110,000 injuries on our roadways. The socioeconomic impact of these crashes is severe, resulting in a

loss of over $22.2 billion to the economy of North Carolina annually. This impact translates to a crash

cost to the state of over $2.5 million every hour and approximately $61 million every day and a

staggering social impact as well.  

North Carolina has established a vision to have a multi‐disciplinary, multi‐agency highway safety

approach to research, planning, investigation, design, construction, maintenance, operation and

evaluation of transportation systems, which results in reduced fatalities, injuries and economic losses,

related to crashes. In addition, there is a coordinated strategic effort to address emerging safety issues.

The 2014 North Carolina Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) has been developed in an effort to reduce

the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our State's roadways. The goal of the SHSP is to cut the

fatalities and serious injuries in North Carolina in half based on the 2013 figures, reducing the total

annual fatalities by 630 fatalities and the total serious injuries by 1,055 serious injuries before 2030.  The

progress in achieving the goals of the SHSP  and in implementing the strategies of the nine selected

emphasis areas will be monitored by the Executive Committee for Highway Safety at regular intervals

throughout the year.

This “HSIP Report” describes North Carolina DOT’s implementation and effectiveness of its Highway

Safety Improvement Program. These reports satisfy the requirements under Title 23 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 924 (23 CFR 924). The NCDOT Rail Division is developing the “Railway‐Highway

Crossing Report” as a separate report submission. North Carolina DOT has opted to use the 2014

Calendar Year as the reporting period for the “HSIP Report”; however, some of our 2015 plans, goals,

and methods are included in this report.
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the

effectiveness of the improvements.  

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

In North Carolina, the local county governments are not responsible for the maintenance of rural

highways. NCDOT highway network covers nearly 80,000 roadway miles which includes rural roadways

classified as local; municipal governments maintain some downtown streets, residential streets and

subdivision roads.

Several Pilot Communities have been formally trained in identifying low cost countermeasures 

with the ultimate goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries in their cities. Technical training 

included understanding crash data, identifying potential treatment locations, preparing collision 
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

diagrams, selecting countermeasures, and evaluating those countermeasures. Quarterly 

conference calls are being held to allow city representatives to brainstorm ideas and offer 

feedback on the program. A process was established to federally fund some of these projects 

through the Local Programs Management Office (LPMO). By training these municipalities to 

analyze, identify treatments, and set up and evaluate projects, the municipalities should see 

reductions in the severity and number of crashes on their roadways. 

NCDOT receives crash data from the Department of Motor Vehicles and has the capability to identify

potentially hazardous locations on all publicly traveled North Carolina roadways.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other:  

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

The design, planning, and operations units within NCDOT play a significant role within the State Highway

Safety Plan. These units utilize safety data during their planning phase in many ways. NCDOT's Policy to

Projects process uses data regarding pavement condition, traffic congestion and road safety, as well as

input from local government and NCDOT staff to determine transportation priorities. MPO's and RPO's

utilize traffic crash data to develop transportation plans.  Many resurfacing projects are utilizing safety

edge treatments to reduce the potential for overcorrection‐type crashes.  The Governor’s Highways

Safety Program oversees a variety of important safety campaigns, including "Booze It and Lose It" and

"Click It or Ticket It."   

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning.  
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other‐NC State Highway Patrol

Other: Other‐Rail Division and Bike/Ped Division

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

the last reporting period.

Multi‐disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other:  

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

would like to elaborate.

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) for the State of North Carolina was updated in 2014. This SHSP

(also referenced herein as the Plan) is an important component of North Carolina’s Highway Safety

Improvement Program (HSIP).  The need for a SHSP was established by the federal transportation

funding legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA‐LU), and strengthened by the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century Act (MAP‐21) in July 2012.  MAP‐21 specifies that the SHSP must be developed based on safety

data on all public roads, be developed in consultation with stakeholders, employ a multidisciplinary

approach, describe a program of safety strategies, and consider other highway safety plans and

processes.
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

This updated SHSP was developed through the collaborative efforts of diverse safety stakeholders

representing the users of the North Carolina highway system and encompassing the 4 E’s of highway

safety—education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency services.  These safety stakeholders

include State, regional, local, and tribal agencies, as well as other public and private partners.  This Plan

presents a statewide, comprehensive, and collaborative approach for reducing fatalities and serious

injuries on North Carolina’s roadways.  Serious injuries are those obviously serious enough to prevent

the injured person from performing his or her normal activities for at least one day beyond the day of

the crash.  These are also called Type A injuries.

The North Carolina SHSP was first developed in 2004 by the North Carolina Executive Committee for

Highway Safety (ECHS) in support of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) Strategic Highway Safety Plan.  The ECHS adopted AASHTO’s goal to reduce the

statewide fatality rate to 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT).

The Plan was revised in 2006, and 14 emphasis areas were identified to achieve its goal:

 Lane Departure

 Ensuring Drivers Are Fully Licensed

 Curbing Aggressive Driving

 Increasing Safety Belt Usage

 Keeping Drivers Alert

 Speed

 Intersection Safety

 Older Drivers

 Motorcycles

 Commercial Motor Vehicles

 Public Information

 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

 Incident Management

 Driver Education

The 2006 Plan provided a strategic framework for the implementation of strategies across the 4 E’s in

these 14 areas.  Significant progress was made toward the Plan’s overall goal, resulting in a dramatic

decrease in the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) over the eight‐year

period from 2006 to 2013.  The 2013 fatality rate is just under 1.2 fatalities per 100 MVMT.  Nationally,

the fatality rate has also declined during the same period, although not as sharply as in North Carolina.  

Evaluations of North Carolina’s engineering safety programs have demonstrated that the collaborative

and focused statewide efforts of the SHSP in recent years have contributed to the reductions in fatalities

and serious injuries.  Many other factors may also have contributed to this decline, such as vehicle

enhancements and economic influences.
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Although the safety stakeholders implementing the Plan have made significant progress in achieving the

statewide goal since 2006, there is still work to be done.  In 2013, 1,260 people died on North Carolina’s

roadways, and another 2,109 people were seriously injured. Additionally, the downward trend in

fatalities and serious injuries has flattened over the last few years.  The update of the original State

SHSP—presents refined goals and objectives, new safety emphasis areas, and additional strategies and

actions to build on past success and to continue to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on North

Carolina’s roadways. This document can be found on the web at http://ncshsp.org/.

The goals of the Plan will be achieved through the implementation of strategies and actions in nine

safety emphasis areas. These emphasis areas represent the greatest opportunity for the safety

stakeholders to focus their efforts to achieve the goals of this Plan.  The safety stakeholders selected

these emphasis areas cooperatively through a data‐driven approach, noting that many individual

crashes can be attributed to more than one emphasis area.  For example, a crash may involve speeding,

intersection safety, and occupant protection.  Therefore, the following nine emphasis areas provide an

opportunity to address crashes from multiple perspectives.

 Demographic Considerations

 Driving While Impaired

 Emerging Issues and Data

 Intersection Safety

 Keeping Drivers Alert

 Lane Departure

 Occupant Protection/Motorcycles

 Pedestrians and Bicyclists

 Speed

To achieve the Plan’s goals to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by half and to move North Carolina

closer to Vision Zero, significant reductions are needed in each emphasis area.

In general, the goal for each emphasis area is to reduce fatalities and injuries by half.  Some emphasis

areas present a greater opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries than others.  Factors such as

trends in exposure rates and the availability of effective strategies are different for each emphasis area

and affect the opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.  For example, several lane departure

strategies are known to be effective at reducing crashes on North Carolina’s roads; their increased

implementation presents an opportunity to greatly reduce fatalities and serious injuries.  Conversely,

because motorcycle ridership is increasing in North Carolina, crash reductions from effective strategies

must outpace the growth in crashes that is attributed to the increased ridership (e.g., exposure).

Overall, the strategies in the emphasis areas work collectively toward the Plan goal, with some emphasis

areas expected to contribute more reductions in fatalities and serious injuries than others.
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.  

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low‐Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other:      

   

   

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐Freeway
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Median Width

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Frontal Impact Crashes

Other‐Percent Frontal Impact Crashes

Other‐Frequency of Crashes during Dark Conditions

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

Yes

No

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

Yes
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potential Hazardous Listing or

RSA Location

5

   
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other  

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

   

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Road Departure Crashes in a Curve

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

   

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Bicycle Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Bicycle Crashes

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding   
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potentially Hazardous Listing 5

   

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Roadway Departure

Crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Percent Roadway Departure Crashes

Other‐Percent Night Crashes

Other‐Percent Wet Condition Crashes

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4

Potentially Hazardous Listing

or RSA Location

5

   

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 8/27/2013

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other‐Pedestrian Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other  

What project identification methodology was used for this program?  

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Pedestrian Crashes

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

22

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other  

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

Regional Priority 2

Division Priority 2

Severity Index 4
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Potentially Hazardous Listing

or RSA

5

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

0   

   

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other  

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other:  
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other:  

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

would like to elaborate.  

NCDOT is continuing to develop safety performance functions and will utilize the ISDM application on

future STIP projects. NCDOT is actively working on new systemic programs to implement wide edge

lines, enhanced curve warning signs and safety edge treatments.

Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP) provides a continuous and systematic 

transportation network screening process that identifies, analyzes, investigates, diagnoses and 

treats specific traffic safety concerns throughout the state. The goal of the federally required 

HSIP is to reduce the number of traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities by reducing the potential 

and the severity of public roadway collisions. The collaboration between HSIP Project Group 

Analysts and the Regional Traffic Engineers that research, investigate, recommend treatments, 

and develop realistic cost effective safety projects has yielded highly effective safety performance 

even during a time of continued growth in North Carolina. 

The emphasis of the state-funded Spot Safety and federally-funded Highway Safety 

Improvement Programs is to identify and treat high crash and/or high severity locations with 

relatively low cost solutions in order to address safety concerns along NC roadways. These 
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

programs are a vital tool in improving safety at intersections and segments of roadway where 

safety needs have been identified by citizens, government officials, internal staff, or through one 

of NCDOT’s safety initiatives. With these programs, Regional Traffic Engineers collaborate 

with designers and project managers on project scope and prioritization in order to develop 

realistic, time-sensitive, and cost effective projects that address safety issues.

The projects developed and constructed under these safety programs are inspected upon 

completion to ensure the identified safety issues have been mitigated and the project was 

constructed according to the plans. Management of this program by the State Traffic Engineer 

and his staff provide statewide consistency in treating areas in a systematic, evidence driven and 

needs based approach. These vital safety funding program efforts have shown an average return 

on investment of 14:1.

The Alternative Analysis Initiative quantifies the safety performance of different transportation 

project alternatives selected for study during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process. Using Highway Safety Manual (HSM) predictive methodologies, we compare the 

expected safety performance of different alternatives based on the specific design elements 

associated with each alternative (curve radius, lane widths, shoulder widths, number of 

driveways, grades, intersection features, etc.). The predicted crash numbers give some scale of 

the number of crashes to expect, but the percentages give a really good comparison regarding the 

effects of the specific design elements on each alternative that are expected to have on safety. 
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 49488855   81 % 63442322   79 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU) 0     0 % 2847395     4 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0    0 % 1723200    2 %

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds 11842121   19 % 11842121   15 %
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Totals 61330976 100% 79855038 100%

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

$450,000.00

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

$450,000.00

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

period?

$0.00
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

NCDOT is responsible for the safety of nearly 80,000 miles of rural and urban highways. Cities and towns

are responsible for over 21,000 miles of streets; most of this mileage is downtown and residential

streets. While NCDOT administers HSIP funds, most municipalities are hesitant to participate due to the

federal guidelines. Local governments are unwilling to administer the competitive bidding process. The

complex federal safety program process discourages many opportunities to utilize the HSIP for low‐cost

safety projects. In some cases administrative costs may be higher than the project costs.  

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

In an attempt to assess the safety of our roads, the Safety Evaluation Group of the Traffic Safety Systems

Management Section has evaluated hundreds of countermeasure projects. The methodologies used in

these evaluations offer various philosophies and ideas, in an effort to provide objective countermeasure

crash reduction results. This information is provided so the benefit or lack of benefit for this type of

project can be recognized and utilized for future projects. As the Safety Evaluation Group completes

additional reviews for these types of countermeasures, we will be able to provide objective and definite

information regarding actual crash reduction factors. These evaluations can be found on our website at:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety‐Evaluation.aspx.  
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP

Cost

TotalCost

Funding

Category

FunctionalClassification

AADT

Speed

RoadOwneip

I‐5314 Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

7.35Miles

700000 777778 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

R‐5749 Interchange design Convert

at‐grade intersection tointerchange

0.38Miles

450000 500000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

SF‐4903F Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

21067 23408 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

SF‐4905C Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.13

Miles

4500 5000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

SF‐4905C Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.13

Miles

58653 65170 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

SF‐4912H

Roadway Rumble strips ‐ unspecified or other

2.3Miles

1176 1307 HRRRP

(SAFETE

0 0 State

Highw
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

A‐LU) Agenc

SS‐PE Non‐infrastructure

Transportation safety

planning

300Numbers

322038 357820 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐4705 Intersection traffic control

Systemic improvements ‐ signal‐controlled

1Numbers

117182 130202 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐4710 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

137502 152780 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5000 Access management

Change in access ‐ close orrestrict existing access

1Numbers

119230 132478 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5008 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐

way left‐turn lane

0.2Miles

27000 30000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5107 Interchange design Convert

at‐grade intersection tointerchange

4Numbers

19805409

22006010

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5108 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

6.6Miles

22817 25352 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5110 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

46427 51586 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5114 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

18000 20000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5115 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐way left‐turn lane

0.54Miles

66260 73622 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5119 Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

4 Miles 495165 550183 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5132 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add right‐turn lane

1Numbers

23185 25761 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5142 Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5143 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

0.25Miles

14875 16528 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5147 Pedestrians and bicyclists

Crosswalk

2Numbers

62063 68959 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5201A Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

1Numbers

1795 1994 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5201B Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

1640 1822 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5201C Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ realignment to increasecross street offset

2Numbers

1800 2000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5201C Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ 

realignment to increase

cross street offset

2Numbers

97580 108422 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5202B Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

53691 59657 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5202E Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐

way left‐turn lane

6.6Miles

1949416

2166018

HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5202F Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

420 467 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5202H Intersection geometry 1 3291 3657 HSIP 0 0 State
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Auxiliary lanes ‐ modifyright‐turn lane offset

Numbers

(Section148)

HighwAgenc

W‐5203AA

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

27000 30000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203AB

Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

1Numbers

31500 35000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203C Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

450 500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203I Alignment Horizontal and

vertical alignment

0.53Miles

27563 30626 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203J Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

11700 13000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203K Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

1.98Miles

360000 400000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203M

Shoulder treatments Widenshoulder ‐ paved or other

6.2Miles

13487 14986 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5203N Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ modify left‐

turn lane offset

1Numbers

10106 11229 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203W

Access managementMedian crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

70200 78000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203X Access management

Median crossover ‐ 

directional crossover

1Numbers

12600 14000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5203Z Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

3.75Miles

670500 745000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5204B Alignment Horizontal and

vertical alignment

0.36Miles

126000 140000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5204G Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

4.3Miles

4808 5342 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205A Roadway Rumble strips ‐ 

edge or shoulder

8.9Miles

3111 3457 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205B Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

3527 3919 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5205C Roadway Roadway ‐ other 0.19

Miles

453 503 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205F Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

36194 40216 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205I Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

1Numbers

159300 177000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205J Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

14932 16591 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205K Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

27614 30682 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205L Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.35

Miles

156 173 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205M

Access managementChange in access ‐ close or

restrict existing access

0.09Miles

52925 58806 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205N Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

20225 22472 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5205Q Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

0.1Miles

3058 3398 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205R Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

4646 5162 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205S Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

4.3Miles

121500 135000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205T Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

9000 10000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205U Roadway Roadway

widening ‐ curve

0.19Miles

31500 35000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5205W

Roadside Removal ofroadside objects (trees,poles, etc.)

1Numbers

13500 15000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AB

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

292500 325000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AC

Intersection traffic controlIntersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

361301 401446 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5206AD

Roadway Superelevation /cross slope

1Numbers

6722 7469 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AE

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐way left‐turn lane

1Numbers

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AF

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add

auxiliary through lane

1Numbers

54000 60000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AG

Pedestrians and bicyclistsPedestrian bridge

1Numbers

2106000

2340000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AH

Access management Raised

island ‐ install new

1Numbers

108000 120000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AJ

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐way left‐turn lane

0.27Miles

1161000

1290000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AL

Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.5

Miles

40500 45000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206AN

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

36698 40776 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5206AO/R‐5752

Access managementMedian crossover ‐ directional crossover

0.76

Miles

450000 500000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206B Access management

Change in access ‐ close orrestrict existing access

1Numbers

100000 111111 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206B Access management

Median crossover ‐ 

directional crossover

1Numbers

200166 222407 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206G Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1Numbers

238756 265284 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206L Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1Numbers

22867 25408 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206M

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

4536 5040 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206O Roadway Superelevation /

cross slope

1Numbers

163 181 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206P Roadside Drainage

improvements

0.62Miles

5251 5834 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5206Q Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐

way left‐turn lane

0.65Miles

990000 110000

0

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206S Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 18.6

Miles

2351 2612 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206U Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

1Numbers

288000 320000 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206W

Pedestrians and bicyclistsPedestrian signal ‐ installnew at intersection

1Numbers

6921 7690 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206X Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

4612 5124 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5206Z Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

3Numbers

193171 214634 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5207D Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ 

realignment to align offset

cross streets

1Numbers

206338 229264 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5207E Intersection geometry 1 39659 44066 HSIP 0 0 State
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

Numbers

(Section148)

HighwAgenc

W‐5207G Alignment Vertical

alignment or elevationchange

1Numbers

517500 575000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5208I Lighting Intersection

lighting

1Numbers

2913 3237 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5208J Roadway Roadway

widening ‐ add lane(s)

along segment

0.19Miles

4627 5141 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5208L Roadside Barrier‐ metal 1.61

Miles

679950 755500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5209B Roadway Rumble strips ‐ 

edge or shoulder

43Miles

11345 12606 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5209E Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1 Miles 9799 10888 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5209G Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

1.99

Miles

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5210E Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

4385 4872 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5210F Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

7353 8170 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5210H Access management Raised

island ‐ install new

5Numbers

1026000

1140000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5210I Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ 

re‐assign existing lane use

1Numbers

135000 150000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5212F Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

990 1100 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5212H Roadway Roadway ‐ other 1 Miles 1248 1387 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5213E Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.47

Miles

1237 1374 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5214H Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

193500 215000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5214I Roadside Barrier‐ metal 0.04

Miles

480 533 HRRRP

(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5214L Shoulder treatments Pave

existing shoulders

3 Miles 810000 900000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5214O Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

0.9Miles

738000 820000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5300 Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing‐ general retiming

39Numbers

144171 160190 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5302 Roadside Barrier ‐ cable 2 Miles 117580 130644 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5304 Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ 

modify skew angle

1Numbers

877500 975000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5306 Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

477675 530750 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5307 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

0.2Miles

54282 60313 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5311 Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

31500 35000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5313 Roadside Barrier‐ metal 4.8

Miles

6871500

7635000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5315 Roadside Barrier‐ metal 4.8

Miles

18000 20000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5316 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

0.16Miles

827036 918929 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5319 Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ other

4Numbers

84223 93581 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5325 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1.1Miles

3150 3500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5329 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

0.6Miles

280689 311877 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5330 Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

1.5Miles

8578 9531 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5501 Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐waystop to roundabout

1Numbers

16914 18793 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5506 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐

way left‐turn lane

1.72

Miles

450000 500000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5508 Non‐infrastructure

Data/traffic records

20000Miles

450000 500000 Penalty

TransferSection164

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5509 Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

8 Miles 198025

1

2200279

HRRRP(SAFETEA‐LU)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5511 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

0.39Miles

522300 580333 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5511 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

0.39Miles

1273200

1414667

PenaltyTransferSection164

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5512 Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1Numbers

2835000

3150000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5513 Intersection traffic control 4 110340 122600 HSIP 0 0 State
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Modify control ‐ two‐way

stop to roundabout

Numbers

0 0 (Section

148)

HighwAgenc

W‐5514 Access management Raised

island ‐ install new

1Numbers

3847500

4275000

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5516 Alignment Horizontal and

vertical alignment

2.95

Miles

1000000

1111111

HSIP(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5519 Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

7 Miles 121500 135000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5522 Pedestrians and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians

and bicyclists

1Numbers

270000 300000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601A Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

0.26Miles

56250 62500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AA

Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

1Numbers

59400 66000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AB

Intersection traffic controlIntersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

2700 3000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5601AJ

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

3.1Miles

1600 1778 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AK

Intersection traffic controlIntersection traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

64800 72000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AL

Roadside Barrier‐ metal 1.76

Miles

28800 32000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AM

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

72000 80000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AN

Miscellaneous 2

Numbers

13500 15000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AO

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

19950 22167 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AP

Shoulder treatments Pave

existing shoulders

1Numbers

36000 40000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AQ

Pedestrians and bicyclistsInstall new crosswalk

1Numbers

40500 45000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5601AR

Roadway Superelevation /cross slope

1Numbers

22500 25000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AS

Roadway Roadwaywidening ‐ travel lanes

1Numbers

9000 10000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AT

Roadway Superelevation /cross slope

1Numbers

18000 20000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AU

Intersection traffic controlIntersection traffic control ‐ other

5Numbers

9000 10000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AV

Pedestrians and bicyclists

Pedestrian signal ‐ install

new at intersection

1Numbers

4500 5000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AW

Intersection traffic controlIntersection flashers ‐ add"when flashing" warningsign‐mounted

1Numbers

4500 5000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AX

Intersection traffic control

Intersection traffic control ‐ 

other

1Numbers

4500 5000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601AY

Roadside Barrier‐ metal 2.65

Miles

22500 25000 HSIP

(Section

0 0 State

Highw
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

148) Agenc

W‐5601AZ

Roadway Roadway

narrowing (road diet,

roadway reconfiguration)

1.1Miles

5400 6000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601B Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

2Numbers

90000 100000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601BA

Roadway Roadway

narrowing (road diet,

roadway reconfiguration)

0.38

Miles

7200 8000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601BB

Pedestrians and bicyclistsInstall new crosswalk

1Numbers

28800 32000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601BM

Roadway Superelevation /cross slope

1Numbers

1813500

2015000

HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601C Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

49500 55000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601D Shoulder treatments Widen

shoulder ‐ paved or other

6.1Miles

135000 150000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601E Intersection traffic control

Pavement markings ‐ 

1Numbe

13500 15000 HSIP

(Section

0 0 State

Highw
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

rs 148) Agenc

W‐5601F Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

22500 25000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601G Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

180000 200000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601H Railroad grade crossings

Protective devices

1Numbers

9900 11000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601I Intersection geometry

Intersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

1Numbers

13050 14500 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601J Pedestrians and bicyclists

Pedestrian signal ‐ install

new at intersection

4Numbers

86400 96000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601K Roadway Superelevation /

cross slope

1Numbers

40500 45000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601L Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

36000 40000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

W‐5601M

Roadway Roadwaywidening ‐ travel lanes

1.77Miles

767292 852547 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601N Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐way

stop to roundabout

1Numbers

36000 40000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601O Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

90000 100000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601P Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

100800 112000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601Q Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add right‐turn lane

2Numbers

90000 100000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601R Alignment Horizontal curve

realignment

1.37Miles

90000 100000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601S Intersection traffic control

Modify traffic signal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2Numbers

7200 8000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601T Intersection traffic control

Modify control ‐ two‐way

1Numbe

81000 90000 HSIP

(Section

0 0 State

Highw
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

stop to roundabout rs 148) Agenc

W‐5601U Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

45000 50000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601V Roadway Roadway

widening ‐ travel lanes

7.39Miles

261000 290000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601W

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ realignment to increasecross street offset

2Numbers

136800 152000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601X Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

49500 55000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601Y Roadway Pavement surface

‐ high friction surface

0.68Miles

9000 10000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5601Z Access management

Median crossover ‐ directional crossover

1Numbers

69300 77000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

W‐5602 Intersection geometry

Auxiliary lanes ‐ add two‐way left‐turn lane

3.4Miles

283500 315000 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Y‐4805F Railroad grade crossings

Railroad grade crossings ‐ 

other

1Numbers

700000 777778 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

Y‐4809K Railroad grade crossings

Railroad grade crossings ‐ other

1Numbers

70750 78611 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc

Y‐4813B Railroad grade crossings

Railroad grade crossings ‐ 

other

1Numbers

750000 833333 HSIP

(Section148)

0 0 State

HighwAgenc
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 1481 1414 1328.2 1291.6 1277.8

Number of serious injuries 2882.8 2622.4 2436 2304.4 2247.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.45 1.38 1.29 1.25 1.22

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

2.82 2.55 2.37 2.22 2.15

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

54
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

FunctionClassification

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

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

32.8 85 0.54 1.4

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

17 40.2 25.37 69.34

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

50.8 193.6 0.73 2.74

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

89.8 316 1.68 5.92

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

159.8 476 1.94 5.73

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

70.6 185.2 2.16 5.66

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

165 407.2 1.83 4.52

URBAN PRINCIPAL 60 188.2 0.38 1.2
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

27.4 82.8 0.5 1.52

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

150.2 528.6 1.14 4.04

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

126.6 484 1.04 3.96

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

61.4 227.6 1.09 4.03

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

8.4 31 2.67 6.86

URBAN LOCAL ROADOR STREET

47.2 153.2 0.37 1.2

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

UNKNOWN 242.4 918.4 0 0
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 1168.2 3790 0 0COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 35.4 146 0 0STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

UNKNOWN 26.2 94.4 0 0
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Some data may not be accurate due to shifts in Functional Classification.
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

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

The N.C. Department of Transportation is committed to measuring and improving performance. The

department's Organizational Performance Dashboard, which is featured on NCDOT's web page, serves

as an indicator of how well we are meeting our mission and goals. One major NCDOT goal is "Making

our transportation network safer". This is defined as the total number of statewide fatalities on NC

roads per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for the calendar year to date. The fatality rate gauge shown

on our Performance Dashboard is accompanied by a trend chart of the total number of fatalities,

crashes and injuries by year. The Performance Dashboard can be found at

https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/dashboard/  

Many staff members within NCDOT have a work performance metric for highway safety included in their

year‐end appraisal.  

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65.  

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per

capita)

1.43 1.388 1.294 1.22 1.232

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

1.352 1.214 1.18 1.154 1.142

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

2.778 2.598 2.472 2.372 2.372

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

For each year: Fatal rate = (Number of fatalities for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65) /

(Population Figure shown in "Section 148: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance")

The numbers are presented as the 5‐year rolling average.  
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

No
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?  

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other‐Decline in the Fatal Rates

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other‐Many NCDOT staff members have a performance metric for highway safety listed in

their year‐end appraisal.

Other: Other‐More systemic programs are being incorporated in the HSIP.

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

72

The use of safety edge is being accepted by highway operations staff as not simply a safety

enhancement but also a maintenance enhancement. Safety edge will be required on all contract

resurfacing that is let by the Central and Division offices. NCDOT has initiated a project to study the

impacts of wide edge markings on two‐lane rural roads. 60% of all highway fatalities in North Carolina

are a result of roadway departure crashes. The Traffic Safety Systems Section is working with all 14

highway divisions to systemically treat hundreds of identified curve locations with enhanced warning

signs.  
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP‐related SHSPEmphasis Areas

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Lane Departure 738.6 1198.8 0 0 0 Intersections 240.8 508.4 0 0 0 Pedestrians 175.4 173.8 0 0 0 Bicyclists 21.4 41 0 0 0 Older Drivers 283.2 365 0 0 0 Motorcyclists 154.4 348.2 0 0 0 Reducing impaired

driving

408.6 511 0 0 0 

Increasing seat beltuse

444 499.6 0 0 0 

Younger Drivers 152.4 341.4 0 0 0 Drowsy Drivers 27.6 85 0 0 0 Distracted Drivers 145 343 0 0 0 
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Excessive Speed 346.4 460.8 0 0 0 
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.HSIP Sub‐program Types

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Oth1
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year ‐ 2014

Systemicimprovement

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

Currently, no evaluations for systemic treatments are available. Theses types of treatments will be studied at a later date
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

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

which you would like to elaborate.  

The North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is an organized and systematic safety

process developed to identify, analyze, investigate and improve potentially hazardous locations with

concentrations and patterns of correctable crashes. The program is able to determine locations that

exceed minimum warranting criteria that are based on multiple factors that, in most cases, include

severity, frequency, and crash type. The program is presently structured into six distinct phases:

I. Development of warranting criteria  

II. Identification of of potentially hazardous locations meeting minimum warrant criteria  

III. Detailed crash analysis of program locations

IV. Engineering field investigation of program locations and evaluation of potential recommendations

(where appropriate)

V. Project development

VI. Implement countermeasures

VII.Evaluation of countermeasures implemented with HSIP funds

The warrants developed by the Traffic Safety Systems Section (TSSS) have consistently shown the ability 

to identify intersections, sections, and bicycle/pedestrian intersections with severe injuries and chronic 

crash patterns. The Regional Traffic Engineers utilize thorough investigations, traffic operations and 

safety expertise and proven tools such as signal warrant studies, sight distance measurements, Crash 

Reduction Factors and Benefit to Cost analysis to ensure that effective projects are developed. Projects 

are selected through a competitive Benefit to Cost based program. Evaluations completed by the Traffic 

Safety Systems Section have shown that the average project yields a 14 to one return. 
2015 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Location Functional

Class

ImprovementCategory

ImprovementType

Bef‐Fatal

Bef‐SeriousInjury

Bef‐All

Injuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐All

Injuries

AP

SeeInformationBelowIn an attempt to assess the safety of our roads, the Safety Evaluation Group of the Traffic Safety Systems Management Se

hundreds of projects. The methodologies used in NCDOT's evaluations offer various philosophies and ideas, in an effort to 

countermeasure crash reduction results. This information is gathered so the benefit or lack of benefit for this type of proj

and utilized for future projects. As the Safety Evaluation Group completes additional reviews for various types of counter

able to provide objective and definite information regarding actual crash reduction factors.

Completed project evaluations can be found at the link below:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety‐Evaluation.aspx
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

   
2015 North Carolina     Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.  

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.  

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.  

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

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

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