Page 1 of 59

WASHINGTON 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 59

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence ............................................................. 3

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................28

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................28

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................30

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................40

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................40

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................46

Applicability of Special Rules ...........................................................................................................47

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................48

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................48

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................49

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................54

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................55

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................58

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................59
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 59

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. 407 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.”
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 59

Executive Summary

WSDOT is concerned about increasing crash trends, especially since COVID. Drawing from crash reports 

speeds are increasing, as are risk taking behaviors, and these are having adverse effects on outcomes. Active 

Transportation (vulnerable road users) and equity considerations are being incorporated into a number of 

safety practices and policies. In 2021, WSDOT focused on proactive expenditures, with systemic treatments 

being the primary approach across the state. Projects identified in 2021 were commonly in rural locations, and 

were oriented towards the reduction of crash forces at intersections with compact roundabouts, and installation 

and upgrade of roadside safety hardware along road segments. In the 2022 Legislative session, with WSDOT 

input, the state transportation budget include requirements for development of complete street projects, using 

safe system principals. The implication of which has meant significant changes in design and operational 

practices that will benefit fatal and serious crashes. Programmatic changes to address vulnerable road 

users/active transportation are ongoing. WSDOT was identified as a vulnerable road user state. WSDOT 

intends to increase safety knowledge and skills, analytical capabilities and evaluation of safety projects but 

resources are short to accomplish these goals. Efforts are being made to address challenges. In the upcoming 

year, WSDOT primary focus will be towards moving forward with advancement of the Safe System Approach, 

as well as working with the SHSO in partnership to update its Target Zero Plan (SHSP). In addition equity 

considerations are currently being implemented in the Active Transportation subcategory, where concentration 

of low income household, concentration of people with a disability and concentration of people of color are 

used in the ranking process. WSDOT will also consider how Social Health Index, or other equity based data or 

a combination of both can be used as variable in WSDOT systemic analysis approach beyond active 

transportation. Further, indicators of social equity are intended to be included in following year updates of the 

HSIP program so that these factors can be analyzed for Title VI related expenditure considerations. A 

requirement for these type of consideration is part of Healthy Environment for All (HEAL) act passed by the 

Washington State Legislature. 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 59

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 WSDOT strategic highway safety plan "Target Zero" is the basis for establishing the structure of WSDOT's 

approach to programming safety funds for both WSDOT highways and local roads. WSDOT requires local road 

safety plans for local agencies to be eligible to receive HSIP funding at both the county and city level. 

Currently, WSDOT provides 70% of HSIP funds to local roads and supplements the state program with 

additional state funding. Target Zero emphasis areas and strategies are reviewed and WSDOT determines 

through an analysis of the leading contributing factors, crash types, and behaviors in implementing its safety 

program. Target Zero also contains strategies (countermeasures) that would benefit State or local agencies. 

Washington uses a centralized approach for determining HSIP locations within the state using network 

screening to identify a ranked set of locations for further analysis and evaluation.

The "Getting to Zero" implementation plan provides structures for both the local and state side of HSIP. 

Specific information on ranking methods is provided for the State. Once developed the ranked lists are 

provided to WSDOT regions for use in determining appropriate approaches to address the contributing factors 

and crash types at the respective locations. Local funds are administered through grants. The I2 Safety 

subprogram structure has both crash reduction and prevention (systemic) approaches to reducing crash 

potential. The reduction category focuses on spot locations, intersections, and segments using the excess 

crashes approach. The prevention category focuses on specific contributing factors and crash types to develop 

a ranked list of potential projects. The projects are based on benefit/cost analysis for the prioritization of the 

program of projects. Systemic approaches may use network benefit cost or local benefit cost for the purposes 

of prioritization. WSDOT completed a ten year implementation plan that contains additional information on 

WSDOT Safety Program.

HSIP funds are provided to local agencies through grant funding calls for projects. In alternating years, calls go 

out for county safety projects or city safety projects. Along with their local road safety plans, local agencies 

submit prioritized project lists for funding. Projects are selected based on the cost-effectiveness of projects 

proposed.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Transportation Safety and System Analysis

WSDOT does not have staff for HSIP. WSDOT Transportation Safety and System Analysis Division and Local 

Programs Divisions work to complete the HSIP Annual Report, TSSA completes the Implementation plan, and 

works to complete target setting.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 59

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-Funds are allocated centrally 

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

Washington uses a data-driven process to determine HSIP funding levels for state vs local roads. The current 

SHSP, "Washington Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Target Zero," (www.targetzero.com) has specified priority 

levels for types/causes/categories of fatal & serious injury crashes based on crash type, driver behaviors, or 

user type. The priority 1 infrastructure related emphasis areas are Lane Departure crashes and Intersection 

crashes. 

To determine the HSIP funding allocation between state and local roadways, WSDOT evaluates the number of 

fatal & serious injury crashes in the priority 1 emphasis areas (lane departure and intersection-related) 

statewide for a consecutive 5-year period. WSDOT calculates the ratio of crashes on local agency 

responsibility roads to those on state highways then allocates HSIP funding between state and local roadways 

based on that percentage. Currently, local agencies receive 70% of HSIP funds and the state receives 30%.

The 70% of funding that goes to local agency safety is divided into a County Safety Program and a City Safety 

Program. Both programs require that local agencies submit a Local Road Safety Plan to be eligible to apply for 

HSIP funding. The County Safety Program is focused on fatal and serious injury crash potential with a fully 

systemic approach to prioritizing safety projects. The City Safety Program is both prevention (systemic) and 

reduction (spot locations), with spot safety projects being prioritized by competitive benefit/cost ratio statewide. 

Systemic projects for both counties and cities are prioritized by cost effectiveness of the proposed projects, 

factoring in the crash data & LRSP prioritized projects for each agency, the cost of the proposed 

countermeasures, the number of locations being addressed, and the effectiveness of the countermeasures 

proposed.

Tribal roads are also eligible for funding, but must be included with, or submitted alongside, a county or city list 

of proposed projects (tribes, counties, and cities are all encouraged to include such projects on prioritized lists). 

Based on fatal and serious injury crash data, a standalone tribal safety call for projects would not receive 

enough funding to be viable as a separate statewide call for projects. Reported fatal and serious injury crashes 

over the past five years on non-state DOT responsible roadways identified just 0.22% (1/46th of 1%) occurred 

on tribally-owned roadways. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 

• Districts/Regions 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

• Operations 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

• Other-Active Transportation 

• Other-Capital Program 

• Other-Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 59

The Highway Safety Executive Committee and Highway Safety Issue Group forms the structure and 

mechanism for multiple internal partners participation. 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

WSDOT is multimodal and multidisciplinary. The Highway Safety Issue Group includes representatives from 

the Regions and HQ Divisions and participants may come from planning, programming, design, operations, 

local programs, active transportation, regions and TSSA. A safety panel also exists with individuals from 

multiple discipline areas who review projects and countermeasures for inclusion in the safety program. The 

Highway Safety Executive Committee includes Traffic Operations, Design, Capital Programming and 

Transportation Safety and Systems Analysis, Local Programs, and Active Transportation and works to lead the 

program and deal with policy issues in a collaborative manner. The State Safety Engineer chairs this group 

monthly. WSDOT HSIG meets quarterly to discuss technical issues and to carry out policy elements decided 

by the HSEC. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University 

• FHWA 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

• Law Enforcement Agency 

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program 

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

• Tribal Agency 

• Other-WSDOT has organized a Safety Target Setting Organization to establish targets. A safety data 

business plan group is also in place to assist with WSDOT Safety Data needs identification 

• Other-Department of Health 

• Other-Department of Licensing 

• Other-Adminstrator of the Courts 

• Other-Superintendent of Public Instruction 

• Other-Association of Washington Cities 

• Other-Washington State Association of Counties 

• Other-Health Care Authority 

• Other-National Highway Safety Administration 

• Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

• Other-Private Safety Advocates 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

WSDOT interacts and coordinates with multiple external partners as part of the development of Target Zero 

and in setting targets. WSDOT routinely meets with MPOs and State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), as well 

as federal division in carrying out its safety program activities. In Target Setting, WSDOT will meet with the 

WTSC and MPOs as necessary to determine the appropriate method for setting targets in the state. WSDOT 

will also coordinate at this time with MPO Technical, Coordinating or Executive Committees as necessary for 

getting agreement on Targets. For development of the SHSP, WSDOT and the WTSC form multiple working 

groups to assign chapter development, data analysis and oversight of the document. WSDOT and WTSC work 

closely to get partner input and agreement depending on the specifics of each section of the SHSP. The 

WTSC is made up of Department Heads and works to form and provide Traffic Safety Policy recommendations 

and direction for consideration by the Governor. Often, WSDOT together with different agencies and the 

WTSC, will make legislative presentations and submit proposed legislation or funding requests. WSDOT also 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 59

works very closely with city and county agencies to assist with analysis and evaluation through the 

development of safety plans and projects. WSDOT has quarterly meetings with Federal Partners to highlight 

concerns and inform each other of ongoing activities. 

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

elaborate. 

WSDOT continues to tie the SHSP emphasis areas, priorities and strategies to the WSDOT safety subprogram 

development. WSDOT will submit its 2022 implementation plan and how the program is administered with an 

outline for each of the safety subcategories, the methods used, and how B/C is used within each subcategory. 

Each subcategory is highlighted within the implementation plan. The department is tracking fatal and serious 

crashes through various means, and has developed a dashboard to track COVID-19 issues. The SHSP 

emphasis areas are used as the basis for project selection within the local programs aspect for HSIP. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

WSDOT does not have a HSIP manual. 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Horizontal Curve 

• HRRR

• Intersection 

• Median Barrier 

• Roadway Departure 

• Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors 

• Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations 

• Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations 

• Other-Local - City Safety Program 

• Other-Local - County Safety Program 

• Other-High Friction Surface Treatments 

• Other-Barrier and Terminal Modifications 

• Other-Rumble Strips 

• Other-Operational Assessments 

• Other-BCT conversion 

• Other-Redirectional land forms 

• Other-Data and performance improvement 

• Other-Active Transportation Safety 

• Other-Speed Management 

WSDOT continues to develop Safe System subprograms to address vulnerable road users and speeds. As it 

deploys Complete Streets. 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 59

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Other-Speed differential

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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?

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-systemic approach

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

Other-ranking based on systemic B/C:1

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-FHWA HRRR Special Rule

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 59

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Volume

• Lane miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Completion of LRSP:1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 59

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-systemic b/c

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Median width

• Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 59

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:9/26/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Traffic

• Volume

• Other-speed

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-type of crash

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

program?
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 59

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 59

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 59

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

Program: Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety Panel Review

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
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 59

Program: Other-Local - City Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Completion of a LRSP

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:2

Available funding:4

Cost Effectiveness:3

Other-Completion of LRSP:1
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 59

Program: Other-Local - County Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Completion of a LRSP

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:3

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Completion of LRSP:1

Program: Other-High Friction Surface Treatments

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 59

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-wet weather crashes • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1

Program: Other-Barrier and Terminal Modifications

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 59

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-functional classification

• Other-systemic b/c

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-inventory

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).

Program: Other-Rumble Strips

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Volume • Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-functional classification
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 59

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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

Other-systemic b/c:1

Program: Other-Operational Assessments

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-assesment of field 

conditions

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-field conditions

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

program?

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 59

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked list

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).

Program: Other-BCT conversion

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Functional classification

• Other-presence of BCT

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-based on functional classification and roadway type

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-inventory

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).
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 59

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-systemic approach:1

Program: Other-Redirectional land forms

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Redirectional Landform 

in median 

• Other-bridge pier

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-presence of condition

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-addressed system wide

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

Other-systemic approach:1
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 59

Program: Other-Data and performance improvement

Date of Program Methodology:8/18/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set aside as available

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Data or performance improvements needed

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-HSEC Selection

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

Program: Other-Active Transportation Safety

Date of Program Methodology:8/18/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 59

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-low income household

• Other-concentration of people 

with a disability

• Other-Concentration of people 

of color

• Other-Potential for 

walking/cycling

• Other-destination proximity

• Other-trail proximity

• Other-intermodal connectivity

• Other-system issues

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-WSDOT developed approach

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-ranked lists

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

Other-WSDOT developed criteria:1

Program: Other-Speed Management

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2022

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 59

• Other-Safe System

• Other-Vulnerable Road Users

• Other-Complete Streets

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Speed

• Other-Context

• Other-Road User Mix

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Safe System

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 75

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Clear Zone Improvements 

• High friction surface treatment 

• Horizontal curve signs 

• Install/Improve Lighting 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Other-active transportation treatments 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 59

• Other-compact roundabouts 

• Rumble Strips 

• Upgrade Guard Rails 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis 

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

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

• SHSP/Local road safety plan 

• Stakeholder input 

• Other-Use of HSM, Statistical analysis 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

ITS technology is, and in the future connected vehicles and v2x will be, considered as an appropriate 

countermeasure for safety. The countermeasure would need to be shown to have a positive crash reduction 

potential for fatal and serious crashes. An office exists within WSDOT related to connected vehicles and the 

State Safety Engineer interacts with that office. Washington has a committee dealing with CAT related to 

safety. WSDOT included CAT in its strategic highway safety plan, and is developing an approach to perform a 

stripping pilot project for CAT purposes. 

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. 

WSDOT uses the HSM throughout its HSIP efforts. The state uses SafetyAnalyst for screening of state 

projects. WSDOT has developed and updated its guide on safety analysis in planning and design and when 

and how to use the HSM for those activities. WSDOT has executive orders that direct policy around the use of 

the HSM. Local HSIP projects priorities are typically derived from the SHSP emphasis areas, and do not use 

the HSM predictive and network screening methods because of data limitations. For Local Agencies we follow 

guidance from the HSM for applying CMFs for our spot location (benefit/cost) projects. WSDOT also continues 

to investigate the use of IHSDM in design of projects. HSM methods are used for Intersection Analysis 

Locations, Crash Analysis Locations, and Crash Analysis Corridors project selection through the Crash 

Analysis Report. 

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period.

WSDOT continues to develop a ranking method for active transportation and will work on speed management 

in 2022. 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 59

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to 

elaborate.

WSDOT continues to focus on data driven safety analysis throughout its program efforts. WSDOT is using 

performance based practical design and a sustainable safety approach. WSDOT has focused on data driven 

approaches through identifying the 5th E of safety as Evaluation, analysis and diagnosis. It is thought that this 

approach allows for the targeting of specific crash types and contributing factors, and also maximizes the 

return on safety benefit for selected countermeasures. WSDOT outlined the systemic subcategories that focus 

on road crashes related to road users, intersection, and lane departure crash types. The safety program 

continues to evolve on an ongoing basis.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 59

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $85,534,829 $57,424,708 67.14%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $192,547 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $13,574,220 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $12,152,157 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $85,534,829 $83,343,632 97.44%

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

safety projects?

70%

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

75%

Percentages are based on question 23 HSIP funds (+HRRR) only.

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

$1,207,693

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

$1,207,693

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
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 59

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%

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

the future.

WSDOT provides much of its HSIP appropriation to its local partners. Delivery of federally-funded projects with 

all of the attendant paperwork/regulations can make delivery of these projects by local agencies a challenge, 

especially considering the low-cost nature of many safety improvements. This has especially been true for the 

environmental approval process, as other agencies that must approve documentation have been understaffed 

and have lowered the priority of local projects in their approval processes. Also revenue reductions due to the 

pandemic in Washington have reduced available funds to both the state and locals. It is also very difficult when 

projects involved working with Railroads.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 59

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

City of 

Anacortes -

32nd St and M 

Ave 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

$1480265 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Auburn 

- High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

$794200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.2 -

Improve 

pavement 

friction using 

high friction 

surface 

treatments.

City of 

Bellevue -

Rectangular 

Rapid Flashing 

Beacon 

Crosswalks

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid 

Rectangular 

Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

$650900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of Bothell -

Meridian Ave S 

and 240th St 

SE 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

$1616500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.2 -

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Cle 

Elum -

Citywide 

Safety

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

$315600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.10 -

Install lighting.

City of 

Covington -

Roundabout 

Flashing 

Beacons

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid 

Rectangular 

Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

$402228 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 -

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of 

Edgewood -

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

$1189600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.5 -

Implement 

roadway 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Chrisella Road 

East

(includes add 

shoulder)

Highway 

Agency

design to be 

consistent with 

the 

surrounding 

context.

City of Everett 

- Citywide 

Flashing 

Yellow Arrows

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

$672560 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT 1.12 - 

Convert to 

flashing yellow 

arrows at 

signals.

City of Federal 

Way - Citywide 

Pedestrian 

Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

$1273600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.1 - 

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian and 

bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Federal 

Way - 27th Ave 

SW at SW 

344th St 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

$710000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.2 - 

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Fife - 

Citywide 

Flashing 

Yellow Arrows

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

$295300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT 1.12 - 

Convert to 

flashing yellow 

arrows at 

signals.

Island County - 

Countywide 

Speed Limit 

Evaluation

Speed 

management

Modify speed 

limit

$359700 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Speeding SPE 2.1 - Set 

speed limits 

which account 

for roadway 

design, traffic, 

and 

environment.

City of Kelso - 

Systemic 

Safety 2020

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid 

Rectangular 

Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

$375200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 - 

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of 

Kenmore - 

2018 Citywide 

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

$34000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Systemic Intersections INT 1.10 - 

Install lighting.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Safety - 

Lighting

Highway 

Agency

City of 

Kennewick - 

Pedestrian 

Crossing 

Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

$860910 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.1 - 

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian and 

bicyclist 

crossings.

City of 

Kennewick - 

Photometric 

Study

Miscellaneous Data collection $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data EAD.3.2 

Develop and 

institutionalize 

data 

management 

practices

City of Kent - 

City Safety 

Road Diets

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

$735000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians INT 1.3 - 

Convert fourlane roadways 

to three-lane 

roadways with 

center turn 

lane (road 

diet).

City of Kent - 

108th Ave SE 

& SE 264th St 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

$895000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.2 - 

Install or 

convert 

intersections 

to 

roundabouts.

City of Kirkland 

- Downtown 

Kirkland and 

NE 124th 

Street 

Pedestrian 

Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian hybrid 

beacon

$1635100 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 - 

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of 

Longview - 

Citywide 

Traffic Data 

Collection

Miscellaneous Data collection $13500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data EAD.3.2 

Develop and 

institutionalize 

data 

management 

practices

City of 

Longview - 

Downtown 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Leading 

pedestrian 

interval

$769130 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Systemic Pedestrians INT 1.9 - 

Modify signal 

phasing to 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Traffic Signal 

Upgrades

Highway 

Agency

implement a 

leading 

pedestrian 

interval.

City of 

Longview - 

Downtown 

Rectangular 

Rapid Flashing 

Beacons

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid 

Rectangular 

Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

$1236420 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.2 - 

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of Maple 

Valley - High 

Reflectivity 

Roadway 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

$494400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.5 - 

Install edge 

lines, 

especially on 

curves, where 

adequate 

shoulders 

exist.

Mason County 

- Clear Zone 

Improvements

Roadside Removal of fixed 

objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

$1536500 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.1 - 

Increase 

distance to 

roadside 

features on 

high-speed 

roadways.

City of Pasco - 

Sylvester 

Street Safety

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

$4198700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians INT 1.3 - 

Convert fourlane roadways 

to three-lane 

roadways with 

center turn 

lane (road 

diet).

Pierce County 

- 92nd Ave 

East & 224th 

St East 

Signalization

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

$3320000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT.1. Reduce 

crashes at 

intersections

City of Port 

Orchard - 

Citywide Street 

Lighting Study

Miscellaneous Data collection $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

No Sites Data EAD.4.1 

Establish and 

use existing 

data analyst 

expertise to 

support datadriven 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

business 

decisions and

City of Poulsbo 

- Systemic 

Safety 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

$642438 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians PAB 2.1 - 

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian and 

bicyclist 

crossings.

San Juan 

County - Orcas 

Rd Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $49500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 - 

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware such 

as guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of SeaTac 

- 34th Avenue 

South

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $2464000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 3.1 - 

Invest in and 

construct 

separated 

pedestrian 

facilities.

City of Seattle - 

Pedestrian 

Refuge Islands

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

$1250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.1 - 

Reduce crash 

exposure 

safety at 

pedestrian and 

bicyclist 

crossings.

City of Seattle - 

NE 117th St 

Intersection 

and Sidewalk

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

$950000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT.1. Reduce 

crashes at 

intersections

Skagit County 

- Countywide 

Guardrail & 

Reflectors

Roadside Barrier- metal $710041 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 - 

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware such 

as guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

Skagit County 

- Intersection 

Illumination

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

$105676 HRRR 

Special Rule 

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT 1.10 - 

Install lighting.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Skagit County 

- Prairie Road 

Signing & 

Guideposts

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$100804 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 3.1 - 

Install chevron 

signs, curve 

warning signs, 

and/or 

sequential 

flashing 

beacons in 

curves.

City of 

Spokane - 

Division Street 

Pedestrian 

Hybrid 

Beacons

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian hybrid 

beacon

$1729510 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians PAB 2.2 - 

Invest in and 

increase the 

use of RRFBs 

and PHBs 

where these 

crosswalk 

enhancements 

are needed.

City of 

Spokane 

Valley - 

Retroreflective 

Post Panels

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$164070 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT 3.5 - 

Increase 

visibility of 

signals and 

signs at 

intersections.

Stevens 

County - 2021 

Bridge Safety

Roadside Barrier- metal $522970 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.3 - 

Install 

roadside 

safety 

hardware such 

as guardrail, 

cable barrier, 

or concrete 

barrier.

City of Sumner 

- Maple 

St/Traffic Ave 

Ped Signal & 

Citywide 

Backplates

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal $430700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians NT.3.1 Add 

retroreflective 

borders to 

signal back 

plates

City of Tacoma 

- S 21st Street 

and C Street 

Signal

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

$1130324 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT.1
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Thurston 

County - 2024 

County Road 

Safety

Roadside Increase clear 

zone – outside of 

curve

$2583000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX 4.1 - 

Increase 

distance to 

roadside 

features on 

high-speed 

roadways.

City of 

Vancouver - 

Fourth Plain & 

Stapleton 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing –

general retiming

$132920 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections INT 1.11 - 

Coordinate 

arterial 

signals.

Safety Support 

I2

Miscellaneous Data analysis Data $359055 $378000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

Traffic 

Operations 

Assessments

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $143200 $728924 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

Traffic 

Operation 

Assessments - 

NWR

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $142800 $908508 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

NCR Traffic 

Operation 

Assessments

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $142800 $853694 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

Traffic 

Operation 

Assessments

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $148593 $942308 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

SR 6/0.6 Miles 

E of Clinton Rd 

to Bunker 

Creek Rd - RR 

Crossing

Railroad grade 

crossings

Crossing warning 

signs and 

pavement 

marking 

improvements

Numbers $56155 $518768 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,797 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections INT.1. Reduce 

crashes at 

intersections.

SR 128 Et 

Al/SE 

Washington - 

Centerline 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips –

center

Miles $450331 $1018452 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.2.1 Install 

centerline 

rumble strips

South Central 

Region - 

Traffic 

Operation 

Assessments

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $142800 $860861 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

SCR 2021 

Region Wide 

BCT 

Replacement - 

Freeway

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

Locations $496381 $499966 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

SR 240 Et 

Al/Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware 

Preservation

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $13286 $361630 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

I-82/SR 821 to 

US 97 Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $236742 $236742 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate33,402 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

I-90/Tinkham 

Rd Vic to 

Yellowstone 

Rd Vic - 

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $407722 $966520 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate35,948 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Roadside 

Safety 

Improvements

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

I90/Snoqualmie 

Pass Corridor - 

Rehab 

Weathering 

Steel Guardrail 

21-23

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $250000 $3772564 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate35,930 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

I-90/North 

Bend to Hyak 

Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware 

Preservation

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $150000 $284010 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate36,777 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

I-90/Easton to 

Ellensburg 

Safety 

FeaturesRoadside 

Hardware 

Preservation

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $91980 $1862565 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate31,099 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

SR 125/Plaza 

Way - Railroad 

Crossing 

Improvements

Railroad grade 

crossings

Crossing warning 

signs and 

pavement 

marking 

improvements

Intersections $100000 $1099065 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,146 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

INT.1. Reduce 

crashes at 

intersections.

I-182/Richland 

to Pasco 

Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $969949 $1025460 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate43,985 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

SR 240/I-182 

to US 395 

Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $36285 $37559 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther45,638 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

US 395/10th 

Ave to I-182 

Safety 

Features -

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $117246 $117246 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

36,727 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 59

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Roadside 

Hardware

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

SR 823/I-82 to 

Selah Safety 

Features - 

Roadside 

Hardware

Roadside Barrier- metal Miles $14467 $14466 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther19,953 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional

Eastern 

Region Traffic 

Operation 

Assessment

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

Locations $142800 $884039 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data needs Data EAD.2.2 

Integrate HSM 

method 

analysis into 

criteria for 

project 

selection and 

prioritization

ER Breakaway 

Cable 

Terminal 

Replacement - 

Freeways

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

Locations $50800 $55633 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 8,968 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

LDX.4.6 

Remove or 

replace 

existing barrier 

that is 

damaged or 

non functional
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 59

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 436 462 551 536 563 539 538 574 663

Serious Injuries 1,916 2,004 2,101 2,219 2,221 2,236 2,254 2,428 2,924

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.762 0.796 0.924 0.881 0.917 0.864 0.860 1.073 1.154

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.349 3.452 3.522 3.647 3.616 3.585 3.604 4.537 5.090

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

61 85 100 105 124 119 116 118 155

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

343 408 395 492 449 523 460 397 509
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 59

Annual Fatalities

 

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 59

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

 

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 59

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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 68.2 0.56 1.48

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

5.6 55 0.33 3.08

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

57.2 102.2 2.44 4.41

Rural Minor Arterial 39.8 91.6 2.38 5.49

Rural Minor Collector 69.6 59.6 8.44 7.25

Rural Major Collector 20.8 0.6 0 0

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 59

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

23 0 2,277.35 0

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

50 153.6 0.44 1.37

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

10.8 120.2 0.21 2.17

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

126.8 269.2 3.56 7.54

Urban Minor Arterial 60.2 70 6.18 7.09

Urban Minor Collector 35.2 7.2 50.24 10.08

Urban Major Collector 0.4 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or 

Street

42.2 0.6 246.66 0
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 59

Year 2021

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

286.8 1,414.6 0.87 4.33

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency 288.4 1,414.6 1.16 5.66

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

That data shown is for State Routes Only. Washington does not code federal functional class for city and 

county crashes. Roadway ownership assignment in crash data is not sufficient to support reliable reporting 

quality.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

WSDOT is working with the WTSC to develop action plans for all the Es. WSDOT is communication with the 

Legislature on additional funding for the Safety program. WSDOT has been directed by the legislature to 

incorporate complete streets into projects greater than $500, consistent with the safe system principles. This is 

a very important advancement in road safety for Washington State.
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 59

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:447.5

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

WSDOT sets targets consistent with its intent to reduce fatal and serious crashes to zero by 2030.

Number of Serious Injuries:1876.5

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

WSDOT sets targets consistent with its intent to reduce fatal and serious crashes to zero by 2030.

Fatality Rate:0.757

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

WSDOT sets targets consistent with its intent to reduce fatal and serious crashes to zero by 2030.

Serious Injury Rate:3.178

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

WSDOT sets targets consistent with its intent to reduce fatal and serious crashes to zero by 2030.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:462.0

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

WSDOT sets targets consistent with its intent to reduce fatal and serious crashes to zero by 2030.

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

safety performance targets. 

WSDOT actively coordinates with the WTSC on a regular basis, and works in a peer relationship to set the 

methods for target setting. MPOs and RTPOs are coordinated with through technical committees, and the 

MPO/RPTO coordinating committees. Presentation are provide and each entity provides approval, comments 

and concerns as appropriate.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 59

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 444.1 575.4

Number of Serious Injuries 1807.0 2412.6

Fatality Rate 0.724 0.974

Serious Injury Rate 2.944 4.086

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

472.1 594.0

WSDOT is using aspirational targets and recognizes that it is unlikely the Department will meet targets. 

WSDOT believes that its approach to target setting allows for communication and a culture that recognizes the 

importance of road safety. In the 2022 legislative session, WSDOT was budget was passed with the stipulation 

that projects above $500k follow Complete Streets with speed setting consistent with Safe System Principles 

with speed setting and separation. WSDOT believes that these requirements across its entire capital program 

will yield significant safety benefits. WSDOT is committing itself to address the needs of all road users with 

these practices.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

138 141 137 119 149 125 151

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

168 189 186 190 211 217 240
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 59

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

WSDOT 

Local safety effectiveness is tracked looking at the overall change in fatalities and serious injuries on local 

roads due to the majority of funding supporting systemic safety projects (proactive). As such, those crashes 

are tracked annually to determine trend lines and progress. Unfortunately, as is seen nationally, those trend 

lines are heading upward in recent years. While county roadways experienced several years of flat trend lines 

(2013-2018), those trend lines have headed back up again since then. Over the past 10 years, county 

fatal/serious crashes are up 28%. Those crashes increased 20% from 2020 to 2021. The 5-year rolling 

average number for fatal/serious crashes on county roads have been increasing since 2017. City streets have 

been on a slowly increasing trend line since 2013, with an increased trend in 2021. Over the past 10 years, city 

fatal/serious crashes are also up 28%. Those crashes increased 15% from 2020 to 2021. The 5-year rolling 

average number for fatal/serious crashes on city streets have been increasing since 2016. While local safety 

efforts are following (or leading) best practices, the challenge is that the funding levels supporting safety efforts 

on 80,000+ miles of local roads is simply insufficient to keep up with the many safety challenges facing the 

system. Evaluation will continue to include examining individual local agency trends to attempt to identify 

agencies with better trend lines for further analysis. The State is also seeing steep rises in fatal and serious 

injuries with total fatal and serious crashes increasing 19% between 2020-2021, and the five year rolling 

average from its low in 2015 of 2540 to the current high in 2021 of 2988. During the 2016-2018 to 2019-2021 

timeframe the highest increases in percentage terms in Pedestrians involved, bicyclist involved, and heavy 

truck involved at 30%, 29% and 30% respectively and with lane departure crashes 37% of the total and 

intersections 33% of the total. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

• More systemic programs 

• Organizational change 

• Policy change 

• Other-Complete Streets using Safe System Principles Legislation 

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

In 2021 WSDOT continue to evolve its safety subprogram. As part of these efforts, the Department is 

continuing to implement its active transportation subcategory. To do so, WSDOT has developed a method for 

assessment of active transportation projects that is a proactive systemic based approach. This program will 

incorporate crashes, equity and demand providing a level of traffic stress calculation. Route directness is also 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 59

being incorporated. Funds were provided by the FHWA Innovations program to develop a GIS based 

approach. Further, WSDOT collected sidewalk location information outside of the HSIP funding. WSDOT was 

required to develop an approach to complete streets in its 2022 Budget for projects beginning July 2021 in 

excess of $500k. This has required a transfer of resources so the ranking methods have been somewhat 

delayed but are nearly complete. It should be noted that projects within other subcategories continue to 

address walking and biking needs and related issue of speed and AT are part of discussion within the crash 

reduction category. The speed management subcategory is progressing through changes in design criteria so 

that projects outside of HSIP are required to consider AT and speed management more directly. From a 

transportation operations perspective, discussions related to the 85th percentile and pace car speed setting 

continue, and WSDOT is working to consider how the injury minimization guidelines it developed might be 

incorporated. As with the active transportation, the speed management streets is being implemented, but 

ranking methods are somewhat delayed.

The new budget has allowed for a more direct discussion of how to set target speeds consistent with the safe 

system across the entire WSDOT network might be implemented resulting in WSDOT modifying decision 

documents to more effectively address AT and speeds in a more equitable fashion throughout the design and 

operational processes. WSDOT has numerous team working working to implement complete streets for all 

projects greater than $500k, and this includes safety projects. The complete streets effort began prior to 2022, 

but funding and the budget proviso greatly impacted the speed of delivery of this important aspect of safety 

considerations.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2021

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

Impairment Involved 328.4 478.4 0.42 0.59 0 0 0

Distracted User(s) 

Involved

130 584.2 0.22 0.88 0 0 0

Speeding Driver 

Involved

112.8 258.6 0.15 0.35 0 0 0

Unrestrained 

Occupant

265.6 71.8 0.41 0.14 0 0 0

Lane Departure 188.6 898.8 0.32 1.25 0 0 0

Run Off the Road 77 669.2 0.1 0.98 0 0 0

Opposite Direction 126.2 229.6 0.16 0.27 0 0 0

Intersection Related 126.4 467.6 0.1 0.58 0 0 0

Active Transportation 

User (Non-Motorist)

113 365.4 0.08 0.44 0 0 0
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 59

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

Pedestrian 13.4 102.2 0.02 0.14 0 0 0

Bicyclist 169.2 811.2 0.25 1.12 0 0 0

Motor Vehicle Driver 

Age 16 to 25 Involved

78.8 242.4 0.07 0.27 0 0 0

Heavy Vehicle 

Involved

92.2 423.2 0.14 0.61 0 0 0

Motorcycle 76 387.6 0.09 0.49 0 0 0
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 59

350

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 59

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 59

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: ICWS (Intersection Conflict Warning 

System) -Various sign messages 

Description: 

Site Type: Rural 2 Lane 2 way Highways 

Crash Type: All Countermeasure Relevant 

Crashes Crash Severity: All 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 2 

Number of Installations: 2 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: CMF = 0.462 CI = 0.99 SE = 0.21 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: PTSWF (Prepare To Stop When Flashing) 

System 

Description: 

Site Type: Rural 2 Lane 2 way Highways 

Crash Type: All Countermeasure Relevant 

Crashes Crash Severity: All 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 21 

Number of Installations: 21 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: CMF = 0.462 CI = 0.99 SE = 0.21 

File Name: Hyperlink
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 59

Project Effectiveness

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

NA
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 59

Compliance Assessment

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

 02/04/2020

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2017

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

 2024

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

30 30 30 30

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

20 20
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 59

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

63 63 63 63 63 63

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

55 55

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

40 40

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 59

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

40 40

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

40 40

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 89.61 89.61 86.88 86.88 80.00 80.00 88.11 88.11 92.60 92.60

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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. 

WSDOT is in the process of a program LIDAR data collection. Teams are in place to develop process and procedures, and funding has been identified through HSIP. 
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 59

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 59

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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