Page 1 of 58

OHIO
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 21

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 21

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 24

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 30

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 30

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 43

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 45

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 47

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 48

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 52

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 53
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 58

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary

Traffic deaths and serious injuries across Ohio are rising as the statewide economy continues to improve. In 

2016, Ohio had 1,133 traffic deaths and 9,207 serious injuries, representing a 2% and 1.5% increase 

respectively compared to 2015. While deaths rose across all crash categories, last year Ohio saw significant 

increases in deaths involving Speed, Motorcycle riders, and Pedestrians. Work Zone related deaths remained 

high in 2016 when comparing 2014 and 2015.

Ohio’s safest year in history was 2013 when the state dropped below 1,000 traffic deaths for the first time since 

it began collecting records in 1935. However, traffic deaths rose 2% in 2014, 10% in 2015 and 2% in 2016. 

Although the top common factors in these crashes have long been roadway departure, speed, alcohol, seatbelts 

and young drivers, over the past three years the state has seen a rise in the number of deaths involving 

pedestrians, bicycles, older and distracted drivers.

To respond to these trends, Ohio’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee has moved from 

quarterly to bi-monthly meetings, and now communicates via email on a bi-weekly basis to share crash trend 

information and discuss strategies and investments. The committee includes members from 15 key safety 

organizations operating at the local, state and federal level including: Ohio County Engineers Association; Ohio 

Association of Regional Councils; Ohio Department of Public Safety; Federal Highway Administration; Ohio 

State Highway Patrol; Federal Motor Carrier Administration; and Ohio Department of Health. These 

organizations then feed the information to a network of hundreds of other stakeholders who are getting 

more actively involved in the SHSP. 

Below is a summary of the state’s enhanced and coordinated efforts to address the increase in crashes statewide.

Ohio Launches Action Teams to Address Emerging Crash Trends 

Active Transportation Team

In 2015, Ohio convened a statewide Active Transportation Team to examine pedestrian and bicycle safety 

issues. The committee included about 40 representatives from major bicycle advocacy groups, the Ohio 

departments of Health and Aging, and local transportation and planning agencies. The team recently completed 

a statewide Active Transportation Plan that identifies projects, initiatives and investments the state can make to 

prevent crashes and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Ohio Department of Transportation has pledged 

$2 million to get the plan off the ground.

Some of its projects include: investing in statewide data collection to quantify the amount of bicycle and 

pedestrian travel and better pinpoint where travel is occurring so the state can target investments; leading 

professional development rides so public officials, community and transportation planners, and engineers can 

get first-hand experience of what it’s like to bicycle on public roads; launching “Your Move Ohio,” a statewide 

campaign to educate the public on the rules of the road and encourage more Ohioans to walk, bike and bus 

safely. We are combining state and federal funds to move these initiatives forward.

Older Road User Action Team

The SHSP Steering Committee also convened an Older Road User Action Team in the fall of 2016, which is in 

the process of making recommendations. The draft plan identifies several critical strategies moving forward, 

including: reviewing national licensing standards and best practices; strengthening the assessment process to 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 58

evaluate a driver’s ability to drive safely; and increasing the knowledge of medical providers, law enforcement 

and licensing personnel on the recognition, assessment, and reporting of older at-risk drivers.

Distracted Driver Task Force

Ohio is planning to form an executive level Distracted Driving Task Force in the fall that will work with 

stakeholders to review data, develop strategies and recommend an implementation plan for Ohio.

Increased Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Freeway and Portable Message Signs

Since 2015, Ohio has been using its Freeway and Portable Message Signs to post safety messages and the 

number of traffic deaths on Ohio roads. The state leverages the message boards with a bi-weekly email to SHSP 

stakeholders that encourages organizations to use and share the same coordinated message.

ODOT posts messages every other week, and the messages are synced to the communication calendar published 

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Messages are selected, and sometimes developed, by a 

committee from ODOT, the Ohio Department of Public Safety, Federal Highway Administration and Ohio State 

Highway Patrol.

In September, Ohio will launch a website to support this effort, which will allow the public to develop and 

submit safety messages that support SHSP emphasis areas. The winners will be selected by the statewide 

committee and publicized to further incentivize the effort and spread information.

Regional TZD Network Meetings

In October 2016, Ohio launched a series of quarterly TZD (Toward Zero Death) Network Meetings in different 

regions of the state. These meetings are an opportunity to build relationships between various disciplines; 

network with partners; foster professional development by featuring nationally recognized speakers on a variety 

of traffic safety topics; and recognize outstanding work by traffic safety professionals and coalitions. About 120 

people attended the first event, which featured research on the dangers of distracted driving presented by Dr. 

Paul Atchley, a professor of psychology with the University of Kansas. 

At each meeting, the SHSP Steering Committee gives an award to recognize a team of outstanding traffic safety 

professionals who are collaborating on strategies to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries in their region of 

the state. 

A new round of TZD meetings are being planned for this fall featuring Elin Schold Davis of the American 

Occupational Therapy Association. She is a nationally recognized speaker on driving, senior mobility and longterm care.

Continuing Education for Ohio Road Users

This fall, Ohio will be requesting proposals to develop a web-based online education tool accessible from 

desktops, tablets and mobile devices. The purpose of the tool is to educate Ohio drivers, pedestrians, and 

bicycle and motorcycle riders about traffic safety and the laws associated with using public roads. Driver error 

is a factor in more than 90% of all traffic crashes nationwide. Yet driver education typically occurs one time -

when drivers or riders apply for their initial license. 

The application will include short videos and/or animations, and interactive questions that educate, then quiz, 

road users on their knowledge. It will also include methods to drive users to the website through social, print 

and video campaigns, as well as through partnerships with other organizations.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 58

Increased Local Government Engagement

In October 2016, Ohio held its first ever Transportation Safety Planning Peer Exchange with over 60 people 

from 12 ODOT District Offices and 23 Metropolitan and Rural Regional Planning Organizations. It was an 

opportunity to discuss current safety practices and identify opportunities to engage more local governments in 

conducting safety analysis, planning and implementing improvements.

As a result of the peer exchange, Ohio formed a working group in July tasked with developing a process to 

provide more safety analysis assistance to local governments. Many MPOs and RTPOs publish prioritize safety 

lists, however, too few local governments use this analysis to conduct reviews, make recommendations and 

apply for funding. This collaborative project seeks to close that gap.

ODOT Continues to Integrate the HSM into Project Development

ODOT is revising the project development, design exception and resurfacing accident analysis processes to 

incorporate HSM principles and practices. The goal is to encourage ODOT staff and local partners to consider 

safety improvements in all project planning from minor resurfacing to major new projects.

To advance this goal, ODOT has created Safety Integrated Project Maps (SIP) for each county. These maps 

identify Priority Safety Locations, where safety improvements should be considered when programming a 

project that overlaps one or more of these areas. (Note: The maps include all local and state roads except for 

low volume municipal roads.)

Locations are prioritized in red and blue. Red has a high priority and may qualify for Safety funding to make 

improvements. Blue has a lower priority, and districts are encouraged to explore low-cost safety improvements 

with their own forces and funds.

If a project qualifies for safety funds, an ODOT district office may request funding up to $500,000 by 

submitting an abbreviated safety application. These applications can be submitted and reviewed anytime 

throughout the year. Requests under $500,000 will be reviewed by ODOT Safety Staff to weigh the relative 

benefits of the safety improvement versus the cost. Requests in excess of $500,000 may be required to follow 

the bi-annual safety funding application process. This determination will be made by the Safety Program 

Manager on a case-by-case basis.

Abbreviated Safety Application Process

ODOT has expanded the use of its abbreviated safety application process beyond the SIP Maps to allow ODOT 

districts, MPOs, RTPOs and local governments to request HSIP funding throughout the year, instead of waiting 

for April 30 and September 30, which are the traditional application deadlines. A request must be deemed 

safety-related, non-complex and less than $500,000. If it meets the criteria, various members of ODOT’s safety 

application review team will review the request and make recommendations for funding. Projects are tracked 

via a database that has been developed internally. 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 58

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

ODOT has established the Highway Safety Improvement Program to create a process which emphasizes safety 

of the traveling public by analyzing the crash statistics on Ohio’s state and local highway system. The 

Department utilizes AASHTOWare Safety Analyst to identify intersections and highway sections with the 

potential for safety improvement. Each of the 12 District Safety Review Teams (DSRT) reviews these 

prioritized locations as part of a Safety Annual Work Plan (SAWP) and accepts the plan. In addition, the 

Districts perform safety studies to determine the causes of crashes at locations. The DSRT strives to identify 

crash patterns and recommend countermeasures to reduce the severity and long-term average frequency of 

crashes.

Safety projects are not limited to the state highway system. Proposed local projects on public roads are also 

evaluated and prioritized to improve safety as outlined in the application and selection process. These projects 

are reviewed and approved by the DSRT.

Upon recommendation from the District Safety Review Teams, eligible projects are submitted to ODOT Central 

Office for funding consideration, and evaluated and prioritized based on uniform and objective criteria. Projects 

which contribute most to improving safety and reducing the severity and long-term average frequency of 

crashes are considered for funding and further development. Twice a year, a listing of all newly approved safety 

projects is produced.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program historically receives approximately $100 million annually of 

combined Federal and State funding. The actual level of funding designated for the program is determined by 

the Funds Management Committee and the Director, and is contingent on available state and federal 

revenues. The funding is used to implement countermeasures at identified crash locations on Ohio’s roadways 

to ensure safety is the primary consideration in the design, development, and operation of this program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

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

Page 8 of 58

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Other-Direct Sub-Allocation to CEAO 

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

Direct Sub-Allocation to CEAO

Each year, ODOT provides $12 million dollars of HSIP funding to the County Engineer's Association of Ohio 

to select and fund safety projects.

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

Local governments can qualify for funding and technical assistance to address SHSP emphasis areas and 

prioritized safety locations through the HSIP programs administered by ODOT ($102M annually) and the 

County Engineers Association ($12M annually).

ODOT uses the SHSP as a basis for developing its HSIP. ODOT has one of the largest programs in the country, 

dedicating about $102 million annually for engineering improvements at high-crash and severe-crash locations 

across the state. We also dedicate a portion of the funding for low-cost, systematic and systemic safety 

improvements that prevent roadway departure and intersection crashes identified in the SHSP.

This funding can be used by ODOT District Offices or local governments to improve safety on any public 

roadway. While the majority of HSIP investments focus on engineering improvements, ODOT uses a portion of 

the state funding to supplement education (zerodeaths.ohio.gov) and enforcement programs that encourage 

safer driving (Federal HSIP funding is no longer available for education).

To qualify for funding, local governments identify and study high-crash or serious injury crash locations within 

their own jurisdiction. To determine the best countermeasures for these locations, local governments 

typically conduct an engineering analysis that includes a review of existing roadway conditions and crash 

reports. This analysis will help identify common crash patterns and determine the best strategies to reduce 

crashes.

Projects sponsors are encouraged to examine a full range of options from short-term, low-cost strategies, such 

as new signs, pavement markings and drainage improvements to mid-cost, mid-term strategies such as new 

traffic signals, turn lanes and realignments.

Local governments may pay for these improvements through their annual budget or they can seek money 

each spring (April 30) and fall (September 30) through ODOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program. A 

multi-discipline committee at ODOT headquarters reviews all applications and supporting safety studies. The 

committee can approve a proposal, select a different safety strategy or request further study before allocating 

money. ODOT spends approximately $90 million dollars in safety funds annually through this program.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 58

ODOT also provides an additional $12 million, separate from $102 million, annually to the County Engineers 

Association of Ohio (CEAO) to make safety improvements on county-maintained roads. This funding can be 

used to make spot and systemic improvements tied to the SHSP. Applications are accepted once a year and 

scored using criteria developed in conjunction with ODOT. 

The CEAO subdivides the $12 million in to several smaller funding categories. Each county is permitted to 

program eligible construction projects up to $5 million overall for spot safety improvements. In addition to 

spot safety improvements, CEAO provides up to $300,000 per county for each guardrail project, $150,000 per 

county for each pavement marking project, $75,000 per county for each raised pavement marker project, and 

$15,000 per county for curve signage upgrade projects. 

Increased Local Government Engagement

In October 2016, Ohio held its first ever Transportation Safety Planning Peer Exchange with over 60 people 

from 12 ODOT District Offices and 23 Metropolitan and Rural Regional Planning Organizations. It was an 

opportunity to discuss current safety practices and identify opportunities to engage more local governments 

in conducting safety analysis, planning and implementing improvements.

As a result of the peer exchange, Ohio formed a working group in July 2017 tasked with developing a process 

to provide more safety analysis assistance to local governments. Many MPOs and RTPOs publish prioritize 

safety lists, however, too few local governments use this analysis to conduct reviews, make recommendations 

and apply for funding. This collaborative project seeks to close that gap. The group has already begun to 

develop a process for helping local governments conduct more safety studies, RSAs and systemic safety 

analyses. It’s our hope that through these enhanced services, we can get more local governments focused on 

making safety improvements and applying for HSIP funds to assist in that effort when warranted.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ODOT’s Office of Program Management accepts applications - accompanied by safety studies - from ODOT 

District Offices and local governments twice a year. Applications must be submitted through the District 

Offices, which have a multi-disciplinary committee that reviews and approves them for Central Office 

consideration. Projects are then reviewed and selected for funding by the Safety Review Committee in Central 

Office, which includes expertise in safety, planning, geometric design, and traffic operations.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 58

Priority is given to any project that improves safety at a roadway location with high frequency, severity and 

rate of crashes. Projects are scored based on: 

• Expected Crash Frequency

• Ratio of Observed Fatal and Serious Injuries to Observed Total Crashes

• Relative Severity Index 

• Equivalent Property Damage Only Index

• Volume to Capacity Ratio

• Benefit-Cost Ratio (anticipated savings in crash costs, property damage, injuries and fatalities relative 

to the cost of the improvement plus cost of maintenance for the life of the project). 

• Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding Percentage

Funding awarded through the program is used to make traditional safety improvements at spot locations, such 

as intersections, and along sections or corridors throughout the state. Consideration is also given to lowervolume, lower-crash local roads with identified needs and cost-effective countermeasures.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

SHSP Steering Committee

Ohio’s SHSP Steering Committee represents the state’s largest coordination effort with external partners. The 

committee includes members from 15 key safety organizations operating at the local, state and federal level 

including: Ohio County Engineers Association; Local Transportation Assistance Program, Ohio Association of 

Regional Councils (MPOs and RTPOs); Ohio Department of Public Safety; Ohio State Highway Patrol; Federal 

Highway Administration; Ohio State Highway Patrol; Federal Motor Carrier Administration; and Ohio 

Department of Health. These organizations then feed the information to a network of hundreds of other 

stakeholders who are getting more actively involved in the SHSP and helping to guide ODOT’s HSIP efforts.

MPO/RTPO Pilot Project

Ohio is also piloting a program with the state’s MPOs and RTPOs to get more local governments involved in 

the HSIP. In October 2016, Ohio held its first ever Transportation Safety Planning Peer Exchange with over 60 

people from 12 ODOT District Offices and 23 Metropolitan and Rural Regional Planning Organizations. It was 

an opportunity to discuss current safety practices and identify opportunities to engage more local governments 

in conducting safety analysis, planning and implementing improvements. As a result of the peer exchange, Ohio 

formed a working group in July tasked with developing a process to provide more safety analysis assistance to 

local governments. Many MPOs and RTPOs publish prioritize safety lists, however, too few local governments 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 58

use this analysis to conduct reviews, make recommendations and apply for HSIP funding. This collaborative 

project seeks to close that gap.

Regional TZD Network Meetings

In October 2016, Ohio launched a series of quarterly TZD (Toward Zero Death) Network Meetings in different 

regions of the state. These meetings are an opportunity to build relationships between various disciplines; 

network with partners; foster professional development by featuring nationally recognized speakers on a variety 

of traffic safety topics; and recognize outstanding work by traffic safety professionals and coalitions. About 120 

people attended the first event, which featured research on the dangers of distracted driving presented by Dr. 

Paul Atchley, a professor of psychology with the University of Kansas.

At each meeting, the SHSP Steering Committee gives an award to recognize a team of outstanding traffic safety 

professionals who are collaborating on strategies to prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries in their region of 

the state.

A new round of TZD meetings are being planned for this fall featuring Elin Schold Davis of the American 

Occupational Therapy Association. She is a nationally recognized speaker on driving, senior mobility and longterm care. 

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

Ohio uses a focused approach to safety that targets resources based on the greatest need and greatest 

opportunity for improvements. We also promote the use of proven, cost-effective, systemic and systematic 

safety solutions that target critical, severe-crash types such roadway departure and intersections 

crashes. These focus areas are embodied in both the HSIP and the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

We advanced the HSIP through the balanced deployment and implementation of a host of traditional spot 

safety investments and a host of systemic and systematic safety investments.

ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and Safety Analyst Implementation

Each year, ODOT staff reviews the top safety locations in Ohio. Ohio is one of the first states in the country to 

fully implement Safety Analyst and use it to prioritize safety locations across Ohio. Safety Analyst uses stateof-the-art statistical methodologies to identify roadway locations and safety improvements with the highest 

potential for reducing crashes. The software systems flags spot locations and road segments that have higherthan-predicted crash frequencies. It also flags locations for review based on crash severity. This methodology 

is more efficient and cost effective and will allow the department to study fewer locations yet address more 

crashes each year. 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 58

ODOT has developed six priority lists based on rural and urban roadway types. . The urban system covers all 

streets, roads, and highways located within urban boundaries designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

Bureau defines two types of urban areas based on population. Small urban areas are urban places with a 

population or 5,000 or more and not located within any urbanized area. An urbanized area is an area with a 

population of 50,000 or more. As might be expected, the rural functional classification system covers all other 

streets, roads, and highways that are not located within the boundaries of small urban and urbanized 

areas. Approximately, $90 million is used to fund projects through this program.

The priority lists are: 

1. Rural Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a higherthan-predicted crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be studied.

2. Rural Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were selected because they have 

a higher-than-predicted crash frequency for this roadway type. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will be 

studied. Only crashes indicated on the crash report form (OH-1) as being non-intersection crashes were 

included in this analysis.

3. Rural Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a higher-thanpredicted crash frequency for this roadway type or interchange location. Approximately, the Top 50 locations 

will be studied.

4. Urban Intersection Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a higherthan-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for each intersection. Approximately, the Top 50 locations will 

be studied.

5. Urban Non-Freeway Peak Searching Excess Segment Locations: These locations were selected because they 

have a higher-than-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type. Approximately, the Top 50 

locations will be studied. Only crashes indicated on the OH-1 as being non-intersection crashes were included in 

this analysis.

6. Urban Freeway Peak Searching Excess Locations: These locations were selected because they have a higherthan-predicted fatal and injury crash frequency for this roadway type or interchange location. Approximately, 

the Top 50 locations will be studied.

Highway Safety Improvement Program Abbreviated Application

In 2016, ODOT began a process to implement low cost safety improvements faster. These requests are less 

than $500,000 that are either standalone projects or existing projects located on a priority location. This is 

part of an initiative to make safety improvements on all programmed projects. We anticipate spending 

approximately $5 million annually for these types of improvements.

Systemic and Systematic Safety Program

The Ohio Department of Transportation spends approximately $7 million annually of the $102 million program 

on systemic and systematic safety improvements. These are safety improvements that can be installed across 

hundreds of road miles for a relatively small public investment. Systematic safety improvements are low cost 

improvements that are complete at similar locations to address a specific type of crash pattern. Systemic 

safety improvements are those improvements that are constructed system-wide to reduce the likelihood of a 

crash of occurring based on roadway features, traffic volumes or other features such as speed limit or land use 

type.

Examples of systemic and systematic project types are Curve Signing Upgrade, Edge Line Rumble Stripes, Cable 

Barrier, Signal Upgrade, Intersection Signing Upgrade, Wider Pavement Markings, and Guardrail End 

Treatment Upgrade Projects.

Safe Routes to School Program
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 58

ODOT’s use $4 million from the Transportation Alternatives Program to fund Ohio’s Safe Routes to School 

Program. Again, this is separate and in addition to the $102 million ODOT HSIP program. Funds can be used 

on any public roadway as long as the school has completed a School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan 

outlines where investments should be made for a specific school district.

Other Programs

Small portions of ODOT’s state funding ($102 million) are used for work zone enforcement, OVI 

checkpoints, and other educational opportunities (Federal HSIP funding is no longer available for 

education or enforcement activities). Although money is not specifically set aside for the High Risk 

Rural Roads Program in Ohio at this time, we still encourage agencies to apply for funding through our 

traditional application process. Any projects that are prioritized based on the HRRR Program are 

funded through the ODOT’s HSIP Program ($102 million).

ODOT also combines HSIP funding with other funding sources (such as MPO and ORDC) to make safety 

improvements.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

HSIP Procedures Manual.pdf

Safety Study Guidelines.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Other-State HSIP Program

Other-CEAO HSIP Program

Other-State High Risk Rural Road

Other-State Abbreviated HSIP Application

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

Program: Other-State HSIP Program 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 58

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Other-Volume to Capacity Ratio

Other-(Total Fatal and Serious Inuries) / Total Crashes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

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

Program: Other-CEAO HSIP Program 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Rural County Highway System 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Other-Amount of Funding Requested

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Other-State High Risk Rural Road 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/1/2008 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fatal and All Injury Crashes 

Only Volume Functional classification 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Other-(Fatal and Serious Injuries) / Total Crashes

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

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

Yes

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

How are projects under this program 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Other-State Abbreviated HSIP 

Application 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

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

Page 18 of 58

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

None.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 7.5

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Wrong way driving treatments

Other-ODOT - Roadway Departure

Other-ODOT - Wet Pavement Locations

Other-ODOT - Intersection Signage

Other-CEAO - Upgrade / Install Guardrail
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

Other-CEAO - Upgrade Pavement Markings

Other-CEAO - Upgrade / Install RPMs

Other-CEAO - Upgrade / Install Curve Signage

Other-LTAP - Township Signage Program

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

Systematic improvements are implemented over 2 years. Approximately, seven (7) percent is spent each year.

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ODOT safety staff participate in bi monthly meetings with the Autonomous Vehicle, Connected Vehicle and 

Transportation Systems Management & Operations (AV/CV TSMO) Group. Additionally, the Ohio HSIP 

Program has been supportive in ITS technologies historically. Example projects include the following: Freeway 

queue warning system with driver messages, freeway camera monitoring equipment, and ramp wrong way 

driver alert systems.

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

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

All projects submitting for State HSIP funds are required to complete a Part C analysis included in the Highway 

Safety Manual (HSM). Additionally, Ohio uses AASHTOWare Safety Analyst (Safety Analyst) to prioritize 

the roadway network within the state. Safety Analyst faithfully implements Part B of the HSM.

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

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 58

No
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $73,575,490 $58,112,278 78.98%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $42,429,039 $42,429,039 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $32,087,956 $32,087,956 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$100,291,277 $32,789,065 32.69%

State and Local Funds $58,487,841 $25,902,043 44.29%

Totals $306,871,603 $191,320,381 62.35%

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

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

31%

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

31%

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

$6,708,590

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

$13,500

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

This non-infrastructure project involves collecting missing Location Based Response System (LBRS) data, 

verify/update current LBRS datasets and incorporate LBRS data into the official ODOT Road Inventory 

(RIMS). The goal of this project is to complete the collection of MIRE Fundamental data elements for segments 

on the local system.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

In FFY 2015, Ohio obligated 98.5% of its HSIP funds. For FFY 2016, Ohio has obligated approximately 

96.7%. ODOT's safety program is making great progress working with our SHSP partners to reduce fatal and 

serious injury crashes in Ohio.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

Ohio has had several instances over the past year where we had to use about $2.5M in state funds to support 

enforcement and education programs that are no longer eligible for HSIP funding. All the projects are tied to the 

state’s SHSP and emphasis areas that FHWA has encouraged us to address holistically using engaging 

engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency response (4 E's). Yet, we can’t use federal funds to 

supplement the associated costs.

The following are a list of projects and initiatives that are being supported with state funds instead of a mix of 

state and federal funds, which would be our preference.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

Active Transportation Plan

In 2015, Ohio convened a statewide Active Transportation Team to examine pedestrian and bicycle safety 

issues. The committee included about 40 representatives from major bicycle advocacy groups, the Ohio 

departments of Health and Aging, and local transportation and planning agencies. The team recently completed 

a statewide Active Transportation Plan that identifies projects, initiatives and investments the state can make to 

prevent crashes and improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. ODOT pledged $2 million - in state funds -- to get 

the plan off the ground. Some of its projects include: leading professional development rides so public officials, 

community and transportation planners, and engineers can get first-hand experience of what it’s like to bicycle 

on public roads; and launching “Your Move Ohio,” a statewide campaign to educate the public on the rules of 

the road and encourage more Ohioans to walk, bike and bus safely. 

Older Road User Action Team

The SHSP Steering Committee also convened an Older Road User Action Team in the fall of 2016, which is in 

the process of making recommendations. The draft plan identifies several critical strategies moving forward, 

including: reviewing national licensing standards and best practices; strengthening the assessment process to 

evaluate a driver’s ability to drive safely; and increasing the knowledge of medical providers, law enforcement 

and licensing personnel on the recognition, assessment, and reporting of older at-risk drivers. I suspect many of 

these tasks will require state funds.

Regional TZD Network Meetings

In October 2016, Ohio launched a series of quarterly TZD (Toward Zero Death) Network Meetings in different 

regions of the state. These meetings are an opportunity to build relationships between various disciplines; 

network with partners; foster professional development by featuring nationally recognized speakers on a variety 

of traffic safety topics; and recognize outstanding work by traffic safety professionals and coalitions. We are 

using state funds to pay for speakers, facilities, grants and awards, etc.

Continuing Education for Ohio Road Users

This fall, Ohio will be requesting proposals to develop a web-based online education tool accessible from 

desktops, tablets and mobile devices. The purpose of the tool is to educate Ohio drivers, pedestrians, and 

bicycle and motorcycle riders about traffic safety and the laws associated with using public roads. Driver error 

is a factor in more than 90% of all traffic crashes nationwide. Yet driver education typically occurs one time -

when drivers or riders apply for their initial license. The application will include short videos and/or animations, 

and interactive questions that educate, then quiz, road users on their knowledge. It will also include methods to 

drive users to the website through social, print and video campaigns, as well as through partnerships with other 

organizations.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 58

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

97202 - COL SR 

164 20.080

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

0.25 Miles $423931.95 $576047.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

1,632 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Realign 

intersections to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

93565 - LUC 

US20A 5.56 

Roundabt @ Eber

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $1239401.57 $1833797.98 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,032 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

92127 - LUC US 

20 0.00 Resurf

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane3 Approaches $675117.72 $4077628.4 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

10,039 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

91927 - LAW SR 

243 17.83

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.11 Miles $448576.46 $1103195.44 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

3,758 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Widening 

shoulder to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-3)

77563 - ATB US 

0020 13.78

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.5 Miles $3602822.29 $5542229.79 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,366 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number of headon, sideswipe 

meeting, rear end 

and turningrelated crashes (IB-2)

86661 - FRA US 

23 10.83 Part 1&2

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

2.28 Miles $1000000.01 $7600853.17 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

23,114 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Bicyclists Constructing a 

road diet to 

decrease travel

lanes and reduce 

rear end and 

sideswipe 

crashes (III-A-4)

79662 - FRA US 

33 26.120

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersections $446049.37 $1939264.63 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

59,482 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing an 

RCUT to reduce 

angle and rear 

end crashes (I-B1)

92458 - FAI SR 

256 00.00 Part 1 

& 2

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

8 Signal heads $1470257.24 $7779818.47 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

42,788 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

91530 - CUY IR 

090 14.08 Safety

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.61 Miles $4106771.6 $4648581.58 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

82,440 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes (I-B-1)

95244 - SHE SR 

47 13.74

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align offset 

cross streets

1 Intersections $1049576.95 $1147348.31 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,605 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Realign 

intersections to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-2)

97097 - TUS US 

250 5.16

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1151854.11 $1292306.86 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,314 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

87032 - D08 TSG 

FY2015

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

77 Signal heads $273633.16 $1818569.4 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

22,015 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

95628 - FRA 

Sawmill NB Lane 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.4 Miles $1297160.86 $1904200.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

59,756 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes (I-B-1)

87407 - DEL SR 

750 1.230

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.89 Miles $2492923.45 $7800031.1 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

12,234 51 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

road diet to 

decrease travel 

lanes and reduce 

rear end and 

sideswipe 

crashes (I-B-1)

84063 - ALL SR 

117/501-

10.76/4.34

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

1 Intersections $1372952.7 $1935162.51 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,879 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Realigning 

intersection to 

reduce skew 

angle and reduce 

the number of 

angle crashes (IB-1)

98818 - D06 

Regional Signals

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective borders

436 Signal heads $774425.61 $832544.77 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,430 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

97306 - D06 GR 

End Treat

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

133 Locations $427809.82 $630681.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

37,177 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail end 

treatments to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-3)
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

94668 - WAY SR 

0083 15.86

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $2593700.49 $2898660.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7,260 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

98592 - VIN US 

50 17.440

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $492167.13 $591807.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,859 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

86923 - SUM 31st 

Street (CR17)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.6 Miles $1158968.17 $3498443.78 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

14,554 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number of headon, sideswipe 

meeting, rear end 

and turningrelated crashes (IB-2)

97033 - WAS SR 

32 9.41

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $931219.31 $1888490.15 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,827 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

81656 - SUM SR 

0082 04.65

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.69 Miles $779053.48 $5616229.59 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor

Arterial

13,324 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes (I-B-1)

76462 - PIC US 

23 0.00 Part 1 & 2

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.6 Miles $540000 $4770612.94 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,073 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Installing 

guardrail to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-3)

82796 - CUY 

LAKEWOOD 

SIGNALS Ph 4

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

18 Intersections $74866.67 $1963426.74 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,754 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

93601 - LAK US 

020 25.52 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $1253528.1 $1601829.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,354 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

100702 - SUM 

77/21 

22.20/4.88/VAR

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersections $172130.2 $1045325.58 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

54,176 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing an 

RCUT to reduce 

angle and rear 

end crashes (I-B1)
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

88008 - CLA CR 

316 1.71 Lower 

Valley Pk

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.4 Miles $3791121.05 $7798237.07 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,276 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Widening 

shoulder to 

address issue of 

roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-3)

97656 - FRAPedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal -

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

4 Signal heads $385392.2 $385392.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

29,411 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation of 

pedestrian signal 

equipment (III-B4)

96355 - WOO SR 

199 27.97 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $1458468.22 $1912837.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,482 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

roundabout to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

99087 - BEL SR 7 

18.070

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Approaches $1061920.43 $1304745.26 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

28,045 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

96394 - TRU 

Howland 

Township SRTS

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

3 Intersections $50000 $410561.38 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,060 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

90771 - MOT SR 

741 5.80

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.4 Miles $763436.69 $1797859.34 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

19,509 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Installation of 

sidewalks (III-B-2)

98733 - STWUSBR 50-SIGNPedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

360 Signs $80547.37 $80547.37 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

1,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists Installation of 

bicycle signage 

(III-A-2)

94724 - LUC SR 2 

10.67/11.71 

Intersecton

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Intersections $3226223.54 $3585848.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

28,948 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

84556 - ERI US 

0250 01.14

Access 

management

Change in access - close 

or restrict existing access

4 Approaches $4663210.35 $6269673.65 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

19,418 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce the 

number of conflict 

points with 

driveways to 

reduce driveway 

related crashes (IB-2)

78278 - POR SR 

0014 12.55

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to increase 

cross street offset

1 Intersections $1128636 $7957934.02 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,718 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Realign 

intersections to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

92556 - HAM US 

127 10.07

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $373874.55 $421916.72 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,518 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

92552 - BUT SR 4 

3.00

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $2217221.97 $2217221.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

44,990 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

92647 - ERI SR 

0004 08.60

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $1501402.5 $1879927.37 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,494 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

98304 - HOL US 

62 18.640

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

1 Intersections $203321.14 $275880.38 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,830 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Realigning 

intersection to 

reduce skew 

angle and reduce 

the number of 

angle crashes (IB-1)

76439 - STA SR 

0800 07.05

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.1 Miles $5631764.88 $8307991.49 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,844 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing a 

Two Way Left 

Turn Lane to 

reduce the 

number of headon, sideswipe 

meeting, rear end 

and turningrelated crashes (IB-2)

100244 - D08 Wet 

Crash Locations

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

3 Locations $595844.29 $705948.21 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,350 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-2)

86292 - FRA SR 

710 3.760

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $337500 $9663448.07 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,468 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

103677 - MUS 

PM 2016

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

0.43 Miles $44311.8 $44311.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

2,503 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Adding pavement 

markings to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-2)

92555 - HAM US 

27 14.15

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.46 Miles $2667860 $3136405.04 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

32,716 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing 

through traveled 

lanes to reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes (I-B-1)

96344 - LUC SR 

25 7.01 

Reconstr/Sfty

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane4 Approaches $3556059.8 $8195060 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

26,564 50 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

97128 - LOR SR 

0018 06.41 

(Signal)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $180000 $292005.34 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,453 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

100664 - LIC US 

62 14.72

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane2 Approaches $756731.7 $991714.12 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,534 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Constructing turn 

lanes to reduce 

rear end and left 

turn crashes (I-B2)

89478 - LIC CR 

804 00.90 (30th & 

Church)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $182500 $959166.75 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

15,305 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improving signal 

operation and 

visibility to reduce 

intersection 

related crashes (IB-2)

79366 - DEL US 

23 8.770

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to increase 

cross street offset

1 Intersections $2591621.82 $3392834.94 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

31,845 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Realign 

intersections to 

reduce angle and 

rear end crashes 

(I-B-1)

22198 - CUY IR 

090 00.00

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

3 Ramps $87300 $2126893.71 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

76,612 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install pavement 

treatments to 

reduce roadway 

departure crashes 

(I-A-2)

88739 - ASD US 

0042 07.75

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersections $1560002.22 $9723861.66 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major 

Collector

9,725 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Replacement of 

grade separated 

interchange with 

signalized 

intersection to 

reduce 

congestion and 

queue related 

crashes (I-B-1)

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

See Emphasis Area Strategies.pdf file for references to relevant Ohio SHSP strategies.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 1,191 1,022 1,080 1,017 1,122 990 1,008 1,110 1,133

Serious Injuries 10,113 9,774 10,186 9,662 9,780 9,231 8,785 9,079 9,207

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.100 0.920 0.950 0.910 1.010 0.880 0.890 0.980 1.000

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.310 8.820 8.970 8.650 8.770 8.190 7.790 7.990 8.100

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

116 101 106 116 135 108 106 143 158

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

742 676 704 697 773 751 682 700 726
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

10500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 32 of 58

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 33 of 58

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

The Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) and ODOT work to ensure the state motor vehicle crash 

database matches what is reported to FARS.

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

27.2 179.8 0.32 2.16

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

6 42.2 0.32 2.26

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

56.4 339.6 1.28 7.68

700

750

800

850

900

950

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 34 of 58

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Arterial 76.2 487.2 1.78 11.53

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector 177.6 1,102.8 2.27 13.99

Rural Minor Collector 46.2 275 2.75 16.4

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street 102.2 666.2 1.8 11.73

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

80.6 725.2 0.34 3.05

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

24.2 204.2 0.39 3.24

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

143 1,640.2 1.08 12.23

Urban Minor Arterial 139 1,581.6 1 11.32

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 100.8 931.6 0.99 9.17

Urban Minor Collector 3.6 44.8 0.77 9.57

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street 30.4 313.2 0.24 2.39
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 58

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 394.2 2,636.2 0 0

County Highway Agency 126 870.6 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

50.2 317.6 0 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

489.8 5,299.8 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 8.8 59.8 0 0

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Unknown 3.8 32.4 0 0
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 58

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 58

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 58

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 58

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 58

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 58

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

Note: In 2013, the functional class system was updated to new codes (1-7) from the legacy codes (1-19). 

Additionally, the functional class designation was updated based on the 2010 census. Prior to 2013, rural functional 

class codes 2 (other freeways or expressways) and 3 (other principal arterial roads) were combined as one. 

Additionally, urban functional class codes 5 (major collector roads) and 6 (minor collector roads) were 

combined. Traffic volumes were not regenerated for the older years. This makes it difficult to calculate a 5 year 

rolling average crash rates with data prior to 2013. Crashes were located to the new network, and therefore, can be 

compared.

The Functional Class conversion should have little to no impacted on the Special Rule for High Risk Rural Roads. 

However, when looking at the Special Rule for High Risk Rural Road, crash rates were impacted as well due to 

changing of the urban and rural boundary limits.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Toll

Authority

Unknown

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 58

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1051.0 

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

See additional comments. 

Number of Serious Injuries 9033.0 

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

See additional comments. 

Fatality Rate 0.910 

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

See additional comments. 

Serious Injury Rate 9.010 

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

See additional comments. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 840.0 

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

See additional comments. 

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

To establish new statewide targets, Ohio examined crash trends from 2006 to 2016. During this time period, 

annual crash reductions had slowed to between 1.3% and 2.3%. Trends for non-motorists fatalities and serious 

injuries increased by 0.3%.

As a result, the five-year rolling average for most of the state’s targets will likely grow over the next few years 

as rising crashes in 2014, 2015, and 2016 are added to the five-year rolling average and as earlier years with 

fewer crashes drop out of the calculation.

In setting new targets, Ohio also considered external factors such as the economy, travel forecasts, and the 

potential for crash reductions based on legislation and statewide safety investments.

Over the past two years, vehicle miles traveled in the state has increased by about 3% annually, which has 

resulted in more crashes. This growth in travel has been triggered by relatively stable, low gas prices and an 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 58

improved statewide economy. 

After reviewing historical crash trends, external factors, and through consultation with Ohio’s Metropolitan and 

Rural Planning Organizations, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Steering Committee has recommended that 

Ohio adopt a 1 percent annual reduction target across all five categories.

Ohio is reducing its statewide annual goal to 1% based on a body of evidence that suggests Ohio’s previous 

goal of 2% is not attainable.

While ODOT and its partners agree that “Zero Deaths” is the only acceptable goal, states must recognize that 

reaching that goal will require time and significant effort by many different partners - including the public. 

Setting data-driven performance targets will help decision makers allocate their resources in ways that help 

Ohio achieve its interim targets, which is the only sustainable path to Ohio’s Zero Deaths goal.

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

targets. 

Ohio held several meetings with MPOs, RTPOs and the SHSP Steering Committee to establish state 

performance targets. These meetings began in the fall of 2016 and culminated into a formal workshop 

facilitated by FHWA in February 2017. This workshop was helpful in establishing a framework for considering 

various targets, collecting and responding to comments, then adopting targets by the first deadline of July 1, 

2017.

The Ohio Traffic Safety Office, which is the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative for Ohio, also 

participated in these meetings and workshops. Ohio held an additional two meetings between the two agencies 

- ODOT and the Ohio Department of Public Safety - to consider stakeholder feedback and determine final goals 

and targets to be included in the HSIP and NHTSA Highway Safety Program (HSP) Report.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

133 145 147 168 128 159 181

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

710 755 726 741 763 796 790

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

Example calculation for 2015: 

[(F+SI 2015 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2015 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2014 Drivers 

and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2014 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2013 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2013 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2012 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older/2012 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2011 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and over/2011 Population 

Figure)]/5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 58

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

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

level evaluations.

Ohio routinely evaluates crash trends, quarterly and annually, to determine the effectiveness of its Highway 

Safety Improvement Program. In 2016, Ohio had 1,133 traffic deaths and 9,207 serious injuries, representing a 

2% and 1.5% increase respectively compared to 2015. While deaths rose across all crash categories, Ohio saw 

significant increases in deaths involving Speed, Motorcycle riders, and Pedestrians. Work Zone related deaths 

remained high in 2016 when comparing 2014 and 2015.

Despite these numbers, Ohio has made significant improvements in highway safety over the past several years. 

Since 2007, Ohio fatalities have decreased 10%; serious injuries decreased 12%; all injuries decreased 3.5%; 

and all crashes decreased 7%.

The safety benefits are calculated by using the total number of crashes by year and severity in order to 

determine a 5-year average. Crash cost where calculated for 2016 based on the Highway Safety Manual 

methodologies. For each year, the crash severity was multiplied by its associated cost and then summed for all 

severity levels. A five-year rolling average was calculated for 2015 (2011-2015) and 2016 (2012-2016). The 

difference between these two values equates to the safety benefits between the two years and is equal to an 

increase of $172 million. ODOT receives a total of $82 million in Federal HSIP dollars annually on safety 

projects. Since the cost of crashes in Ohio increased, the benefits are zero. This makes the benefit-cost ratio 

equal 0.0.

We also track our statewide progress in implementing systematic safety treatments that target serious crash 

types and roadway features that can potentially increase the likelihood of crashes. This program element has 

been successful in reducing crashes based on the naïve before-and-after results for the different systematic 

treatments. In addition, we have increased our efforts to complete systematic projects on locally maintained 

roads by working with MPOs, County Engineers and LTAP to provide technical assistance and funding for 

local road safety improvements.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 58

Increased focus on local road safety

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

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Roadway 

Departure

604 3,762 0.54 3.34

Intersections Intersections 284 3,760 0.26 3.33

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 113 556 0.1 0.5

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 19 196 0.02 0.18

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 

Involved

160 994 0.15 0.88

Work Zones Work Zone 

Related

23 157 0.03 0.14
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 58

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 58

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

No

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

In May of 2017, ODOT let a project to identify, develop, and implement an appropriate approach to before-after 

safety project evaluation that can be applied to ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects 

or any other completed project(s) of interest to ODOT. The evaluation approach will quantify project 

effectiveness in terms of crash frequency reduction and percentage crash frequency reduction overall, by crash 

severity level, and by crash type. The recommended project evaluation approach will be:

• Scientifically sound

• Applicable to evaluation of individual projects and to crash modification factor (CMF) development

• Consistent with HSM guidance, FHWA HSIP requirements, and ODOT needs and preferences
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

None

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

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

No
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 58

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/04/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2011 To: 2019

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

 2020

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 95 100 95 100 95

Route Number (8) 100 95

Route/Street Name (9) 100 95

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 95

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 95 100 95

Surface Type (23) 100 95 100 95

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 95 100 95 100 95

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 95 100 95 100 95

Segment Length (13) 100 95

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 95

Functional Class (19) 100 95 100 95 100 95

Median Type (54) 100 95
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 95

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 95

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 95 100 95

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 95 100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 95 100 95 100 95

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 95

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 95

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 95

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 95

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 95

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00

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

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

The Location Based Response System (LBRS) is an initiative of the Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP). The LBRS establishes partnerships between State and County government for the creation of spatially 

accurate street centerlines with address ranges and field verified site-specific address locations.

A project is underway to collect missing LBRS data, verify/update current LBRS datasets and incorporate LBRS data into the official ODOT Road Inventory (RIMS).

With the ultimate goal of reducing fatalities, injuries, and traffic crashes statewide, the LBRS projects’ accurate, timely, reliable road inventory data as well as seamless integration among all highway safety stakeholders will make traffic 

crash analysis and emergency response more effective and efficient. In addition, ODOT and it’s partner agencies will benefit by:

• Meeting Federal reporting requirements (HPMS, ARNOLD)

• Improving the planning process for Data Governance and Transportation Asset Management Decision Support Tool (TAM DST)

• Enhancing routing for autonomous vehicles and smart corridors

The project will be divided into the following tasks:

1. Develop LBRS data for 6 counties.

2. Verify and update data sets for 13 counties.

3. Integrate LBRS data into Roadway Inventory Management System (RIMS) for 37 counties.

4. Provide a mechanism for County resources to maintain their LBRS data in a distributed environment

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

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 58

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Incapacitating No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

No N/A No

Crash Database Incapacitating No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

No N/A No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

Ohio has formed a crash report form (OH-1) Revision Committee. The multiple disciplinary committee is discussing changes desired by stakeholders. The Department of Public Safety is leading the committee and the changes will be 

implemented by the end of calendar year 2018.

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

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

Yes

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

Ohio conducted an HSIP Self-Assessment with the FHWA Division Office in April 2017. The self-assessment showed that ODOT has an advanced HSIP that has been successful in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries over the 

long term. Several Opportunities for Improvement were also identified to take Ohio's HSIP to the next level of success.
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidance.pdf

HSIP Procedures Manual.pdf

Safety Study Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Ohio Emphasis Area Strategies.pdf

Safety Performance:

2006-2016 SHSP Annual Emphasis Area Tracker.pdf

2006-2016 SHSP Monthly Emphasis Area Tracker - Fatalities.pdf

2006-2016 SHSP Monthly Emphasis Area Tracker - Serious Injuries.pdf

2011-2015 SHSP Matrix.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Ohio Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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