Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: MD
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 .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 14

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 14

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 17

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 28

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 28

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 41

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................43

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 45

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 49

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 54

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 57

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 59
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2015

• HSIP is administered centrally

• Local roads are not allocated HSIP funds

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland 

Transportation Authority (MDTA) and the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical 

Services are important internal partners with the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. Several regional planning organizations also 

coordinate with the SHA as external partners.

• Programs administered under the HSIP

o Median Barrier

oHorizontal Curve

oSkid Hazard

oRoadway Departure

oLeft-turn crash

oIntersection Crash Data

oLow Cost Spot Improvements

oPedestrian Safety

oRural State Highway

oRight Angle Crash

oHighway Sections

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes ,traffic 

volume and highway mileage

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash 

frequency and relative severity index
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by an SHA selection committee. 

The criteria considered are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support

• The proportion of HSIP program Funds used in CY 2015 for funding systemic 

improvements is 88%

• The types of systemic improvements include

oCable median barriers

oRumble strips

oTraffic control device rehabilitation

oPavement installation and improvement 

• Engineering studies are used to identify potential countermeasures

• The HSIP funding for CY 2015

oProgrammed - $98,644,178

 Non-infrastructure portion - $11,000,220

oObligated - $112,330,808

 Non-infrastructure portion - $14,178,529

• Additional site specific information is expected to be available in future years for 

individual HSIP related projects

• The General listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, intersection 

geometry and non-infrastructure projects

• The Overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have 

decreased from 548 in 2011 to 486 in 2015 (rolling average format) and that the number 

of serious injuries have decreased from 4439 in 2011 to 3166 in 2015 (rolling average 

format)

• Older Driver (65+) Fatal and Severe Injury per capita rate is 0.49 for 2012 as 

compared to the 2014 rate of 0.42.

• The effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends.
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

• The significant programmatic change in the HSIP program is that efforts have 

progressed in response to the projected MAP-21 Safety Target Setting Methodologies. 

Work on the 2016-20 SHSP has been completed.

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety 

Program) areas along with the HSIP Sub-Program areas are shown in tables in the annual 

report

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

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

Local Roads are not given HSIP funds from the State

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The Traffic Development and Support Division (TDSD) along with the Maryland Highway Safety Office 

(MHSO) (Note: MHSO moved from SHA in 2012 and is now part of MVA) and other Office of Traffic and 

Safety (OOTS) divisions provided leadership, support, and coordination for Maryland's highway safety 

projects in CY 2015. Part of TDSD and MHSO’s responsibility is to work with other State agencies to 

address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi agency approach which includes the Motor 

Vehicle Administration, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency 

Medical Services and others that have roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices 

also provide a network of field personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local 

agencies. There is a continuing relationship between OOTS and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) along with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Other-External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic organizations 

were included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process

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

the last reporting period.

Other-Implementation of MAP 21 requirements in the 2016-SHSP and MDSHA Business Plan

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

would like to elaborate.

none at this time

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Median Barrier Intersection Horizontal Curve

Rural State Highways Skid Hazard Crash Data

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash Left Turn Crash Segments

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Intersection
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Saftey 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

Functional classification
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Opeartions 30

Support / Opportunity 10
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

No
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Highway mileage

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

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

88%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Other-Sidewalk Improvements

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Systemic Approach

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

would like to elaborate. 

none at this time

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

$11,000,221.00

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

$14,178,529.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

HSIP (Section 148) $17,275,574.77 18 % $18,980,596.43 17 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $1,596,037.00 2 % $1,674,831.00 1 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$3,704,581.00 4 % $4,902,310.00 4 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$925,121.00 1 % $1,020,000.00 1 %

Other Other HSIP 

(SAFETEA-LU)

$19,545,395.84 20 % $23,494,573.67 21 %

Other Other HSIP (Map 

21)

$55,597,468.21 56 % $62,258,496.70 55 %

Totals $98,644,177.82 100% $112,330,807.80 100%
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

period?

$3,704,584.00

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

overcome this in the future.

none at this time

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015.
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AADT Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

#000A6

29

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

Miles 242151.

4

276471 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

saftey 

improveme

nts

#000A6

50

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

Miles 117287 130319 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#06820

48

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles 943206.

48

943206.

48

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1605

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#25710

16

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

293392.

12

324834.

12

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1913

4

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A4

39

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Modify existing 

crosswalk

Numb

ers

996035 1216481 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000A7 Roadside Barrier - other Miles 404038. 404038. HSIP areawide State Highway Corridor 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

12 89 89 (Sectio

n 148)

Highwa

y 

Agency

Infrastruct

ure

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A8

13

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 491030.

67

491030.

67

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#09531

85

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Numb

ers

5137552 5204817 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1834

83

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#30250

14

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

663317.

46

726193.

12

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1988

2

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#50300

09

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

853793 948659 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1735

2

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

improveme

nts-high 

crash sites

#50300

10

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

6224129

.2

7483698

.2

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1735

2

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

Improveme

nts - high 

crash sites

#69563

47

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

Numb

ers

2505678

.55

2505678

.55

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1960

41

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A4

39

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

2915.83 5925.92 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000A7 Roadside Barrier - other Miles 43426.4 43426.4 HSIP areawide State Highway Corridor 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

12 5 5 (SAFET

EA-LU)

Highwa

y 

Agency

Infrastruct

ure

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A7

26

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

Numb

ers

1341900 1491000 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A7

31

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

Numb

ers

1588618

.84

1805219 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A8

13

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 605673 605673 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A9

32

Roadway Roadway -

other

Miles 3069318

.75

3578246

.75

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A9

34

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 761040 853481 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000A9

40

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miles 1762000 1762000 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B0

34

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

885358.

81

1575017

.8

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

#000B0

53

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

1767190 1963544 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#11110

28

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

Numb

ers

777835.

66

2395298

.75

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1014

4

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#11890

07

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

268056 297840 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1120

2

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

Improveme

nts - high 

crash sites

#11910

29

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

407105 508854.

87

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

6401

1

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#12710

53

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

1406015

.79

1406015

.79

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2041

1

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

improveme

nts - high 

crash sites

#27210

23

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

171454.

66

241454.

66

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2701

1

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#30250

14

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

189165 206151 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1988

2

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#50300

10

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

987310.

93

1072969

.43

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1735

2

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

improveme

nts - high 

crash sites
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

#000A9

32

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

Miles 1511024

.25

1511024

.25

HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B0

53

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

1999987 2171431 HSIP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#00033

69

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

684000 760000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Pedestrian 

and 

motorist 

education 

and 

enforceme

nt

#00033

70

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

180000 260000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Data SHSP 

Manageme

nt

#00034

26

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

250000 250000 HSIP 

(Map 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Data SHSP 

Manageme

nt

#00034

27

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

315000 350000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Pedestrian 

and 

motorist 

education 

and 

enforceme

nt

#00034

28

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

250000 250000 HSIP 

(MAP 

State 

Highwa

Pedestria

n Crashes

Pedestrian 

and 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

21) y 

Agency

motorist 

education 

and 

enforceme

nt

#00034

32

Non-infrastructure 

Enforcement

117000 130000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Pedestrian 

and 

motorist 

education 

and 

enforceme

nt

#00034

33

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

600000 1800000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B0

48

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

43718 48575 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B0

53

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

1864642

.67

2071824

.74

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B0

58

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

Miles 2011099 2025518 HSIP

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B0

59

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

Miles 2501831 2638446 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Agency nts

#000B0

87

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 139415 340081 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B0

94

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement 

markers

Miles 1541519 1712776 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B1

24

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

3156263 3494051 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B1

25

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

4099416 4540708 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B1

27

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

Miles 1045044 1161160 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B1

28

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 1780884 2003341 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B1

36

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

3117666 3117666 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

#000B1

47

Non-infrastructure Road 

safety audits Numb

ers

945000 1050000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

ID 

systemwid

e 

pedestrian 

safety 

issues

#000B1

54

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

2799996 3456785 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedsetria

n Crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#000B1

60

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 935386 1050501 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#06820

48

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles 858459.

22

858459.

22

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1605

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#07033

67

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles 1290724 1290724 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

6906

0

70 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#08110

70

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 2368038 2368038 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

7690

0

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#10410

21

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles 334466 334466 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2343

1

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#10660

09

Roadway Roadway -

other

Miles 537840.

59

593753.

97

HSIP 

(MAP 

Rural 

Minor 

6624 40 State 

Highwa

Highway 

Infrastuct

Corridor 

safety 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

21) Arterial y 

Agency

ure improveme

nts

#11890

09

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

2741379

.52

3015109

.43

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1120

2

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Safety 

Improvemn

ts - high 

crash sites

#12510

63

Roadway Roadway -

other Numb

ers

5169387

.26

5703455

.82

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3798

0

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#24310

16

Roadway Roadway -

other Numb

ers

1000000 2043838 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2435

5

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#30030

09

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles 1191685 1191685 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

5111

0

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#31210

11

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miles 1723.55 1723.55 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1024

1

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n Crashes

Develop

safe 

pedestrain 

travel 

approaches

#50300

10

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

358286 358286 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1735

2

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#69563

47

Interchange design 

Interchange design - Numb

70693.4

8

70693.4

8

HSIP 

(Map 

Urban 

Principal 

1960

41

55 State 

Highwa

Highway 

Infrastruct

Corridor 

safety 
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

other ers 21) Arterial -

Interstate

y 

Agency

ure improveme

nts

#000B0

34

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

123013.

07

136681.

2

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

n crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#07033

65

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 372002.

33

372002.

33

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

4811

3

70 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#23610

37

Roadside Barrier - other Miles 801595 801595 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4164

0

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#25710

16

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

Numb

ers

2626629

.52

2626629

.52

HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1913

4

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#000B0

48

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Numb

ers

1828028 2005548 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

areawide State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedstrian 

crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches

#24310

16

Roadway Roadway -

other Numb

ers

3926262 4343999 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2435

5

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

Corridor 

safety 

improveme

nts

#31210

11

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miles 1520376 1520376 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1024

1

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestrai

n crashes

Develop 

safe 

pedestrian 

travel 

approaches
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

#00034

24

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

54000 60000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastruct

ure

ID 

systemwid

e 

infrastructu

re crash 

reduction

#00034

25

Non-infrastructure Road 

safety audits Numb

ers

45000 50000 HSIP 

(MAP 

21)

State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestrai

n crashes

ID 

systemwid

e 

pedestrain 

safety 

issues
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 548 527 502 481 486

Number of serious injuries 4439 4030 3714 3456 3166

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.97 0.94 0.9 0.86 0.86

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 7.9 7.19 6.62 6.14 5.61

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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

Year - 2015

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

19.6 49.6 0.79 1.93

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

28.8 166 1.13 6.5

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

36.8 169 1.86 8.46

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

15.8 63 1.43 5.71

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

32.8 157.6 1.91 9.03

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

19.4 99.6 1.17 6.03

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

67.4 402.2 0.47 2.77

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

44.4 211.2 0.74 3.54
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

134.8 1023.6 1.24 9.49

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

64 468 0.97 7.12

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

29.8 242.6 0.78 6.35

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

21.6 229 0.7 7.51
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 337.8 1932.4

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 114.6 824.6

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

10 231.4

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0.8 9.6
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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

none at this time

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.056 0.074 0.09 0.084 0.078

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.248 0.328 0.394 0.366 0.344

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.306 0.404 0.486 0.45 0.422

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

2006 to 2014 Driver and Pedestrian Fatal 65 and older

Fatality

Year Drivers Peds Combined Pop Figure Rate

2006 63 13 76 N/A N/A

2007 40 11 51 N/A N/A

2008 51 13 64 679 0.09

2009 57 21 78 691 0.11

2010 42 16 58 710 0.08

2011 47 19 66 732 0.09

2012 39 19 58 763 0.08

2013 35 15 50 794 0.06

2014 45 19 64 822 0.08

Severe Injury

Year Drivers Peds Combined Pop Figure Rate

2006 312 29 341 N/A N/A

2007 287 43 330 N/A N/A

2008 259 43 302 679 0.44

2009 238 49 287 691 0.42

2010 230 42 272 710 0.38
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

2011 241 54 295 732 0.40

2012 214 40 254 763 0.33

2013 199 36 235 794 0.30

2014 221 37 258 822 0.31

2008 to 2012 Driver and Pedestrian Fatality and Severe Injury 65 and 

older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2008 366 679 0.54 1

2009 365 691 0.53 1

2010 330 710 0.46 1

2011 361 732 0.49 1

2012 312 763 0.41 1

2.43 5 0.5

2010 to 2014 Driver and Pedestrian Fatality and Severe Injury 65 and 

older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2010 330 710 0.46 1

2011 361 732 0.49 1

2012 312 763 0.41 1

2013 283 794 0.36 1

2014 322 822 0.39 1

2.12 5 0.4
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-The long term effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends over a 

period of years.

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Other-The change from a paper based crash reporting system to an electronic system was required by 

2015. The shift in focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries continued reflected in the amended goals of the 

Strategic Highway Safety Program (2011-15).

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

The 2016-20 SHSP is now complete and will go into effect in 2016.

Continued emphasis has been placed on fatality and severe injury crash goals as reflected in the 2016 

SHSP.

Police crash reporting is now required to be in electronic format.
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Distracted Driving All 232 2339.6 0.41 4.17

Impaired Driving All 171.2 531.6 0.3 0.95

Aggressive Driving All 50.6 351.4 0.09 0.63

Occupant Protection All 121.6 344.8 0.22 0.61

Highway 

Infrastructure

Intersection, CZ, 

ROR

328 2383.8 0.58 4.25

Pedestrian Crashes Vehicle/pedestrian 106 363.8 0.19 0.65
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Groups of similar project types
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2013

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Angle Crash Angle 60.8 675.4 0.11 1.2

Wet Surface 

Crashes

Wet road 81.6 652.2 0.15 1.16

Intersection Intersections 102.8 1322.2 0.18 2.36

Left Turn Crash Left-turn 26 340 0.05 0.6

Pedestrian 

Safety

Vehicle/pedestrian 106 363.8 0.19 0.65
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Systemic Treatments
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier 61 275.8 0.11 0.49
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

1. 2006 and 2007 population figures were unavailable for the Older Driver information.

2. 2014 and 2015 crash data was unavailable as of reporting time for certain categories. The data is 

expected to be available in 2016.

3. Under "Roadway Ownership" SHA and MDTA totals are combined under "State Highway Agency" 

category.

4. No overall crash totals (except for fatalities) are available for federally maintained highways in 

Maryland.
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

None
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system.

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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