Page 1 of 43

KANSAS 

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 43

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 .......................................................................................................................7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................17

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................17

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................19

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................23

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................23

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................28

Applicability of Special Rules ...........................................................................................................31

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................32

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................32

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................32

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................39

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................42

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................43
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 43

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 43

Executive Summary

In Kansas, we continue to utilize HSIP dollars in various independently managed programs, further outlined in 

this report. Collectively, these programs cover more than 140,000 centerline miles of public roads in Kansas 

and apply a multitude of proven countermeasures designed to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes 

statewide. Like many other states, Kansas has experienced data anomalies due to the social consequences of 

the COVID-19 pandemic. While there has been a reduction in traffic volumes, Serious Injury and Fatality rates 

have increased in 2020 and 2021. This has created a challenge when generating meaningful safety 

performance measures during the affected years. National researchers have indicated that decreased traffic 

resulted in increased travel speeds. These national findings were also present in Kansas, igniting an initiative 

to focus on speed management in the coming years. 

Since completing the 2021 Annual Report, we continue to work on the SHSP Implementation. In the first 

quarter of FFY22, we completed a diagnostic process to identify barriers to SHSP implementation. As a result, 

we outlined a plan for the next three years of implementation, including a strategy prioritization process and a 

schedule for completed action plans. This will continue to require engagement from the Executive Safety 

Council and Emphasis Area Teams for the coming years. 

We continue to populate data for KDOT use in a new SPF Tool, allowing us to conduct network screening and 

identify systemic needs. We believe the tool will be fully functional by the end of calendar year 2022. 

Two program evaluations have been completed. While inconclusive, the evaluations allowed us to further 

analyze these programs and identifying potential improvement areas. 

KDOT also initiated a process to develop a Safety Engineering Programs Manual. This ongoing effort has 

allowed us to revisit our state and federal fund structure and improve funding alignment with SHSP goals. 

We continue to work on the creation of a Kansas-specific CMF list to be consistently used throughout KDOT 

and in coordination with our external partners. 

This reporting period saw many new hires to the Bureau of Transportation Safety, including planning and 

engineering staff and analysts to support evaluations and project development needs. 

Lastly, we have used state funds to launch new safety engineering programs, to hire data, communications, 

and behavioral safety staff; conduct safety data projects; and to make a significant investment in a new crash 

reporting system. Our goal is for each of these projects and documents to substantively inform and improve 

our overall HSIP processes, the outcome of which is reductions in fatal and serious injury crashes. 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 43

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. 

Our HSIP is comprised of 8 programs, which are all individually managed within KDOT. These programs 

include Intersections, Signing, Pavement Marking, Lighting, Rail-Highway Grade Crossings, Guardrail, High 

Risk Rural Roads (HRRR), and General Safety Improvements. Each program is further described within this 

report except the RHCP, which is covered separately in its own report. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Design

The State Highway Safety Engineer administers the HSIP in the Bureau of Transportation Safety within the 

Division of Planning and Development. Seven of the eight sub-programs are now managed within the Division 

of Engineering and Design: Intersections, Signing, Pavement Markings, and Lighting are managed in the 

Bureau of Traffic Engineering, the Bureau of Local Projects manages HRRR, and Rail-Highway Grade 

Crossing and Guardrail is managed by the Bureau of Road Design. The Bureau of Transportation Safety 

manages General Safety Improvements. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Headquarters 

A committee comprised of the HSIP Program Manager (State Highway Safety Engineer), FHWA Division 

Safety Engineer, program managers, and management meets quarterly to measure program progress based 

on planned obligations and estimate and distribute allocations moving forward. Historical precedent informs 

decisions, but actual distribution is based on anticipated needs over the next two years. The share of crashes 

per program area is considered when setting goals for program spending. We are actively improving our HSIP 

by implementing data-driven distribution of dollars to each program. 

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

Lighting, Pavement Markings, Signing, and Guardrail are exclusive to the State Highway System, although 

projects may impact intersecting non-state roads. Intersections and General Safety Improvement projects may 

also include off-system local roads. HRRR is exclusive to local major collectors. 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 43

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The lighting program coordinates with KDOT District and area staff as well as the KDOT Structural Engineer 

and the Bureau of Traffic Engineering. The State Structural Engineer evaluates lighting support such as poles, 

foundations, and trusses in coordination with the lighting program manager. District and Area staff provide 

location information, and they may also submit project requests to the program manager. Traffic Engineering 

may generate traffic studies resulting in a recommendation to install lighting. The Signing program is based on 

the age of signs within District maintenance subareas. These subareas typically follow county line boundaries. 

Area Offices may complete a sign inventory for each project, and in previous years, KDOT has employed 

maintenance forces instead of contractors. However, due to KDOT staffing shortages, the responsibility has 

returned to contractors. Area Offices administer the projects once let. The Pavement Marking program 

manager works closely with District and Area Engineers to identify recommended routes based on field 

experience and data collected on retro-reflectivity. The Bureau of Traffic Engineering is often involved due to 

traffic studies or other recommendations. KDOT Research is also involved to verify that material used in a pilot 

or added to the Pre-Qualifications list is high quality and durable. The Intersection program identifies projects 

through solicitation, traffic study recommendations, and input from District/Area staff who have been 

approached by the community or local law enforcement. Additionally, TEAP (Traffic Engineering Assistance 

Program) reports may identify. When an intersection is located on the State Highway System, the District and 

Area offices are included. The HRRR program is managed through the Bureau of Local Projects and utilizes a 

scoring rubric to rank potential projects. District Offices are often involved in this process. The General Safety 

Improvements program also partners with District staff to scope and select project requests. 

The Guardrail program partners with District and Area offices based on the MOU for the Guardrail Set-Aside 

Program dated August 19, 2019.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Local Government Agency 

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Intersections program: KDOT identifies projects through soliciting cities’ recommendations, Traffic Engineering 

Assistance Program reports (TEAP) or KDOT traffic studies . The Bureau of Traffic Engineering will enter into 

agreements with cities and/or counties depending on project requirements. 

HRRR program: Projects are identified through solicitation to counties and their recommendations. The Bureau 

of Local projects then enters into an agreement with the project owner. Additionally, projects may be identified 

through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program reports (TEAP), road safety audits, and Local 

Road Safety Plans. All programs: The FHWA oversees planning and provides program guidance as needed. 

The MPOs are involved in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) approval process.
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 43

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

elaborate. 

The dollar amounts provided are supplemental information only. Projects funded with advanced construction 

(ACHSIP) are not included in this report but will be reported when funds are converted. Advanced Construction 

is utilized to balance program funding in the event that another program is not able to obligate the funds as 

originally expected. 

For this question, the apportioned dollar amount is what was made available to each program prior to the 

beginning of the fiscal year; this value varies from year to year based on anticipated need and does not include 

carry-over. Please note that the values for obligations may include adjustments made on projects reported in a

previous report or may include PE on projects we will report in the future and should not be expected to match 

totals from the project listing table below.

The following amount was apportioned for FFY-2022:

Program distribution is as follows: 

• Lighting: $2,500,000 

• Pavement Marking: $5,000,000 

• Signing: $4,000,000 

• Intersection Safety: $7,000,000 

• General Safety Improvements: $0 

• HRRR: 

o $3,071,977 HSIP 

o $3,150,110 HRRR Penalty 

• Guardrail: $0 

The following amount was authorized in SFY-2022:

• Lighting: $2,267,677.21 HSIP 

• Pavement Marking: $2,677,208.87 HSIP 

• Signing: 

o $10,944,768.32 HSIP 

o $2,949,500 Advanced Construction HSIP 

• Intersection Safety:

o $3,971,937.93 HSIP 

o $12,961,330 Advanced Construction HSIP 

• GSI: $174,374.98 HSIP 

• HRRR: 

o $3,840,130.15 HSIP 

o $3,150,110 HSIP Penalty 

• Guard Rail: 

o $1,586,365.21 HSIP 

o $3,150,094.83 Advanced Construction HSIP 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• HRRR

• Intersection
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 43

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Other-Pavement Marking

• Other-Lighting

• Other-General Safety Improvements

• Other-Guardrail

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:2/11/2011

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

• Traffic

• Volume

• Population

• Lane miles

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-LRSP

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-LRSP

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated).

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Scoring Rubric

• selection committee
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 43

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:2

Other-Scoring Rubric :1

What is the funding approach for this program? The FHWA HRRR Special Rule Requirement is 

considered in addition to the HRRR funding set aside. 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:8/25/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Must satisfy a need based on the HSM, address crashes, and have a B/C>1.

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Traffic

• Volume

• Population

• Functional classification

• Other-Turn lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Other-B/C ratio

• Other-Observed crashes and patterns

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

program?

Yes

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

No
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 43

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

Process is same except local road projects include a periodic solicitation letter to all cities with 

population of 5,000 or greater requesting project proposals.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:3

Other-Crash patterns:1

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-10 year sign replacement for retro-reflectivity per the MUTCD

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP % based on project development pipeline for SFY

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Sign Age • Other-District Request

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Projects are programmed based on sign age and replacement need per District SubArea

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 43

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Projects selected based on sign age per District Sub-Area

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-Per established cyclical program:1

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology:4/30/2022

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP % based on roadway departure crashes

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Volume

• Population

• Other-If we considered only 

traffic volumes, only high 

volume districts (1 and 5) would 

get funded, thus population is 

taken into account. At the 

district level, we then consider 

higher volume routes first and 

take into account retroreadings.

• Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Mobile retro-reflectivity data

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

program?

No
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 43

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 

projects.

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:2

Other-Retro-reflectivity scoring:1

Other-Pavement Marking Condition Review:1

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology:5/15/2022

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP % based on intersection/roadway departure crashes

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Night-time unlit crashes • Volume • Other-Intersections and 

Interchanges

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

• Other-Traffic Studies and Public/District Requests

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 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 43

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:6/24/2022

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

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
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 43

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:2

Other-Share of fatal crashes:1

Other-District Priority :1

The original General Safety Improvement Program is being reinvented as a state-funded safety program 

focused on passing lanes, intersections, and segments. This funding category continues to exist for special 

projects as needed or when consistent with our Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Program: Other-Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology:8/19/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-FHWA Agreement for blunt end terminal replacements

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

• Other-NHS

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Tiered approach based on AADT and posted speed, then strategically bundled by 

geography

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-Memorandum of Understanding
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 43

• Other-Tiered prioritization 

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:2

Other-Priority List:1

What is the funding approach for this program? Funding set aside selected based on required spending 

amount set by FHWA via MOU 2019.

• Projects will focus on removal and replacement of blunt ends on the mainline lanes along the NHS 

routes.

• Where existing guardrail installations are entirely replaced, the replacement will be consistent with 

KDOT’s Roadside Safety Hardware Eligibility Process.

• Each blunt end guardrail location will be evaluated for the appropriate treatment but will focus on the 

blunt end terminal.

• Some set-aside projects may require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. Where ROW is required the 

project schedule will be such to allow adequate time for environmental reviews and ROW acquisition to 

take place.

• The set-aside projects are expected to be categorical exclusion environmental classification.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 83

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

Percentage is based on project cost only.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Other-10-year replacement cycle

• Other-Risk factors for systemic programs

"Engineering Study" includes Traffic Studies and utilizing existing Road Safety Audits.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 43

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.

The intersection program uses the Highway Safety Manual Part B along with Part C for the expected, predicted 

and observed crash frequency. We also use the Level of Service of Safety, crash patterns, and cost-benefit 

analysis to determine if a project qualifies for funding. 

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

elaborate.

• CMF Standardized List - KDOT has hired a consultant to research and compile a list of CMFs 

commonly used in Kansas. In addition, they will recommend a CMF value that best represents the 

scenarios experienced within our state. This project is ongoing and expected to be completed in 2024.

• Network Screening - KDOT currently uses AASHTOWare’s former software, Safety Analyst, to perform 

initial network screening on the state system. The Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) is used to identify 

and rank locations with the potential for the highest safety improvements. In addition, intersections are 

screened using crash frequency. Soon, the intersection screening process will be using predictive 

network screening. 

o SPF Tool - KDOT has purchased software that will replace the former AASHTOware Safety 

Analyst. The software company staff is currently calibrating SPFs for Districts 2, 4, 6, and soon 

to be District 3. KDOT staff has been testing the tool and making customized changes to 

replace Safety Analyst fully. This tool is expected to be fully implemented beginning in CY 2023.

o GIS Mapping - Another consultant project is developing a GIS tool to generate project locations 

for the state-funded Clear Zone Safety Improvement Program. This project will generate a map 

based on specified criteria for qualifying locations. In addition, KDOT will be provided with a fluid 

dashboard that all internal staff can use to influence project submissions. The hope is that this 

project will open the door for more intense and effective network screening that KDOT can 

utilize within HSIP subprograms.

• Safety Engineering Programs Manual - KDOT has hired a consultant to construct a manual that 

includes all state and federally funded safety programs. The purpose of this manual is to provide 

consistency and clear direction on how programs are managed and funded and how projects are 

ultimately selected. This project also encompasses the restructuring of the HSIP programs to improve 

alignment with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The manual will be completed for KDOT use in late 

2022, though implementing the HSIP subprogram transition will likely take a few years to complete. 

• SHSP Implementation – Over the past year KDOT has worked with a consultant to identify the highest 

priority strategies of the SHSP to focus implementation efforts. By end of SFY23 ten strategies will have 

robust action plans indicating how, when and where strategies will be executed. 

• Safety Corridors – As part of the SHSP Implementation, the Executive Safety Council initiated a

program to implement safety corridors statewide. First, KDOT conducted preliminary studies to identify 

locations, and this ongoing effort will likely come to fruition in 2023. These corridors will likely be 

phased beginning with Education and Enforcement, followed by Engineering countermeasures based 

on problems identified within the corridor.

• Local Field Liaison – The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) has created a position for a 

Local Field Liaison that will work closely with KDOT staff and our local partners. The Local Field Liaison 

establishes a connection with local partners so that KDOT can funnel HSIP funding to local partners 

more effectively. 

• Vulnerable Road User Assessment – KDOT released a Request for Proposals to complete the first ever 

Kansas Vulnerable Road User Assessment. Results of this work will inform effective programming for 

pedestrian and cyclist safety improvements throughout the state. The assessment will be complete by 

November 2023. 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 43

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $21,571,977 $25,464,245 118.04%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$3,150,110 $3,150,110 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $8,381,764 $9,387,625 112%

Totals $33,103,851 $38,001,980 114.8%

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

safety projects? 

16%

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

16%

HRRR is the only program that have programmed and obligated funds on the local system. For this reporting 

period, the Intersection Program had no locally owned projects programmed or obligated for SFY22. 

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

3%

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

3%

The non-infrastructure safety projects include LRSPs and TEAP Studies. Mobile retroreflective inventory of 

pavement markings has been categorized as non-infrastructure, but the current project was accounted for in 

last year's report therefore we will not duplicate in this report. 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 43

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

the future.

All Programs:

• Federal Regulation 646.214B and 23USC109.E requires project review if the project terminus is within 

a certain distance of a railroad crossing. If the rail crossing is not up to date (lights, crossbucks, gate 

arms, etc...), this must be done before any additional work is completed. This has caused significant 

project delays or complications when scheduling around RR updates. 

• KDOT continues to conduct Network Screening using predictive models, however, intersection and spot 

treatments analysis has been pending the completion of the Intersection Inventory scheduled to be 

completed by the end of calendar year 2022. Beginning in 2023, the Agency plans to have completed 

network screening and evaluations for all on-system segments and intersections. 

Signing Program:

• Lack of ability to develop and maintain a signing inventory to keep track of sign age and retro-reflectivity 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 43

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

C-4790-03 Miscellaneous Local road safety 

plans

20 Counties $927479 $1030533 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot and 

Systemic 

Safety 

Local Road 

Safety 

Roadway 

Departure 

and 

Intersection

C-4966-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

121 Miles $176820 $176820 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Signing EDC5-

Signing

C-4963-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

30 Miles $176820 $176820 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Signing EDC-5 

Signing

C-4986-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

90 Miles $479067 $479067 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Signing EDC-5 

Signing

C-5057-01 Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersections $365126 $405696 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Speed 

Management

C-5059-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

82 Miles $250357 $250357 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Signing EDC-5 

Signing

C-5061-01 Roadside Roadside grading 2 Miles $862500 $862500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 Clear 

Zone

C-5065-01 Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

1.46 Miles $1011145 $1123495 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

EDC 5- 

Pavement 

Friction

KA-6544-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

14.36 Miles $1105782 $1105995 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,600 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-6502-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

11.25 Miles $440409 $440409 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate33,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-6500-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

3.235 Miles $434140 $434175 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,230 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-6348-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

.3 Miles $64495 $64495 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther18,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-6349-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

13.770 Miles $1054688 $1054688 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate41,906 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 43

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

KA-6501-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

.216 Miles $88913 $88913 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,430 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-6347-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

20.829 Miles $471281 $471281 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate24,500 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC5-

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5284-01 Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

2 Intersections $390000 $5733351 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Speed 

Management

KA-5563-01 Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

4 Intersections $2617208 $3147951 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,560 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Speed 

Management

KA-5710-01 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

signing –other

2 Intersections $134912 $152093 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,400 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections EDC-5 

Signing

KA-5498-01 Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersections $891000 $990000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Speed 

Management

KA-4563-02 Speed 

management

Traffic calming 

feature

1 One Order of 

Portable 

Rumble 

Strips and 

Materials

$162000 $180000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Speed 

Management

KA-6092-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

83.864 Miles $626522 $627412 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6096-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

91.874 Miles $2330575 $2330575 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

signing

KA-6095-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

86.359 Miles $2295681 $2296364 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6107-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

107.16 Miles $436703 $527055 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6106-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

128.023 Miles $637722 $637829 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-4744-05 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

13.64 Miles $2508919 $3004434 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 43

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

KA-6094-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

53.517 Miles $1131226 $131328 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6111-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

115.187 Miles $826441 $826619 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6093-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

97.43 Miles $681789 $684532 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 

Signing

KA-6158-01 Lighting Interchange

lighting

2 Interchanges $391870 $391870 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-6281-01 Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 Intersections $257045 $257045 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-6279-01 Lighting Lighting - other 2 Intersection 

and an 

Interchange 

Lighting 

Upgrade

$261600 $261600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-4020-03 Lighting Lighting - other 1 PE ONLY 

Project 

Cancelled

$3600 $3600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-6283-01 Lighting Interchange

lighting

1 Interchanges $262395 $262395 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-5495-02 Lighting Interchange

lighting

1 Interchange 

Approach 

near Railroad

$1755315 $1755387 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-6284-01 Lighting Interchange

lighting

1 Interchanges $282760 $282760 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-5496-01 Lighting Interchange

lighting

4 Interchanges, 

Tangent 

areas and 

Approaches

$1067971 $1071461 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

KA-5495-01 Lighting Interchange

lighting

4 Interchanges 

and Tangent 

Areas

$1539987 $1547078 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections EDC-5 

Lighting

C-4983-01 Roadside Roadside - other 0.60 Miles $524241 $583119 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

EDC-5 Clear 

Zone
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 43

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

X-2216-22 Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

1 Statewide 

Pre-empted 

Intersections 

with Rail 

Crossing

$200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State, City or 

County 

Ownership

All state and 

locally owned 

intersections 

interconnected 

with a railroad 

crossing

Intersections Speed 

Management
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 43

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 350 384 355 429 461 403 410 425 423

Serious Injuries 1,454 1,203 1,195 1,173 1,029 1,000 1,400 1,585 1,704

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.159 1.250 1.131 1.336 1.431 1.252 1.287 1.526 1.334

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.813 3.917 3.808 3.654 3.195 3.107 4.396 5.690 5.372

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

33 32 29 50 39 35 28 52 50

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

115 99 107 109 100 103 125 122 135
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 43

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 43

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

28 55.8 0.09 0.18

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

12.4 28.8 0.04 0.09

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

65.2 121.2 0.21 0.39

Rural Minor Arterial 53.2 113.4 0.17 0.37

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector 34.2 102 0.11 0.33

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 27 of 43

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

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

26.2 77 0.08 0.25

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

14.8 43.4 0.05 0.14

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

20.2 54.6 0.07 0.18

Urban Minor Arterial 17.8 123.6 0.06 0.4

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 12.4 81.4 0.04 0.26

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 43

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

210.8 472.4 0.68 1.53

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 201.2 835.8 1.37 4.35

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 12.4 34.6 0.04 0.11

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Crash data is incomplete for functional class at the time of this report. 

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:400.0
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 43

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

The 2023 five-year moving average projection based upon the trendline indicates 445 fatalities. A 10% percent 

reduction would derive our goal of 400 fatalities in 2023. Based on recent history, the trendline of the target, 

the ten percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. The 2023 HSP and 2023 HSIP five-year moving 

average targets are equal.

Number of Serious Injuries:1100.0

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

The 2023 five-year moving average projection based upon the trend line indicates 1,348 serious injuries. An 

eight percent reduction in this projection would derive our target of 1,100 serious injuries in 2023. With the 

change in definition to suspected serious injury, there was a sharp increase in crashes meeting the definition. 

This is an artificial increase, not an actual degradation of safety. To re-establish a trendline for this category, it 

was determined to "back-cast" how many suspected serious injuries would have occurred in past years with 

the new definition. We used a conversion factor to inflate previous years' crashes by 1.46 (46% increase). This 

allows for a steady, downward trend that we predict would have occurred apart from the definition change. 

Consistent with national crash trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 defied that trend with a rise in 

suspected serious injuries, but we do not expect that to continue, that suspected serious injuries will resume 

falling. It is this trend upon which we based our suspected serious injury target. Based upon recent history, the 

trendline of the target, the eight percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. The 2023 HSP and 2023 

HSIP five-year moving average targets are equal. 

Fatality Rate:1.290

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

The 2023 five-year moving average projection based upon the trendline indicates a fatality rate of 1.44. A 

seven percent reduction in this projection would derive our goal of 1.29 fatality rate in 2023. Based on recent 

history, the trendline of the target, the seven percent reduction goal is realistic and attainable. The 2023 HSP 

and 2023 HSIP five-year moving average targets are equal. 

Serious Injury Rate:3.540

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

The 2023 five-year moving average projection based upon the curvilinear trendline indicates 4.374 serious 

injury rate per 100 million VMT. An eight percent reduction in this projection would lead to our goal of 3.540 

serious injury rate per 100 million VMT in 2023. With the change in definition to suspected serious injury, there 

was a sharp increase in crashes meeting the definition. This is an artificial increase, not an actual degradation 

of safety. To re-establish a trendline for this category, it was determined to "back-cast" how many suspected 

serious injuries would have occurred in past years with the new definition. We used a conversion factor to 

inflate previous years' crashes by 1.46 (46% increase). This allows for a steady, downward trend that we 

predict would have occurred apart from the definition change. Consistent with national crash trends during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 defied that trend with a rise in suspected serious injuries, but we do not expect that 

to continue, that suspected serious injuries will resume falling. It is this trend upon which we based our 

suspected serious injury target. Based on recent history, the trendline of the target, the eight percent reduction 

goal is realistic and attainable. The 2023 HSP and 2023 HSIP five-year moving average targets are equal. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:160.0
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 43

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

Target was set with a goal of 125 fatalities and serious injuries in 2030. From there a target was established a 

downward trendline was projected to identify the 2023 target of 160.

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

safety performance targets. 

The state of Kansas is fortunate in that both the SHSP and HSP administrators are in the KDOT Bureau of 

Transportation Safety, making coordination simple and encourages multidisciplinary collaboration. Both plans 

rely heavily on the same data sources to establish strategies and goals. These data sources include but are 

not limited to FARS, the statewide crash database, and observational surveys. The three identified 

performance measures – fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries – have the same definition and goals. We 

have been and will continue to provide each MPO with the data necessary to calculate their 2023 targets. At 

present, we are not certain whether individual MPOs will adopt the state targets or their own.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2021 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 364.0 424.4

Number of Serious Injuries 1190.0 1343.6

Fatality Rate 1.160 1.366

Serious Injury Rate 3.726 4.352

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

138.0 157.8

Based on the data provided in this report, we can conclude the following:

• Kansas’ highest contributing crash areas are on the local road system, rural locations, and are 

correlated to roadway departure, which also aligns with the HRRR program areas.

• Even though rural areas typically see the highest proportion of crashes, our most populous urban 

districts, including the Kansas City Metro Area in District One and the Wichita Area in District Five, 

share the largest percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes.

• HSIP expenditures per district generally reflect the share of fatal and serious injury crashes. However, 

spending on the local system has been underrepresented.

• The Signing subprogram has no associated crash data, yet Kansas spends nearly 25% of HSIP 

obligation in this area. KDOT is actively working to identify state funding sources with the goal of 

removing the signing subprogram from the HSIP program by 2027.

With Kansas’ ambitious goals for safety, we anticipate that we may show actual performance that does not 

meet our targets. With each, our goal is to become more specific in identifying data-driven countermeasure 

distribution and project selection.
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 43

Moving forward, KDOT will take the following actions to improve safety performance:

• Expand predictive data analysis tools to better develop our network screening process, including 

intersections and statewide SPFs,

• Complete the safety program evaluations and the safety program manual to improve alignment of the 

subprogram structure, SHSP, and crash data,

• Continue to coordinate with the Executive Safety Council and the Emphasis Area Teams, and to 

implement the current SHSP,

• Review standards and policies to determine if they can better reflect the Safe System approach,

• Complete and implement projects previously listed under “Noteworthy Practices”, and

• Continue to supplement the HSIP with state safety funding.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

50 78 74 64 75 79 79

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

93 105 107 94 135 151 158

The data above reflect our interpretation of the older driver rule. This data does not include fatal crashes where 

an older driver was involved but did not have serious injuries.
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 43

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Other-HSIP Program Evaluations 

In 2021, KDOT worked with the FHWA Division Office to complete an HSIP Assessment. The assessment 

created a structure for program-level evaluation. Programs must be evaluated individually as each process is 

unique. For this reporting period, we have completed an evaluation for the Lighting and Signing programs.

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

The University of Kansas Transportation prepared evaluations for two subprograms: lighting and signing using 

crash data and project information provided by KDOT. 

Signing: Researchers evaluated high-performance signing projects installed as part of the HSIP. The authors 

compared crashes that took place three years before and after the installation of improvement projects, 

excluding the installation year. Crash data from 2012 to 2020 was extracted from the KCARS database and 

included a complete list of subareas and Interstate sections. Projects completed in both 2015 and 2016 show a 

reduction in fatal, injury, and PDO crashes after the installation of signs. Researchers found that the aggregate 

benefit-cost ratio was beneficial at 8.56 for the HSIP sign replacement projects. 

Lighting: To evaluate the lighting subprogram, researchers compared the crashes three years before and after 

the installation of updated lighting projects, excluding the installation year. Researchers estimated the benefitcost ratio was 0.0044 for all weather conditions, while the benefit-cost ratio during no adverse weather 

conditions was a benefit of 0.255. When crashes were not impacted by weather conditions, “after” crash costs 

were lower than “before” crash costs. Maximum benefit occurred at a project location where the light was not 

previously located. While this report shows no benefit during adverse weather conditions, this analysis leads 

KDOT to conduct further investigations at the project level. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

• More systemic programs 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 43

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)

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 228.6 569.4 0.73 1.85

Intersections Intersections 96.6 428 0.31 1.38

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 34.6 79.6 0.11 0.26

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 5.2 33 0.02 0.11

Older Drivers (65+) Other (define) 110.4 260.6 0.33 0.77

Motorcyclists/Mopeds Other (define) 54.4 209.4 0.18 0.68

Work Zones All 6.4 21.2 0.02 0.07

Horizontal Curves All 74.4 206 0.24 0.67

Impaired Driving All 119 241 0.38 0.78

Teen Drivers (14-19) All 45.4 220.6 0.15 0.71

Occupant Protection 

(unbelted)

All 183.2 372.2 0.59 1.21

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

Truck-related 82.6 118.8 0.27 0.38

Local Roads All 201.2 835.8 0.65 2.71
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 43

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 43

Project Effectiveness 

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

K-15 at 71st, 

63rd, 47th and 

MacArthur Rd 

Sedgwick Co

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

additional signal 

heads

159.00 156.00 2.00 1.00 49.00 37.00 210.00 194.00

Douglas and 

Hydraulic - 

Wichita, KS

Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

10.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 2.00 23.00 8.00

I-70 in 

Dickinson Co., 

KS (15.2 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

31.00 47.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 10.00 10.00 45.00 59.00

I-35 Johnson 

Co., KS (2.574 

miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

231.00 191.00 1.00 3.00 70.00 75.00 302.00 269.00

US-169 

Johnson Co., 

KS (3.24 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

38.00 58.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 11.00 55.00 71.00

US-59 

Franklin Co., 

KS (7.755 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

14.00 14.00 2.00 2.00 16.00 16.00

US-69 Miami 

Co., KS (10.8 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

63.00 53.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 5.00 75.00 59.00

US-54 Allen 

Co., KS (5.435 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

22.00 21.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 25.00 27.00

US-54 

Bourbon Co., 

KS (3.54 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

13.00 24.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 18.00 28.00

I-435 

Wyandotte 

Co., KS 

(11.982 miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

51.00 78.00 1.00 2.00 20.00 18.00 72.00 98.00

I-70 

Wyandotte 

Urban 

Principal 

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

266.00 256.00 4.00 7.00 8.00 67.00 67.00 344.00 331.00
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 43

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Co., KS (5 

miles)

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

I-670 

Wyandotte 

Co., KS (1.6 

miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

50.00 67.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 18.00 32.00 71.00 102.00

K-5 Wyandotte 

Co., KS (2 

miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

9.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 14.00 4.00

K-15 

Sedgwick Co., 

KS (3.5 miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

59.00 46.00 21.00 7.00 80.00 53.00

I-70 Lincoln 

Co., KS (7.229 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

39.00 40.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 10.00 42.00 53.00

I-35 Coffey 

Co., KS (2.6 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

13.00 16.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 16.00 18.00

I-35 Osage 

Co., KS 

(11.474 miles)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

40.00 56.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 16.00 9.00 59.00 70.00

US-50 Lyon 

Co., KS (7 

miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

46.00 43.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 4.00 59.00 50.00

US-59 

Douglas Co., 

KS (1.2 miles)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

28.00 36.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 30.00 43.00

K-15 at 

Meadowlark

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

7.00 2.00 3.00 10.00 2.00

Claflin and 

College in 

Riley Co., KS

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

10.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 18.00 8.00

I-70 Polk 

Quincy 

Viaduct 

Shawnee Co. 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Lighting Horizontal curve 

lighting

21.00 22.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 28.00 25.00 .88
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 43

For the 2022 HSIP Annual Report, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) is starting to evaluate previous projects within the HSIP Annual Reporting tool. We have selected projects from the 2017 HSIP Annual Report unless 

crash data was unavailable for the three-year period of before and after analysis. 

For lighting installation projects, we evaluated all before and after crashes at the horizontal curve where the lighting was installed. Only “intersection” and “intersection-related” crashes were used to evaluate crash data at intersections. For 

pavement marking projects, we used the before and after crash data that matched the approximate locations by miles. The limits of the project were matched as closely as possible.

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

Using roadway departure crash data from the pre-installation years of 2014 to 2016 and the post-installation years of 2018-2020, KDOT reported a 11% crash reduction for an urban segment horizontal curve included in the Polk Quincy 

Lighting Project (KA 4539-01). The Safety Analyst tool provided the Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) that measures the potential for safety improvements. For the segments of I-70 that are impacted by this project there is one segment 

that displayed a reduction in the LOSS. For example, a change from a LOSS III to an LOSS II the analysis is stating that the potential for any additional safety countermeasures is lower. The evaluation of this project clearing shows 

improvements in safety along the horizontal curve by the reduction in crashes, crash severity and an improved LOSS. 

Using only “intersection” and “intersection related” crash reports, four intersection projects were also reported in the pre-installation years of 2014 to 2016 and the post-installation years of 2018 to 2020. Three intersections show a crash 

reduction of at least 50%. Similarly, analysis of the crash severity displayed the same benefit wherein three of the four projects reduced crash severity ranging from 63% to 100%. This analysis included fatal and all injury crashes. The 

project updating traffic signals in four locations along K-15 showed a crash reduction of 8% and a 25% reduction in crash severity. 

Seventeen pavement marking project locations were also reported using the same pre- and post-installation years. Eight of the seventeen locations listed in this 2017 HSIP Annual Report show either a reduction or no change in the 

number of crashes. Additional analysis showed that nine of seventeen locations showed a reduction in roadway departure crashes. Analyzing roadway departure crashes solely, we found that three of these nine locations had reductions 

below 20%, and only one of these locations had no change in the frequency of roadway departure crashes. This shows that, as a whole, the pavement marking program is performing well as it continues to improve the retro-reflectivity of 

the markings.
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 43

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/19/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2019 To: 2024

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

 2025

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 95

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 80 100 65

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 98

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

90 50
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 43

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 95

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 99

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 99 100 98

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 98 100 98 100 98

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]

70 60

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

50 20

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]

99 99

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

99 99
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 43

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]

99 99

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

99 99

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

99 99

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

99 99

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

20 20

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 85

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.44 95.22 90.00 85.00 92.18 90.82 100.00 95.67 100.00 99.60

*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. 

K-Hub is KDOT’s new Linear Referencing and Transportation Database System, which contains LiDAR data for all 140,000 public road miles in Kansas. It is currently being set up to have the event data items for MIRE FDE. The LiDAR 

data collection and extraction project created four Esri geodatabases including intersection data, guardrail data, signs, and roadway shoulder data for the State Highway System. KDOT is participating in the Application of Enterprise GIS 

for Transportation (AEGIST) Pooled Fund Study which helps states migrate to the enterprise level for creating, maintaining, and governing data related to roadways and their characteristics, elements, and events, which is based on a 

consensus best practices approach to the management of technology, data, and transportation system assets. KDOT staff attends webinars on MIRE data collection to learn about other states’ best practices. KDOT continues to work 

toward the goal of updating all MIRE Fundamental data elements of all public roads by September 30, 2026. 
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 43

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

HSIP Signing Report_kansas_final.docx

HSIP Lighting Report_kansas_final.docx

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 43

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.