Page 1 of 42

IOWA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 42

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 10

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 12

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 14

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 14

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 27

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 29

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 31

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 31

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 37
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 42

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.” 
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 42

Executive Summary 

The state's HSIP funds are distributed amongst three different pots: statewide, secondary, and districts. 

Statewide projects are identified by central office staff based on research/study results, and can involve a 

mixture of hot-spot and systemic improvements. Secondary projects are identified by county engineers, based 

on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their Local Road Safety Plan. District projects are 

identified by the districts, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their District Road 

Safety Plan. All projects are selected for funding by central office staff, however secondary projects consider 

input from a selection committee. District and secondary projects are typically designed in-house, but the 

majority of statewide projects are designed by an outside consultant. All projects are tracked by central office 

staff, including crashes, costs, and construction dates. Crashes for 3 to 5 years pre-construction are compared 

3 to 5 years of post-construction crashes, and a benefit-cost analysis is conducted for all projects.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 42

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. 

The state's HSIP funds are distributed amongst three different pots: statewide, secondary, and districts. 

Statewide projects are identified by central office staff based on research/study results, and can involve a 

mixture of hot-spot and systemic improvements. Secondary projects are identified by county engineers, based 

on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their Local Road Safety Plan. District projects are 

identified by the districts, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their District Road 

Safety Plan. All projects are selected for funding by central office staff, however secondary projects consider 

input from a selection committee. District and secondary projects are typically designed in-house, but the 

majority of statewide projects are designed by an outside consultant. All projects are tracked by central office 

staff, including crashes, costs, and construction dates. Crashes for 3 to 5 years pre-construction are compared 

3 to 5 years of post-construction crashes, and a benefit-cost analysis is conducted for all projects.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

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

HSIP staff are located in the Office of Traffic & Safety, which is located in the Operations Bureau of the Iowa 

DOT's Highway Division.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

HSIP-Secondary, the state's replacement program for HRRR, receives a $2 million set-aside off the top. 

Beginning with the adoption of a new HSIP manual in 2017, twenty percent of the remaining funds are 

allocated to statewide initiatives spearheaded by central office staff. The remaining 80 percent of funds are 
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 42

allocated to each of the six districts based on the relative proportion of serious injury and fatal crashes 

occurring in that district.

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

Iowa's HSIP addresses local roads through the HSIP-Secondary program. This program was established in 

2013 as a $2 million yearly set-aside out of Iowa's HSIP to address safety issues on the secondary (countyowned) roadway system. This program is focused on providing funding for projects that incorporate systemic, 

low-cost safety improvements, typically costing less than $10,000 per mile. Typical countermeasures include 

rumble strips, grooved-in pavement markings, paved shoulders, improved signage, and guardrail updates.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-Districts

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Iowa DOT districts are typically charged with developing and overseeing HSIP projects, so they are consulted 

early and often in the HSIP planning process. HSIP projects are chosen that align with SHSP emphasis areas, 

typically intersections and lane departures. A large majority of funding goes toward addressing lane departure 

crashes through shoulder improvements, most commonly shoulder paving. District Road Safety Plans have 

been completed, so the districts are beginning to utilize the project recommendations that resulted from the 

data-driven, risk-based plans, either by submitting these as HSIP candidate projects, or by addressing 

locations with their own forces.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-None.

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

None.

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

period?

No
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 42

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Local Safety

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

"Local Safety" refers to the HSIP-Secondary Program.

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/26/2013 

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 Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-County roads 
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 42

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

Other-Collaboration with county engineers 

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?

No

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

County engineers identify projects for potential funding based on their knowledge of their system's 

performance, or from their Local Road Safety Plan.

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

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 61 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 42

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

Engineering Study 

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? 

No

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

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

Yes

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

Iowa is in the early stages of implementing the HSM. The foundation for increased usage is being laid by 

calibrating the SPFs in HSM to local conditions. The SPFs will be used to screen the system for locations that 

could benefit from a safety improvement. Although the state has been using CMFs for years, the number of 

CMFs available on the CMF clearinghouse has grown exponentially, yet there remains many countermeasures 

for which a good CMF does not exist - especially for those countermeasures that typically occur simultaneously 

(such as paving shoulders and adding rumble strips). Therefore, the need for state-specific CMFs was 

identified, and a consultant has been brought on board to aid in selecting appropriate CMFs and values. In 

addition, the consultant will be developing a state-specific framework for conducting safety evaluations 

consistent with HSM methods, via a spreadsheet tool. It is envisioned that this tool will exist in different forms 

in order to accommodate evaluations at different points during the project development timeline.

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?

No
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 42

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) $41,023,650 $39,251,633 95.68%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $41,023,650 $39,251,633 95.68%

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

Three projects that were scheduled to be let in FY 2018 were delayed, and moved to the next fiscal year.

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

$2,144,250 

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

$1,799,419 

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

Lettings for 2 out of the 8 local projects were delayed, and moved to the next fiscal year.

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

0% 
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 42

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

0% 

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

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.

Impediments to fully obligating programmed HSIP funds include proper estimating and long development 

timelines. Initial cost estimates tend to be high in order to account for project uncertainties and to avoid having 

to ask for more money at a later time. Project development timelines can be affected by multiple external 

forces including coordination, clearances, and unforeseen circumstances. Our goal is to work with project 

sponsors and project managers to improve the accuracy of cost estimates and to minimize time delays in order 

to obligate HSIP funds to the fullest extent.

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

No
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 42

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

HSIPX-000-

S(895)--3L-00

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

flashers - remove 

existing

14 Intersections $383798 $426442 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

No Functional 

System

0 0 Varies Systematic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Modifications

HSIPX-000-

S(896)--3L-00

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

flashers - remove 

existing

15 Intersections $270574 $300638 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

No Functional 

System

0 0 Varies Systematic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Modifications

HSIPX-000-

S(897)--3L-00

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

flashers - remove 

existing

18 Intersections $392251 $435834 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

No Functional 

System

0 0 Varies Systematic Intersections Traffic Signal 

Modifications

HSIPX-002-5(48)-

-3L-27

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

9.6 Miles $4235410 $5194007 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,850 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-006-6(54)-

-3L-48

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

2.7 Miles $444376 $493751 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

3,550 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-006-7(88)-

-3L-52

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

2.9 Miles $1072487 $1240556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

9,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-013-1(66)-

-3L-57

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.4 Miles $1746657 $1948605 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,540 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-014-4(66)-

-3L-50

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

8.6 Miles $26598 $29553 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,230 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Rumble Strips

HSIPX-022-4(78)-

-3L-70

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

14.9 Miles $1724469 $1923726 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-030-3(51)-

-3L-37

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

30.5 Miles $70214 $78015 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,560 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Rumble Strips

HSIPX-034-1(95)-

-3L-65

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

8.6 Miles $1126049 $1251166 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,830 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Rumble Strips

IHSIPX-035-

5(106)--08-40

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.7 Miles $1079786 $1199762 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

20,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Median Cable 

Barrier

HSIPX-048-1(32)-

-3L-73

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

14.3 Miles $2038532 $2265035 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,850 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-051-1(17)-

-3L-03

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.4 Miles $1081388 $1201542 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,690 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-058-1(92)-

-3L-07

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

1 Interchanges $14250000 $24180312 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

24,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Multilane Urban 

Intersection 

Improvements
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 42

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

HSIPX-063-5(49)-

-3L-86

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

18.3 Miles $2472774 $3025093 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-063-9(25)-

-3L-45

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

5.4 Miles $1048855 $1165394 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,270 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-071-5(76)-

-3L-14

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

6.6 Miles $1055887 $1173208 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,820 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-144-1(7)--

3L-25

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.9 Miles $1928105 $2404466 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,130 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIPX-151-1(32)-

-3L-48

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.4 Miles $1004004 $1115560 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

4,540 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIP-SC025(110)--6C-25Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

3 Miles $266837 $296486 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

290 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIP-SC026(103)--6C-26Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

2.1 Miles $156476 $173862 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,150 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIP-SC026(104)--6C-26Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

14.8 Miles $122254 $135838 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

740 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-SC026(105)--6C-26Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

4 Miles $386633 $429593 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

470 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIP-SC033(130)--6C-33Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

49.5 Miles $280800 $350485 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-SC054(111)--6C-54Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

5.3 Miles $39452 $82740 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

800 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Shoulder 

Treatments

HSIP-SC054(112)--6C-54Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

6.4 Miles $483770 $537522 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

900 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Clear Zone 

Improvements

HSIP-SC063(129)--6C-63Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Locations $63197 $70219 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,720 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Clear Zone 

Improvements

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 42

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 371 390 360 365 317 322 320 402 329

Serious Injuries 1,615 1,644 1,501 1,629 1,545 1,509 1,470 1,510 1,460

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.186 1.235 1.146 1.156 1.005 0.996 0.967 1.210 0.975

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.161 5.206 4.779 5.158 4.898 4.667 4.440 4.540 4.326

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

25 28 31 25 23 25 32 31 29

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

123 126 126 124 115 101 121 134 121
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 42

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 42

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2017

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 

(RPA) - Interstate

26.2 80.2 0.49 1.51

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

26.2 82.4 0.49 1.55

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

30.8 101 0.58 1.9

Rural Minor Arterial 44 145.4 1.76 5.84

Rural Minor Collector 34.2 132.2 4.54 17.55

Rural Major Collector 74.8 296.2 2.43 9.62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 42

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 Local Road or Street 65 245.4 6.85 25.86

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

12.4 52.2 0.43 1.82

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

10.2 50.2 0.35 1.75

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

21.8 131.8 0.76 4.59

Urban Minor Arterial 35.8 235.2 0.98 6.47

Urban Minor Collector 1.4 5.6 2.06 8.08

Urban Major Collector 19.8 131.6 1.41 9.35

Urban Local Road or Street 38.8 285 1.55 11.36
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 42

Year 2017

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 169.6 690.8 0.51 2.09

County Highway Agency 120.6 466.2 0.63 2.43

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

47.6 342 0.34 2.46

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 42

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 42

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 42

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

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

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 353.6 

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

A simple trend analysis of historical fatality data was performed. An integrated 

moving average model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with 

each set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. 

This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 5-year rolling average will be less 

than the target. A slight error in the process that was used last year was discovered and 

corrected for this year. This change had a very minor impact on the actual targets 

selected. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 42

Number of Serious Injuries 1483.7 

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

A simple trend analysis of historical serious injury data was performed. An integrated 

moving average model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with 

each set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. 

This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 5-year rolling average will be less 

than the target. A slight error in the process that was used last year was discovered and 

corrected for this year. This change had a very minor impact on the actual targets 

selected. 

Fatality Rate 1.047 

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

A simple trend analysis of historical fatality data was performed. An integrated 

moving average model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with 

each set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. 

This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 5-year rolling average will be less 

than the target. This target supports the SHSP goal of continuing to reduce the fatality 

rate to 1.000 per HMVMT by 2020. A slight error in the process that was used last 

year was discovered and corrected for this year. This change had a very minor impact 

on the actual targets selected. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.391 

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

A simple trend analysis of historical serious injury data was performed. An integrated 

moving average model was run to estimate how much risk would be associated with 

each set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 75% confidence level. 

This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 5-year rolling average will be less 

than the target. This target supports the SHSP goal of continuing to reduce the serious 

injury rate to 4.300 per HMVMT by 2020. A slight error in the process that was used 

last year was discovered and corrected for this year. This change had a very minor 

impact on the actual targets selected. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 149.8 

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

A simple trend analysis of historical non-motorized fatality and serious injury data was 

performed. An integrated moving average model was run to estimate how much risk 

would be associated with each set of predictions. Our working group settled on using a 

75% confidence level. This means we are at least 75% confident the actual 5-year 

rolling average will be less than the target. A slight error in the process that was used 
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 42

last year was discovered and corrected for this year. This change had a very minor 

impact on the actual targets selected. 

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

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

targets. 

The DOT's safety target working group established the methodology for setting the performance targets, using 

essentially the same process as last year. The chosen targets and a description of the methodology were 

shared with representatives from the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau for comment. None were received. The 

chosen targets were then shared with the MPOs on March 21, 2018 as part of a quarterly meeting 

presentation. The following day, a draft safety memo outlining the chosen targets and methodology was sent to 

all MPOs in the state. A final version of the memo was sent out on May 22, 2018 with a request for comments 

by June 4, 2018. No substantive comments regarding the targets or the methodology were received during the 

comment period.

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 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

78 55 59 56 52 61 50

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

120 128 152 140 122 126 152
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 42

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

Historical data (2011-2016) provided in this year's report for number of fatalities and serious injuries differs 

from what was provided in previous years' reports. An error in the selection methodology was discovered and 

fixed, which resulted in the more accurate counts provided here.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 42

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

Crash data for the project area is collected for a minimum of three, to a maximum of five, years before and 

after the project was completed. Crash data for the year of construction is ignored.

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

level evaluations.

Overall since fiscal year 2001, the state's HSIP expenditures have resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 

approximately 6 to 1. Some of the highest B-C ratios resulted from roadway signs, lighting, and roadside 

improvements.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Policy change 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

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.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 42

Year 2017 

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

Lane Departure 198.8 630.4 0.6 1.9 0 0 0

Intersections 70.8 382.6 0.21 1.15 0 0 0

Pedestrians 23 73.6 0.07 0.22 0 0 0

Bicyclists 5 36.2 0.01 0.11 0 0 0

Older Drivers 69.8 202.6 0.21 0.61 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 46.4 223 0.14 0.67 0 0 0

Work Zones 7.2 17.2 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 42

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

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

Yes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 42

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Median Cable Barrier 

Description: Interstate median cable barrier in 

Iowa 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 330 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Regression cross-section 

Results: 

Reduces fatal crashes by 62% 

Reduces major injury crashes by 31% 

Reduces minor injury crashes by 26% 

Increases possible injury crashes by 

11% Increases PDO crashes by 108% 

Overall benefit/cost ratio = 16.1 : 1 

File Name: Iowa_median_cable_barrier_eval_w_cvr.pdf
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 42

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 OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Optional

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
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 42

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/30/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2018 

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

 2018 

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) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 42

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 42

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

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):

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

It is understood that individual data elements may not be 100% accurate at all times due to reporting lags.

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.

No actions required - state is already compliant.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Suspected serious/incapacitating Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected serious/incapacitating Yes any injury, other than a fatal injury, that 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of before the injury 

occurred. This includes 

Yes severe lacerations (exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood); broken or 

distorted limbs (arm or leg); skull, chest 

injuries or abdominal injuries other than 

bruises or minor lacerations; crush injuries; 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10 percent or more of the body); 

unconsciousness at or when taken from the 

crash scene; and unable to leave the crash 

scene without assistance (paralysis). This 

does not include momentary 

unconsciousness. 

Yes

Crash Database Suspected serious/incapacitating Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected serious/incapacitating Yes any injury, other than a fatal injury,

that prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving, or normally continuing the

activities the person was capable of before 

the injury occurred. This includes 

Yes severe

lacerations (exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant

loss of blood); broken or distorted limbs 

(arm or leg); skull, chest injuries or 

abdominal

Yes
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 42

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 * 

injuries other than bruises or minor 

lacerations; crush injuries; significant burns

(second and third degree burns over 10 

percent or more of the body);

unconsciousness at or when taken from the 

crash scene; and unable to leave the

crash scene without assistance (paralysis). 

This does not include momentary

unconsciousness. 

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

The above form was filled out conservatively last year, noting that many of the items did not follow MMUCC 4th Edition verbatim. Iowa questioned the "verbatim" requirement in the response's comments section, asking for clarification 

from FHWA on whether the state was indeed non-compliant. Hearing no response on this subject over the last year, the state assumes its assertion to be true - that they are considered to be generally compliant with MMUCC 4th Edition. 

Therefore, the responses in the forms this year were changed to "compliant," though no changes have been made to Iowa's crash report form, crash report form instruction manual, crash database, or crash database data dictionary to 

address the "verbatim" requirement.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2020 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 42

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Iowa_median_cable_barrier_eval_w_cvr.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 42

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.