http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Safety Program

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

2016 National Summary Report
i 

Disclaimer/Quality Assurance

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the 

information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or 

regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high –quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement. 
ii 

Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-17-040

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

HSIP 2016 National Summary Report

 

5. Report Date

May 2017

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Sarah Smith

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

University of North Carolina

Highway Safety Research Center

730 ML King Jr Blvd, CB #3430

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-11-C-00050

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Summary Report

2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The HSIP 2016 National Summary Report compiles and summarizes aggregate information 

related to the States’ progress in implementing HSIP projects. Progress in implementing HSIP 

projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds available and the number and general 

listing of projects obligated during the 2016 reporting cycle. The HSIP 2016 National Summary 

Report is not intended to compare states; rather to illustrate how the states are collectively 

implementing the HSIP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads across the 

nation. The HSIP 2016 National Summary Report also presents a national benefit cost ratio for 

the HSIP. 

17. Key Words:

Highway Safety Improvement Program, reporting 

guidance, improvement category, Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan, emphasis area, national summary

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

32

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
iii 

Table of Contents

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

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3

HSIP Funding Approach................................................................................................................................. 3

Data-Driven Safety Decision Making ............................................................................................................ 5

State Safety Programs Administered Under HSIP..................................................................................... 5

Methodology Types for Selected Programs Administered Under HSIP.................................................... 6

HSIP Projects Overview................................................................................................................................. 7

Project Cost................................................................................................................................................... 8

Functional Class and Ownership................................................................................................................... 8

Improvement Categories and Subcategories.............................................................................................. 11

SHSP Emphasis Areas.................................................................................................................................. 17

2013-2016 Comparison............................................................................................................................... 18

Comparison to Previous Years.................................................................................................................... 20

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HSIP................................................................................................................ 20

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

References .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix A: Full Description of HSIP Improvement Categories and Sub Categories for 2013 HSIP 

Reporting Guidance .................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix B. Detailed Tables of Project Costs Summaries.......................................................................... 30

List of Tables

Table 1. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2013-2016 .............................................18

Table 2. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2013-2016 ..........19

Table 3: Total Number and Cost of Projects by Year.................................................................................. 20

Table 4. Weighted BC Ratio for Segment and Intersection Based Projects (weight based on total project 

cost)............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 5: Number and Cost of 2016 Projects by Improvement Category.................................................... 30

Table 6: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Geometry ...................................31

Table 7: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Traffic Control ............................31

Table 8: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Pedestrians and Bicyclists...............................31

Table 9: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadway ......................................................... 32

Table 10: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadside ....................................................... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1: FAST Act Annual Program Apportionments................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Number of State Safety Programs (top 9)...................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Number of State Safety Programs (bottom 9)............................................................................... 6
iv 

Figure 4: Count of PIM selected for programs administered under HSIP .................................................... 7

Figure 5: Number of Projects by Project Cost............................................................................................... 8

Figure 6. Number of Projects by Functional Class ........................................................................................ 9

Figure 7. Average Total Cost of Projects by Functional Class ....................................................................... 9

Figure 8. Number and Average Total Cost of Projects by Urban/Rural Designation..................................10

Figure 9. Number of Projects by Road Ownership...................................................................................... 10

Figure 10. Average Total Cost of Projects by Road Ownership .................................................................. 11

Figure 11. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Top 11) .......................................................... 12

Figure 12. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Bottom 11) .................................................... 12

Figure 13. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (top 11)..........................................13

Figure 14. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (bottom 11) ...................................14

Figure 15: Number of Intersection Geometry Projects by Subcategory..................................................... 14

Figure 16: Number of Traffic Control Projects by Subcategory .................................................................. 15

Figure 17: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Projects by Subcategory ................................................... 16

Figure 18: Number of Roadway Projects by Subcategory .......................................................................... 16

Figure 19: Number of Roadside Projects by Subcategory .......................................................................... 17

Figure 20: Number of Projects by SHSP Emphasis Area ............................................................................. 18
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 1 

Executive Summary

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

purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Under the 

Fixing America’s Transportation System (FAST) Act, Congress authorized up to $2.4 billion per year for 

States to achieve this goal through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The 

States not only met this challenge, but far exceeded it obligating nearly $4 billion for over 4,400 highway

safety improvement projects in 2016. 

These highway safety improvement projects come in all shapes and sizes. Some HSIP projects are much 

bigger in scope than others, while other projects include countermeasure installations across multiple 

sites. The 2016 HSIP National Summary Report provides an aggregate summary of the type and cost of 

projects across all States. Provided below are highlights of the States’ 2016 HSIP implementation efforts. 

• Most States have intersection (30 States) and roadway departure (29 States) programs. 

• States continue to use crash frequency and crash rate to identify projects in a majority of their 

safety programs. 

• A majority (roughly 63 percent) of HSIP projects cost less than $500,000 each, with 25 percent of 

all projects costing less than $100,000. 

• About 24 percent of HSIP projects would be considered high cost, coming in at over $1 million 

each. These projects often include widening shoulders, installing cable barrier, adding auxiliary 

lanes, or other miscellaneous intersection geometry and roadway projects. 

• Projects associated with a functional class were most often categorized as rural major collector 

or other urban principal arterial. 

• Projects on rural principal arterial freeways and expressways had the highest average total cost 

per project of $2.4 million, whereas projects on rural local roads or streets had the lowest 

average total cost per project of $475,000. 

• There are fewer urban projects than rural projects but the average total cost per project of the 

urban projects is greater than the average total cost per project of the rural projects.

• About 70 percent of highway safety improvement projects occur on roads owned by the State 

Highway Agency. 

• Projects on roads owned by City or Municipal Highway Agencies had the highest average total 

cost per project of $1.6 million, while State Highway Agencies had the third highest average 

total cost per project of approximately $1.2 million. Projects on roads owned by State Park, 

Forest, or Reservation Agency had the lowest average cost at just under $32,000. 

• A majority (67%) of highway safety improvement projects falls into the following categories: 

roadway, intersection traffic control, intersection geometry, roadside, and roadway signs and 

traffic control. 

• On average, States obligated 38 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic safety improvements. 

• Advanced technology and ITS, shoulder treatments, and alignment have the highest average 

cost per project; whereas parking, roadway signs and traffic control, and non-infrastructure 

projects have the lowest average cost per project.

• States use HSIP funds to address the predominant infrastructure-related crash types – roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian crashes. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 2 

While the spending patterns don’t change much form year to year, the number and cost of HSIP projects 

has continued to increase. There were 1,684 projects with a total cost of $1.61B in 2009 compared to 

4,468 projects with a total cost of $4.03B in 2016. Over the past eight years, States obligated $20.6 

billion for more than 24,000 highway safety improvement projects. Based on a sample of 2016 HSIP 

projects, FHWA estimates that the benefits of the HSIP outweigh the costs on a scale ranging from 4.4 to 

6.5. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 3 

Background

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

purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 

through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. The HSIP, similar to other 

Federal-aid highway programs, is a federally-funded, state administered program. The FHWA establishes 

the HSIP requirements via 23 CFR Part 924, and the States develop and administer a program to best 

meet their needs. 

The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that 

focuses on performance1

. To obligate HSIP funds, each State shall:

• Develop, implement, and update a State strategic highway safety plan; 

• Produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems; and

• Evaluate the SHSP on a regularly recurring basis. [23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)]

States are also required to submit a report that describes the progress being made to implement 

highway safety improvement projects and the effectiveness of those improvements. [23 U.S.C. 148(h)] 

States prepared the 2016 reports using the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance, dated February 13, 2013. 

The HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance outlines the content and schedule for the annual HSIP report. The 

HSIP report should include, at a minimum, a discussion of each State’s:

• Program Structure

• Progress in Implementing the HSIP projects

• Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

• Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation)

The HSIP 2016 National Summary Report compiles and summarizes aggregate information related to the 

States progress in implementing HSIP projects during the 2016 reporting cycle. Progress in implementing 

HSIP projects is described based on the amount of HSIP funds available and the number and general 

listing of projects obligated as documented in the 2016 HSIP reports. The HSIP 2016 National Summary 

Report is not intended to compare states; rather to illustrate how the states are collectively 

implementing the HSIP to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads across the nation. The 

HSIP 2016 National Summary Report also presents a national benefit cost ratio for the HSIP.

A summary of available funding and the number and general listing of projects from prior years is 

available in the HSIP National Summary Baseline Report: 2009 -2012, HSIP 2013 National Summary 

Report, HSIP 2014 National Summary Report, and HSIP 2015 National Summary Report. 

HSIP Funding Approach

The FAST Act authorizes a single amount for each year for all the apportioned highway programs 

combined. That amount is apportioned among the States, and then each State’s apportionment is 

divided among the individual apportioned programs.

 

1 FHWA, Fast Act HSIP Fact Sheet, February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 4 

The FAST Act (Section 1101) authorizes a total combined amount ($39.7 billion in FY 2016, $40.5 billion 

in FY 2017, $41.4 billion in FY 2018, $42.4 billion in FY 2019, and $43.4 billion in FY 2020) in contract 

authority to fund six formula programs (including certain set-asides within the programs described 

below): 

• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP);

• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG);

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP);

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ); 

• Metropolitan Planning; and

• The new National Highway Freight Program (NHFP)2. 

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of funds across programs under the FAST Act. 

Figure 1: FAST Act Annual Program Apportionments

HSIP receives 7% of the States apportionment remaining after allocations to NHFP, CMAQ and 

Metropolitan Planning, which amounts to approximately $2.5 billion each year. The following sums are 

set-aside from the State's HSIP apportionment: 

• Railway-highway crossings -- $230 million [23 U.S.C. 130(e)]; and

• 2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [23 U.S.C. 505(a)]

 

2 FHWA, Fast Act Apportionment Fact Sheet, February 2016. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/apportionmentfs.cfm 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 5 

In addition, if the High Risk Rural Roads Special rule applies to a State, then in the next fiscal year the 

State must obligate an amount at least equal to 200% of its FY 2009 HRRR set-aside for high risk rural 

roads. [23 U.S.C. 148(g)] Further, States that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 penalties may also 

receive additional funding for HSIP projects. 

HSIP funds, as defined for the remainder of this report, includes HSIP, HRRR and penalty transfer funds 

that are available to States for the advancement of highway safety improvement projects. 

Data-Driven Safety Decision Making

Beginning in 2016, the HSIP National Summary Report includes an evaluation of how states are using 

data-driven safety decision making to support their HSIP. This includes the States safety program 

administered under the HSIP and the methodologies states use to identify projects in each of these 

programs, as well as the amount of funds used for systemic improvements. On average, States obligated 

38 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements. The following sections and figures present 

information on State’s safety programs and problem identification methodologies. 

State Safety Programs Administered Under HSIP

States provide a brief overview of each program administered under the HSIP as part of their annual 

HSIP report. The HSIP Manual3 defines a program as a group of projects (not necessarily similar in type 

or location) implemented to achieve a common highway safety goal. For example, some States have one 

program that includes all projects resulting from the HSIP planning component. Other States have 

multiple "sub" programs. An example of a "sub" program may be a skid treatment program designed to 

reduce wet-weather-related crashes at different locations. Some States also refer to "sub" programs as 

initiatives. 

Figure 2 and Figure 3 present the number of State safety programs for the 2016 reporting period. Most 

states have “Intersection” (30 States) and “Roadway Departure” (29 States) programs. Twenty-nine 

states selected 49 programs in the “Other” category. Examples of programs in the “Other” category are: 

“pavement marking improvements”, “longitudinal rumble strips”, and “vulnerable road users”. 

 

3 FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, FHWA-SA-09-029, January 2010. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/ 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 6 

Figure 2: Number of State Safety Programs (top 9)

Figure 3: Number of State Safety Programs (bottom 9)

Methodology Types for Selected Programs Administered Under HSIP

For each State safety program administered under the HSIP, a State can also indicate what project 

identification methodology (PIM) was used for each program, consistent with the 13 PIMs or 

performance measures defined in the Highway Safety Manual4

. Figure 4 presents the number of times a 

particular PIM was selected by the States. Please note that a State can select more than one PIM for 

each safety program. “Crash frequency” was selected 228 times while “Excess expected crash frequency 

using methods of moments” was only selected 2 times. Examples of methodologies in the “Other” 

category are: “Collaboration with county engineers” and “Hierarchical Bayesian Model”.

 

4 Highway Safety Manual, 1st edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2010. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 7 

Figure 4: Count of PIM selected for programs administered under HSIP

HSIP Projects Overview

States provide project specific information for all projects obligated with HSIP funds during the reporting 

period in their annual HSIP reports. The reporting period is defined by the State and can be calendar 

year, state fiscal year or federal fiscal year. For 2016, the States obligated $4.03B for 4,468 total 

projects. On average, States obligated 38 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements. 

These obligations utilized funds apportioned during the 2016 fiscal year as well as HSIP funds available 

from previous years’ apportionments.

As per the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance, project specific information may include: 

• Improvement Category and Sub Category (see Appendix A for complete descriptions) 

• Project output (e.g., miles of rumble strips)

• Project cost (both HSIP cost and total cost)

• Funding category

• Functional classification

• AADT

• Posted speed limit 

• Roadway ownership

• Relationship to the State's strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) (i.e. emphasis area, strategy)

The following sections present various summaries of the nationwide HSIP project obligations for the 

2016 reporting cycle. It should be noted that limited analysis of the project information can be done 

because not all states have included all of the above information for each project in their annual HSIP 

reports. Full use of the HSIP online reporting tool and the most recent HSIP reporting guidance will 

enable more complete and accurate reporting of national HSIP project data. In addition, HSIP projects 

come in all shapes and sizes. For example, some HSIP projects may be much bigger in scope than others, 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 8 

countermeasure installations across multiple sites, or non-infrastructure projects (i.e. transportation 

safety planning, data improvements). Nonetheless, the summaries in the following sections provide a 

broad scale analysis of HSIP spending in 2016 by project cost, functional classification and ownership, 

improvement categories and subcategories, and SHSP emphasis areas. 

Project Cost

The cost per HSIP project in 2016 ranged widely. Some projects were small in scope and cost, such as 

replacing signs on a particular route. Others were higher cost projects, such as widening a highway or 

reconfiguring an intersection. Figure 5 shows the breakdown by project cost, grouped into general 

categories with breakpoints at $100,000, $500,000, and $1,000,000.

Figure 5: Number of Projects by Project Cost

Roughly 63 percent of the projects had costs less than $500K. A small percentage (13 percent) fell into 

the $500K - $1M category. The remaining 24 percent were high cost projects totaling $1M or more. The 

top five sub categories selected for these high cost projects are:

• Widen shoulder – paved or other (127 projects ranging from 1.2 to 25 miles treated)

• Roadway – other (57 projects)

• Barrier – metal (38 projects ranging from 0.7 to 150 miles treated)

• Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane (33 projects)

• Intersection geometry – other (33 projects)

In 2013, 2014, and 2015, the breakdowns were similar. About two-thirds of the projects had costs less 

than $500K, about 11 to 13 percent fell into the $500K - $1M category, and the remaining 20 percent 

were more than $1M.

Functional Class and Ownership

Figure 6 through Figure 10 illustrate the distribution of projects by the types of roads on which they 

were conducted. Figure 6 shows number of projects by functional class, following the HPMS 

classification scheme; Figure 7 shows average total cost of projects by functional class; Figure 8 shows 

the number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation; Figure 9 shows projects by 

the agency who owns the road; and Figure 10 shows average total cost of projects by the agency who 

owns the road. If the functional class or road ownership was not indicated, the project is counted under 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 9 

the “unknown” category. Examples of classifications in the “other” category include multiple functional 

classes, state or citywide implementation, or non-infrastructure projects. 

Figure 6. Number of Projects by Functional Class

Unlike 2014 and 2015, most projects were categorized as “Other” indicating that the State classified the 

project as multiple functional classes, state or citywide implementation, or non-infrastructure projects

(810 projects). As in 2015, projects that were associated with a functional class were most often 

categorized as “Rural Major Collector” or “Urban Principal Arterial – Other”. There were 698 projects 

categorized as “Unknown” indicating the State did not assign a functional classification to the project. 

Figure 7. Average Total Cost of Projects by Functional Class
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 10

Figure 7 shows the average total cost of projects by functional class. It is important to note that not 

every project had an associated cost so the average is based on the number of projects which had cost

information available (including de-obligated costs). Projects categorized as “Rural Principal Arterial – 

Freeways and Expressways” had the highest average total cost per project of $2.4 million (compared to 

$2.7M in 2015) and projects categorized as “Rural Local Road or Street” had the lowest average total 

cost per project of $475,000 (compared to $329,000 in 2015). 

Figure 8. Number and Average Total Cost of Projects by Urban/Rural Designation

Figure 8 illustrates the number and average total cost of projects by urban/rural designation. As in 2014

and 2015, there are fewer total urban projects than rural projects but the average total cost of the 

urban projects is greater than the average total cost of the rural projects.

Figure 9. Number of Projects by Road Ownership
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 11

As in 2014 and 2015, States implement most projects on roads owned by a “State Highway Agency”. 

There were 166 projects categorized as “Unknown” (indicating that the State did not indicate road 

ownership for a particular project). There were 279 projects categorized as “Other” and of those, 

roughly 70 were categorized in state-defined ownership categories. No projects were categorized for 

the following ownerships:

• Local Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency

• State Toll Authority

• Local Toll Authority

• Other Public Instrumentality

Figure 10. Average Total Cost of Projects by Road Ownership

Figure 10 shows the average total cost of projects by road ownership. It is important to note that not 

every project had an associated cost so the average is based on the number of projects which had cost 

information available (including deobligated costs). Projects categorized as “City or Municipal Highway 

Agency” had the highest average total cost per project of $1.6 million and projects categorized as “State 

Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency” had the lowest average total cost per project of $32,000. 

Improvement Categories and Subcategories

Under the HSIP MAP-21 reporting guidance, each project should be assigned a general improvement 

category and a subcategory under that general category. While a single project may consist of multiple 

project types, FHWA suggests States to assign each project to only one category. The category chosen 

should align with the primary purpose of the project. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the distribution of 

the number of projects by general improvement category. Figure 13 and Figure 14 combined show the 

distribution of the total cost of projects by general improvement category. Projects categorized as 

“Unknown” indicate that there was no general improvement category assigned by the State. Figure 15
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 12

through Figure 19 show the breakdown of the number of projects by subcategory for five improvement 

categories: Intersection geometry, Intersection traffic control, Pedestrians and bicyclists, Roadway, and 

Roadside. More detailed tables with the cost spent in each subcategory are available in Appendix B. For 

ease of reporting, similar subcategories were grouped together. For example, in Figure 15 below, 

“Auxiliary lanes – other” combines adding acceleration lanes, adding auxiliary through lanes, adding two 

way left turn lanes, and several other related subcategories.

Figure 11. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Top 11) 

Figure 11 shows the number of projects by improvement category (top 11) as classified in the HSIP MAP21 Reporting Guidance. Based on the project information reported by the States, the top five 

improvement categories are roadway, intersection traffic control, intersection geometry, roadside, and 

roadway signs and traffic control. In 2015, the top five improvement categories were the same with the 

exception of roadway signs and traffic control (shoulder treatments was the fifth most classified 

improvement category in 2015). The number of projects classified in each category and the ranking of 

project categories were similar, also, compared to 2015. 

Figure 12. Number of Projects by Improvement Category (Bottom 11) 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 13

Figure 12 shows the number of projects by improvement category (bottom 11) as classified in the HSIP

MAP-21 Reporting Guidance. In 2015, the number and ranking of projects classified in each category for 

the bottom 11 were similar with the exception of railroad grade crossings. In 2016, 50 projects were 

classified as railroad grade crossings compared to 18 projects in 2015.

Figure 13. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (top 11) 

Figure 13 shows the average total cost of projects by improvement category (top 11). Again, it is 

important to note that not every project had an associated cost so the average is based on the number 

of projects with cost available (including deobligated costs). Compared to 2015, the following categories 

had notable differences in average project costs. Note that the “Multiple” category indicates that a State 

selected more than one improvement category. For example, the project could include changes to 

intersection geometry, traffic control, pedestrian access, signs, or pavement markings). 

• Railroad grade crossings – moved from the top 11 in 2015 to the bottom 11 in 2016 (decreased 

from $1.7M in 2015 to $574K in 2016) 

• Parking – moved from the top 11 in 2015 to the bottom 11 in 2016 (decreased from $1.4M in 

2015 to $245K in 2016)

• Pedestrians and bicyclists – moved from the top 11 in 2015 to the bottom 11 in 2016 (decreased 

from $965K in 2015 to $866K in 2016)

• Multiple – moved from the bottom 11 in 2015 to the top 11 in 2016 (increased from $190K in 

2015 to $1.3M in 2016) 

• Speed management – moved from the bottom 11 in 2015 to the top 11 in 2016 (increased from 

$378K in 2015 to $1.4M in 2016)

• Roadway – moved from the bottom 11 in 2015 to the top 11 in 2016 (increased from $608K in 

2015 to $927K in 2016)

• Advanced technology and ITS – remained in the top 11 for 2016 but with much higher average 

cost (increased from $2.8M in 2015 to $7.0M in 2016) 

• Animal related – remained in the top 11 for 2016 but with much lower average cost (decreased 

from $7.5M in 2015 to $1.6M in 2016)
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 14

Figure 14. Average Total Cost of Projects by Improvement Category (bottom 11) 

Based on project information reported by the States, the lowest average HSIP cost projects are in the 

following categories: 

• Railroad grade crossings; 30 projects with cost information 

• Work Zone; 13 projects with cost information

• Non-infrastructure; 181 projects with cost information

• Roadway signs and traffic control; 239 projects with cost information

• Parking; 1 project with cost information

Figure 15: Number of Intersection Geometry Projects by Subcategory
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 15

The Intersection geometry category was selected for further evaluation because in 2016 (as in previous 

years) it ranked in the top five in terms of number of projects categorized and ranked in the top 11 in 

terms of average cost per project. FHWA has also identified intersections as one of three focus areas for 

the Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the Intersection geometry category, most projects are sub categorized as “Intersection geometrics – 

other/unknown” (45 percent; 204 of 458 projects), “Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane” (31 percent; 

141 of 458 projects), and “Auxiliary lanes – other” (11 percent; 49 of 458 projects). Examples of projects 

in the “Intersection geometrics – other/unknown” subcategory include modify intersection corner 

radius and general intersection safety improvement projects. The “Intersection geometrics – 

other/unknown” subcategory is predominately used without any project description, therefore, no 

other information is available for these projects. 

Figure 16: Number of Traffic Control Projects by Subcategory

The Intersection traffic control category was selected for further evaluation because in 2016 (as in 

previous years) it ranked in the top five in terms of number of projects categorized. FHWA has also 

identified intersections as one of three focus areas for the Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the Intersection traffic control category, most projects are subcategorized as “Modify traffic signal” 

(33 percent; 198 of 608 projects) and “Intersection traffic control – other/unknown” (31 percent; 190 of 

608 projects). Examples of projects in the “Intersection traffic control – other/unknown” category 

include projects described as signal and stop controlled systemic improvements and general intersection 

traffic control improvement projects. The “Intersection traffic control – other/unknown” subcategory is 

predominately used without any project description, therefore, no other information is available for 

these projects. Examples of projects in the “Modify traffic signal” category include 

modernization/replacement of traffic signal and adding flashing yellow arrow signals.
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 16

Figure 17: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Projects by Subcategory

The Pedestrian and bicycle category was selected for further evaluation because infrastructure 

improvements in this category are of significant interest to various stakeholders. FHWA has also 

identified pedestrians and bicyclists as one of three focus areas under the Focused Approach to Safety 

effort. 

For the Pedestrians and bicyclists category, most projects are subcategorized as “Miscellaneous 

pedestrian and bicyclist improvements” (39 percent; 71 of 180 projects) and “Install or modify 

pedestrian signal” (29 percent; 53 of 180 projects). Many of the projects in the “Miscellaneous 

pedestrian and bicyclist improvements” subcategory do not have any project description, therefore, no 

other information is available for these projects. 

Figure 18: Number of Roadway Projects by Subcategory
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 17

The Roadway category was selected for further evaluation because in 2016 (as in previous years) it 

ranked as the number one category in terms of number of projects categorized. FHWA has also 

identified roadway departure as one of three focus areas for the Focused Approach to Safety effort. 

For the Roadway category, most projects were subcategorized as “Roadway – other/unknown” (57

percent; 704 of 1244 projects) and “Rumble strips” (27 percent; 335 of 1244 projects). Examples of

projects in the “Roadway – other/unknown” subcategory were projects such as “restripe to revise 

separation between opposing lanes and/or shoulder widths”. 

Figure 19: Number of Roadside Projects by Subcategory

The Roadside category was selected for further evaluation because in 2016 (as in previous years) it 

ranked in the top five in terms of number of projects categorized and is of national interest lately. For 

the Roadside category, most projects were subcategorized as “Barrier” (64 percent; 282 of 444

projects), “Roadside – other/unknown” (16 percent; 73 of 444 projects), and “Barrier end treatments” 

(13 percent; 59 of 444 projects). Examples of two projects in the “Roadside – other/unknown” 

subcategory were “Barrier - removal” and “Fencing”. 

SHSP Emphasis Areas

Based on a review of State SHSPs, FHWA identified the eight SHSP emphasis areas common across most 

States. These emphasis areas are used in the HSIP online reporting tool for categorizing HSIP projects. 

Figure 20 presents the number of HSIP projects categorized by SHSP emphasis area. For consistency and 

national reporting purposes, state-defined SHSP emphasis areas were assigned to these emphasis areas, 

where possible. 

About 40 percent of the projects were categorized as “Roadway Departure” (33 percent in 2014 and 42 

percent in 2015), 29 percent were categorized as “Intersections” (27 percent in 2014 and 31 percent in 

2015), 13 percent categorized as “Unknown/Other” (26 percent in 2014 and 14 percent in 2015). 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 18

Examples of other categories used by the States include: “Highway infrastructure”, “Railroad”, and 

“Lighting”.

Figure 20: Number of Projects by SHSP Emphasis Area

2013-2016 Comparison

Most states prepared their 2013 through 2016 HSIP reports in accordance with the MAP-21 HSIP 

Reporting Guidance; therefore FHWA can make a direct comparison of information related to the 2013 

through 2016 highway safety improvement projects. As can be seen in Table 3 below, the total number 

of projects and cost of projects did not change much from 2013 to 2014 but between 2015 and 2016, 

there were roughly 1000 more projects reported. However, the breakdown in project costs for various 

breakpoints was similar across years. 

Table 1. Total number of projects and project cost breakdown, 2013-2016 

Year 2013 Percent

age

2014 Percent

age

2015 Percent

age

2016 Percent

age

Number of 

projects 3292 3348 4188 4468 

Num. of projects 

(with cost info.)* 3171 3272 3830 3726 

Cost of projects** $3.09B $3.10B $3.90B $4.03B

Average cost per 

project $981K $952K $1.02M $1.08M 

Number of 

projects <$100K 1154 35% 1011 30% 1374 33% 1106 25%

Number of 

projects $100K - 

$499K

985 30% 1054 31% 1131 27% 1246 28%
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 19

Year 2013 Percent

age

2014 Percent

age

2015 Percent

age

2016 Percent

age

Number of 

projects $500K-

$1M

401 12% 450 13% 445 11% 478 11%

Number of 

projects $1M+ 631 19% 757 23% 880 21% 896 20%

Number of 

projects with 

deobligated funds

60 2% 28 1% 146 3% 256 6%

Number of 

projects with $0 

or blank

61 2% 48 1% 212 5% 486 11%

*Number of projects with cost info does not include projects with deobligated funds or where the value 

entered was $0 or null.

**Cost of projects is the sum of total cost for each year (including deobligated funds).

Table 2 shows the comparison from 2013 through 2016 of the number of projects and average total cost 

(does not include deobligated funds or where the value entered was $0 or null) of projects for various 

project types highlighted in this report. For most project types, the number and cost of projects has 

increased over the four year period. 

Table 2. Number of projects and average total project cost for various project types, 2013-2016 

Project 

Type

Num 

Projects 

2013

Avg Cost 

2013

Num 

Projects 

2014

Avg Cost 

2014

Num 

Projects 

2015

Avg Cost 

2015

Num 

Projects 

2016

Avg Cost 

2016

Urban 

projects 826 $1.4M 954 $1.3M 1236 $1.2M 1277 $1.7M

Rural 

projects 1244 $930K 1361 $890K 1847 $1.1M 1683 $956K

Roadway 

projects 854 $639K 722 $955K 1195 $671K 1244 $1.1M

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

projects

420 $682K 505 $702K 615 $798K 608 $704K

Intersection 

geometry 

projects

376 $1.3M 379 $983K 559 $1.0M 458 $1.1M

Ped/bike 

projects 103 $534K 118 $507K 122 $965K 180 $866K

Roadside

projects 225 $951K 303 $810K 422 $893K 444 $1.2M
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 20

Comparison to Previous Years

The HSIP National Summary Baseline Report 2009-2012 reported project and cost information for HSIP 

reports submitted by the States for years 2009-2012. The information from the baseline report is 

summarized below with the purpose of comparing basic cost and project information to the 2013 

through 2015 reports. Table 3 below shows that States obligated $16.6B for more than 19,000 projects

over the seven-year period. These obligations include not only HSIP funds apportioned during the 

reporting period (2009-2015), but also HSIP funds available from previous years’ apportionments. 

Table 3: Total Number and Cost of Projects by Year

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Num 

Projects 1,684 2,386 2,523 2,429 3,292 3,348 4,188 4,468 24,318

Num 

Projects 

(with cost 

info.)*

1,568 2,320 2,397 2,311 3,171 3,272 3,830 3,726 22,595

Cost of 

projects $1.61B $1.46B $1.78B $1.65B $3.09B $3.10B $3.90B $4.03B $20.6B

Avg. Cost 

Per 

Project

$1.0M $629K $743K $722K $981K $952K $1.0M $1.1M $916K 

*Number of projects with cost info does not include projects with deobligated funds or where the value 

entered was $0 or null.

**Cost of projects is the sum of total cost for each year (including deobligated funds).

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the HSIP

FHWA also conducted a national evaluation of the HSIP to estimate expected program results using the 

project information from the 2016 HSIP reports. The purpose of the evaluation was to estimate a 

national benefit cost ratio for the HSIP. The HSIP national benefit cost ratio provides an indication of the 

programs national impact and the benefits the public can expect from investments in the HSIP. 

The evaluation methodology makes use of the full project listing information from 50 States plus the 

District of Columbia (2016 HSIP Database) and associated crash modification factors (CMFs) from the 

CMF Clearinghouse, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS), the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), FHWA, and various reports. The 

following steps indicate how to apply the selected methodology for projects in the 2016 HSIP Database 

with complete data:

1. Calculate the estimated crash reduction for each project group

a. Estimate a “before” crash rate using data from FARS, HPMS, and HSIS. 

b. Identify appropriate CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse. 

2. Calculate the monetary benefit for each project category by converting crash savings to dollar 

amounts. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 21

a. Update crash severity costs (K, KA, KABC, ABC, KABCO) to 2015 dollars using information 

from Council et al5 and an internal FHWA memo6

. 

3. Divide annual monetary benefit by the annualized project cost to calculate the benefit-cost 

ratio.

a. Assume a service life per treatment type using information from the Service Life and 

Crash Cost User Guide available on the CMF Clearinghouse. 

4. Calculate a program wide benefit-cost ratio by averaging the ratios from all project groups.

a. Weight the average based on HSIP funds spent for a project to account for project 

groups which were more prevalent in the data. 

For this reporting cycle, it was possible to calculate the expected project level benefit cost ratios for 

1,077 segment and intersection based projects, which is approximately 24 percent of the projects listed 

in the 2016 HSIP Database. Table 4 presents the weighted results (based on amount of HSIP funds that 

were spent for that project). Many projects had a range of years for the assumed service life, so the 

table presents the BC ratio according to the minimum and maximum service lives.

The values in Table 4 (4.355 to 6.511) represent the range of BC ratios for the HSIP program for segment 

and intersection based improvement projects, depending on the minimum or maximum service life of 

the treatment and discount rate. Comparatively, the range for the 2015 HSIP project listing was 4.523 to 

7.123.

Table 4. Weighted BC Ratio for Segment and Intersection Based Projects (weight based on total project cost)

Weighted BC 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 3% 

discount rate)

Weighted BC 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 3% 

discount rate)

Weighted BC 

Ratio (min 

Service Life, 7% 

discount rate)

Weighted BC 

Ratio (max 

Service Life, 7% 

discount rate)

1,042 Segment Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment project cost)

5.257 6.482 4.366 5.089

35 Intersection Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

intersection project cost)

9.601 11.021 7.381 8.181

1,077 Segment & 

Intersection Based HSIP 

Projects (weighted on 

segment & intersection 

project cost)

5.284 6.511 4.355 5.109

Many projects could not be included in analysis because they were either missing key data elements 

(e.g., number of miles or intersections treated, CMF, project cost, etc.) or were non-infrastructure 

 

5 Council, F., E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, and B. Persaud. “Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury 

Severity Within Selected Crash Geometries”, FHWA-HRT-05-051, FHWA Office of Safety R&D, October 2005. 6 Persaud, B. “How to convert value of a statistical life to cost per crash by severity, crash type and speed limit”, 

FHWA Draft Memo for DCMF Evaluations (unpublished), November 2014.
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 22

projects. The calculated benefit-cost ratio for each of the 1,077 projects relied heavily on assumptions 

for each project regarding the applicable CMF, service life, crash rate, and injury severity cost. 

Summary

The HSIP is a strategic program that uses data and analysis to target safety resources. This HSIP 2016 

National Summary Report shows that in 2016, States directed HSIP funds to address the predominant 

infrastructure -related crash types: roadway departure, intersection and pedestrian crashes, similar to 

previous years. On average, States obligated 38 percent of HSIP funds to address systemic 

improvements. While the basic characteristics (rural and urban, improvement categories, and SHSP 

emphasis areas) of HSIP spending remains fairly consistent from year to year, the number and cost of 

HSIP projects has continued to increase over the seven-year period from 1,684 projects with a total cost 

of $1.61B in 2009 to 4,468 projects with a total cost of $4.03B in 2016. Based on a sample of 2016 HSIP 

projects, FHWA estimates that the benefits of the HSIP outweigh the costs on a scale ranging from 4.4 to 

6.5. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 23

References

FHWA, MAP-21 Apportionment Fact Sheet

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/apportionment.cfm 

FHWA, HSIP Apportionment Notices

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/

FHWA, HSIP MAP-21 Fact Sheet

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/hsip.cfm 

FHWA, HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance, February 13, 2013

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehsipreport.cfm

FHWA, HSIP Online Reporting Tool

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/onrpttool/ 

FHWA, HSIP National Summary Baseline Report 2009-2012

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt_2009_2012.cfm 

FHWA, HSIP 2013 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/nsbrpt2013.cfm

FHWA, HSIP 2014 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2014/hsip_natl2014.pdf

FHWA, HSIP 2015 National Summary Report

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2015/hsip_natl2015.pdf

2016 State HSIP Reports

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 24

Appendix A: Full Description of HSIP Improvement Categories and Sub 

Categories for 2013 HSIP Reporting Guidance

Category Sub-category

Access management Access management - other

Change in access – close or restrict existing access

Change in access – miscellaneous/unspecified

Grassed median - extend existing

Median crossover - close crossover

Median crossover - directional crossover

Median crossover - relocate existing

Median crossover - unspecified

Raised island - install new

Raised island - modify existing

Raised island - remove existing

Raised island – unspecified

Advanced technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - other

Congestion detection / traffic monitoring system

Dynamic message signs

Over height vehicle detection

Alignment Alignment - other

Horizontal curve realignment

Horizontal and vertical alignment

Vertical alignment or elevation change

Animal-related Animal related

Interchange design Acceleration / deceleration / merge lane

Convert at-grade intersection to interchange

Extend existing lane on ramp

Improve intersection radius at ramp terminus

Installation of new lane on ramp

Interchange design - other

Ramp closure

Ramp metering

Intersection geometry Auxiliary lanes – add acceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – add auxiliary through lane

Auxiliary lanes – add left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – add right-turn lane (free-flow)

Auxiliary lanes – add slip lane

Auxiliary lanes – add two-way left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend acceleration/deceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend existing left-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – extend existing right-turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – miscellaneous/other/unspecified
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 25

Auxiliary lanes – modify acceleration lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify auxiliary through lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify free-flow turn lane

Auxiliary lanes – modify left-turn lane offset

Auxiliary lanes – modify right-turn lane offset

Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane storage

Auxiliary lanes – modify turn lane taper

Auxiliary lanes – modify two-way left-turn lane

Intersection geometrics – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection geometrics – modify intersection corner radius

Intersection geometrics – modify skew angle

Intersection geometrics – realignment to align offset cross streets

Intersection geometrics – realignment to increase cross street offset

Intersection geometrics – re-assign existing lane use

Intersection geometry - other

Splitter island – install on one or more approaches

Splitter island – remove from one or more approaches

Splitter island – unspecified

Through lanes – add additional through lane

Intersection traffic control Intersection flashers – add “when flashing” warning sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – add advance emergency vehicle warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add advance heavy vehicle warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add advance intersection warning signmounted

Intersection flashers – add miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection flashers – add overhead (actuated)

Intersection flashers – add overhead (continuous)

Intersection flashers – add stop sign-mounted

Intersection flashers – modify existing

Intersection flashers – remove existing

Intersection signing – add basic advance warning

Intersection signing – add enhanced advance warning (double-up 

and/or oversize)

Intersection signing – add enhanced regulatory sign (double-up 

and/or oversize)

Intersection signing – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersection signing – relocate existing regulatory sign

Intersection traffic control - other

Modify control – all-way stop to roundabout

Modify control – modifications to roundabout

Modify control – no control to roundabout

Modify control – no control to two-way stop

Modify control – remove right-turn yield
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 26

Modify control – reverse priority of stop condition

Modify control – traffic signal to roundabout

Modify control – two-way stop to all-way stop

Modify control – two-way stop to roundabout

Modify control – two-way yield to two-way stop

Pavement Markings – add advance signal ahead

Pavement markings – add advance stop ahead

Pavement markings – add dashed edge line along mainline

Pavement markings – add lane use symbols

Pavement markings – add stop line

Pavement markings – add yield line

Pavement markings – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Pavement markings – refresh existing pavement markings

Modify traffic signal – add additional signal heads

Modify traffic signal – add backplates

Modify traffic signal – add backplates with retroreflective borders

Modify traffic signal – add closed loop system

Modify traffic signal – add emergency vehicle preemption

Modify traffic signal – add flashing yellow arrow

Modify traffic signal – add long vehicle detection

Modify traffic signal – add railroad preemption

Modify traffic signal – add wireless system

Modify traffic signal – miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Modify traffic signal – modernization/replacement

Modify traffic signal – modify signal mounting (spanwire to mast 

arm)

Modify traffic signal – remove existing signal

Modify traffic signal – replace existing indications (incandescent-toLED and/or 8-to-12 inch dia.)

Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to 

protected/permissive)

Modify traffic signal timing – left-turn phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

Modify traffic signal timing – adjust clearance interval (yellow 

change and/or all-red)

Modify traffic signal timing – general retiming

Modify traffic signal timing – signal coordination

Systemic improvements – signal-controlled

Systemic improvements – stop-controlled

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting

Intersection lighting

Lighting - other

Site lighting – horizontal curve 

Site lighting – intersection

Site lighting – interchange
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 27

Site lighting – pedestrian crosswalk

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts

Enforcement

Data/traffic records

Non-infrastructure - other

Outreach

Road safety audits

Training and workforce development

Transportation safety planning

Parking Modify parking

Parking - other

Remove parking

Restrict parking

Truck parking facilities

Pedestrians and bicyclists Crosswalk

Install new "smart" crosswalk

Install new crosswalk

Install sidewalk

Medians and pedestrian refuge areas

Miscellaneous pedestrians and bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk

Pedestrian beacons

Pedestrian bridge

Pedestrian signal

Pedestrian signal - audible device

Pedestrian signal – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Pedestrian signal - install new at intersection

Pedestrian signal - install new at non-intersection location

Pedestrian signal - modify existing

Pedestrian signal - remove existing

Pedestrian warning signs - add/modify flashers

Pedestrian warning signs – overhead

Railroad grade crossings Grade separation

Model enforcement activity

Protective devices

Railroad grade crossing gates

Railroad grade crossing signing

Railroad grade crossings - other

Surface treatment

Upgrade railroad crossing signal

Widen crossing for additional lane

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash cushions, terminals)

Barrier transitions
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 28

Barrier - cable

Barrier - concrete

Barrier- metal

Barrier - other

Barrier - removal

Curb or curb and gutter

Drainage improvements

Fencing

Removal of roadside objects (trees, poles, etc.)

Roadside grading

Roadside - other

Roadway Install / remove / modify passing zone

Pavement surface – high friction surface

Pavement surface - miscellaneous

Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway reconfiguration)

Roadway - other

Roadway - restripe to revise separation between opposing lanes 

and/or shoulder widths 

Roadway widening - add lane(s) along segment

Roadway widening - curve 

Roadway widening - travel lanes

Rumble strips - center

Rumble strips – edge or shoulder

Rumble strips - transverse

Rumble strips – unspecified or other

Superelevation / cross slope

Roadway delineation Improve retroreflectivity

Longitudinal pavement markings - new

Longitudinal pavement markings - remarking

Delineators post-mounted or on barrier 

Raised pavement markers

Roadway delineation - other

Roadway signs and traffic 

control 

Curve-related warning signs and flashers

Sign sheeting – upgrade or replacement

Roadway signs and traffic control - other

Roadway signs (including post) – new or updated

Shoulder treatments Widen shoulder – paved or other

Pave existing shoulders

Shoulder grading

Shoulder treatments - other

Speed management Modify speed limit

Radar speed signs

Speed detection system / truck warning

Speed management - other
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 29

Traffic calming feature

Work Zone Work zone
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 30

Appendix B. Detailed Tables of Project Costs Summaries

Table 5: Number and Cost of 2016 Projects by Improvement Category

Average HSIP

Cost*

Access management 74 $24,735,205.53 $618,380.14 $19,149,121.56 $478,728.04

Advanced technology and ITS 23 $133,498,042.07 $7,026,212.74 $18,717,355.65 $985,123.98

Alignment 57 $109,742,958.24 $2,494,158.14 $83,516,678.05 $1,942,248.33

Animal-related 1 $1,605,406.00 $1,605,406.00 $1,605,406.00 $1,605,406.00

Interchange design 43 $45,468,192.30 $1,228,870.06 $35,188,717.47 $951,046.42

Intersection geometry 458 $407,951,361.13 $1,065,147.16 $264,228,117.69 $697,171.81

Intersection traffic control 608 $370,872,781.67 $690,638.33 $280,015,667.29 $529,330.18

Lighting 64 $50,795,526.81 $875,784.95 $45,617,428.72 $800,305.77

Miscellaneous 61 $61,648,392.67 $1,185,546.01 $38,550,526.49 $755,892.68

Multiple 15 $19,712,910.48 $1,314,194.03 $19,440,563.48 $1,296,037.57

Non-infrastructure 205 $83,818,845.37 $463,087.54 $72,048,428.46 $400,269.05

Parking 1 $244,896.00 $244,896.00 $244,896.00 $244,896.00

Pedestrians and bicyclists 180 $101,308,610.06 $865,885.56 $81,405,462.91 $707,873.59

Railroad grade crossings 50 $17,231,494.00 $574,383.13 $12,297,082.00 $409,902.73

Roadside 444 $459,773,354.90 $1,191,122.68 $393,629,816.45 $1,033,149.12

Roadway 1244 $1,106,988,026.56 $927,125.65 $497,480,541.80 $417,699.87

Roadway delineation 246 $261,570,735.14 $1,157,392.63 $103,763,309.83 $459,129.69

Roadway signs and traffic control 261 $70,422,979.73 $294,656.82 $66,095,010.82 $281,255.37

Shoulder treatments 220 $538,903,795.63 $2,554,046.42 $334,430,445.80 $1,584,978.42

Speed management 6 $5,639,289.00 $1,409,822.25 $443,000.00 $221,500.00

Work Zone 13 $6,669,955.78 $513,073.52 $6,584,195.78 $506,476.60

Unknown 194 $149,059,277.47 $768,346.79 $86,080,703.88 $623,773.22

Total 4468 $4,027,662,036.54 $1,011,467.11 $2,460,532,476.13 $631,877.88

Improvement Category Number of 

Projects

Total Cost of 

Projects*

Average Total

Cost*

Total HSIP Cost of 

Projects*

* Not all states provided cost data for all projects in a given improvement category. 
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 31

Table 6: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Geometry

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane 141 $123,639,661.11

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn lane 32 $25,433,446.39

Auxiliary lanes - other 49 $62,997,174.60

Intersection geometrics – modify skew angle 18 $20,869,394.10

Intersection geometrics – other/unknown 204 $161,588,327.42

Intersection geometrics – realignment to improve 

offset

14 $13,423,357.51

Total 458 $407,951,361.13

Table 7: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Intersection Traffic Control

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Intersection flashers and signing 84 $26,426,718.00

Intersection traffic control - other/unknown 190 $97,361,597.86

Modify control to roundabout 90 $87,550,632.90

Modify traffic signal 198 $139,339,091.16

Modify traffic signal timing or phasing 37 $15,946,733.00

Pavement markings 9 $4,248,008.75

Total 608 $370,872,781.67

Table 8: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

Subcategory Number of 

Projects

Total Cost 

Install or modify crosswalk 26 $3,192,251.00

Install or modify pedestrian signal 53 $32,579,159.94

Install sidewalk 30 $4,856,324.00

Miscellaneous pedestrian and bicyclist improvements 71 $60,680,875.12

Total 180 $101,308,610.06
HSIP 2016 National Summary Report 32

Table 9: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadway

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Pavement surface 100 $105,145,037.40

Roadway - other/unknown 704 $351,258,463.55

Roadway narrowing (road diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

23 $78,680,798.50

Roadway widening 59 $423,937,644.13

Rumble strips 335 $140,327,388.34

Superelevation / cross slope 23 $7,638,694.64

Total 1244 $1,106,988,026.56

Table 10: Number and Cost of Projects by Subcategory for Roadside

Subcategory Number of Projects Total Cost 

Barrier 282 $353,246,216.17

Barrier end treatments 59 $23,384,061.92

Curb and drainage improvements 1 $1,983,967.00

Removal of roadside objects 11 $2,785,050.00

Roadside grading 18 $2,969,227.00

Roadside – other/unknown 73 $75,404,832.81

Total 444 $459,773,354.90