Washington

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: WA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

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

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

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................2

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................4

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................20

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 20

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................55

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................83
iv
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Washington state HSIP program funds both local safety (70%) and state highway safety 

(30%) programs. The program continues to be successful (8.87 B/C for projects completed in 

2009). Projects going forward using HSIP funds target the top two (both priority one) 

infrastructure focus areas identified in the SHSP (Run-Off-the-Road & Intersections).
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

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

Our current SHSP (www.targetzero.com) has specific priority levels for types/causes/categories 

of fatal & serious injury crashes (some based on crash type, others based on driver behaviors, 

others based on user type). The top 2 infrastructure related priorities are Run-Off-the-Road 

crashes (priority 1) and Intersection crashes (priority 2). Evaluating crashes statewide for a 5 

year period, we identify how many fatal & serious injury run-off-road crashes and how many 

fatal & serious injury intersection-related crashes occurred. That data is evaluated to see how 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

many were on local agency responsibility roads compared to state responsibility roads. The 

HSIP funding is split by percentage based on that data. Currently, that means that the state 

receives 30% of HSIP funds and local agencies receive 70% of HSIP funds.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Highways & Local Programs

Other: Other-Risk

Other: Other-Program Management

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Oversight for the 70% of the HSIP funds that are directed to local agencies is assigned to the 

Highways & Local Programs division for management (to identify local agency priorities, 

distribution of funds between counties & cities, individual project selection, etc.).

Oversight for the 30% of the HSIP funds that are directed to the state is managed by our 

Highway Safety Executive Committee (HSEC). We do not have a specific highway safety office 

within the DOT. Instead, safety is part of everyone's responsibility. As such, safety oversight by 

HSEC provides an opportunity for major affected programs to provide input on safety issues. 

The HSEC is comprised of program directors from Design, Planning, Operations, Highways & 

Local Programs, Risk, and Program Management.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Panel of local agencies

The Highways & Local Programs division oversees the planning of HSIP funds for local agencies. 

In developing program methodology, local agency representatives are included in the decisionmaking process for agreement/modifications to programs. Those local agency representatives 

are identified with assistance from local government associations (city & county).

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-no change

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-State - Collision 

Analysis Corridors

Other: Other-State - Collision 

Analysis Locations

Other: Other-State -

Intersection Analysis Locations

Other: Other-Local - City 

Safety Program

Other: Other-Local - County 

Safety Program

The state HSIP program focuses on Collision Analysis Corridors (CACs), which are generally 

focused on Roadway Departure safety. The program also focuses on Collision Analysis Locations 

(CALs) and Intersection Analysis Locations (IALs) which are both generally related to 

Intersection safety.

The local HSIP program focuses on a County Safety program - primarily Roadway Departure 

with some Intersection, and a City Safety Program - primarily Intersection. It also funds the 

Corridor Safety Program on city & county roadways.

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2004

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Agreement between program managers at WSDOT and the Governor's Highway Safety Office, 

based on data & local leadership

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 3

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Fatal & serious injury crash 

history

1

Local leadership & interest 2
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Corridors

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Program: Other-State - Collision Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Program: Other-State - Intersection Analysis Locations

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Fatal, serious, and 

evident injury crashes only

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-Local - City Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-Local - County Safety Program

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Allocation of funds to each county based on rate of fatal & serious injury crashes per mile

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).
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

For the county safety program, while the allocation is based on available funding, each county 

is required to meet certain criteria for approval for project award.

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

45

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

45% is an estimate. The majority of county projects have been systemic in nature (it is a riskbased program). Some of the state & city funds have been for systemic improvements, others 

for spot locations.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-no change

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 223496410 20 % 140408767 14 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 4350000 0 % 4340799 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

55510000 5 % 55510000 5 %
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

State and Local Funds 805673931 73 % 805673931 78 %

Other HES 21955882 2 % 21955732 2 %

Totals 1110986223 100% 1027889229 100%

This table shows the funds spent on safety from 2005-2013 in the state of Washington. (2003-

2013 for state funds)

Obligation amounts are as of 5/14/13.

Note that this information does not include any behavioral safety funds (administered through 

the Washington Traffic Safety Commission - our Governor's Highway Safety Office). This 

information also does not include direct local agency funds used for safety (which can be 

significant). Finally, note that the state safety funds listed are only those provided directly 

through the state safety program. However, other programs (paving, for example) also spend 

significant funds on safety that are not accounted for here.

Other federal funds listed are ARRA funds.

HSIP Program includes:

HSIP - Data Improvement - $181,948 programmed, $181,948 obligated

HSIP - Rural 2 Lane (2005) - $16,914,214 programmed, $16,914,214 obligated

HSIP - Intersections/Corridors (2006) - $10,085,465 programmed, $10,085,465 obligated

HSIP - Invitational (2008) - $15,628,390 programmed, $14,498,108 obligated

HSIP - County Safety (2010) - $45,590,928 programmed, $31,107,238 obligated

HSIP - City Safety (2012) - $50,000,000 programmed, $8,496,645 obligated

HSIP - Quick Response (2013) - $28,000,000 programmed, $2,029,684 obligated

HSIP - State - $57,095,465 programmed, $57,095,465 obligated

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

$295,312,292.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$212,215,298.00
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

For the same time period as the previous question, 2005-2013.

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

$0.00

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

$0.00

Does not include behavioral safety funds administered through the Washington Traffic Safety 

Commission (our Governor's Highway Safety Office).

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

The biggest impediment to obligating HSIP funds has been getting realistic schedules for local 

agency projects. To assist in this effort going forward, several additional milestones are being 

required for project proposals to help local agencies identify and understand what an accurate 

schedule for a HSIP project might be. In addition, more strict deadlines for obligation are being 

set, or projects will lose awarded funding.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement 

Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AA

DT

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Chelan 

County -

MalagaAlcoa Hwy

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

7 

Numb

ers

180000 180000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A3 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(install 

illumination 

where 

appropriate)

Clallam 

County -

Laird Rd

Roadside Roadside 

grading

0.86 

Miles

150000 150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B6 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(improve the 

clear zone, 

enhance 

roadside 

safety by 

flattening 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

slopes and 

removing 

hazardous 

objects)

Clallam 

County -

SequimDungeness 

Way

Roadside Barriermetal1.17 

Miles

252000 252000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Clark 

County -

Timmens 

Rd/Washou

gal River 

Rd/Hyatt 

Rd/Lockwo

od Creek 

Rd/179th 

St/Bratton 

Rd

Roadside Barriermetal6 

Numb

ers

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Cowlitz 

County -

Rose Valley 

Roadside Barriermetal7 

Numb

ers

498000 498000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Rd/Old 

99/Kalama 

River 

Rd/Tower 

Rd/Delame

ter 

Rd/Woodsi

de 

Dr/Mount 

Pleasant Rd

ces of 

leaving the 

road

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Douglas 

County -

McNeil 

Canyon Rd

Alignment Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

5.45 

Miles

806000 806000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A3 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

geometrics)

Garfield 

County -

Peola 

Rd/Pomero

y 

Rd/Meado

w Creek 

Rd/Kirby 

Mayview 

Rd

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement markings -

new

4 

Numb

ers

492000 492000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A5 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

signage and 

delineation)
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Grays 

Harbor 

County -

Middle 

Satsop Rd

Alignment Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

1 

Numb

ers

150000

0

150000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A3 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

geometrics)

Grays 

Harbor 

County -

Countywid

e

Shoulder treatments 

Pave existing 

shoulders

17 

Numb

ers

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A3 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

geometrics)

Island 

County -

Camano Dr

Roadway Rumble 

strips - center

5.75 

Miles

157000 157000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A2 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(install 

rumble strips 

where 

appropriate)

City of 

Issaquah - E 

Lake 

Sammamis

h Pkwy & 

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

400000 400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

SE 56th St intersectio

ns

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Kennewick 

- Citywide

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

29 

Numb

ers

540000 540000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A1 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

traffic control 

and 

operational 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

Kitsap 

County -

Countywid

e

Roadside Barriermetal13 

Numb

ers

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Klickitat Roadway Roadway 2.65 193300 193300 HSIP Rural 0 0 County Keeping 1.2.A3 -
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

County -

Snowden 

Rd

widening - travel 

lanes

Miles 0 0 (Sectio

n 148)

Major 

Collector

Highway 

Agency

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

geometrics)

Klickitat 

County -

Snowden 

Rd

Roadside Barriermetal

9 Miles 432000 432000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

City of 

Longview -

SR 4 & NE 

Nichols

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replac

ement

1 

Numb

ers

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Lynnwood -

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

1 

Numb

175000 175000 HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Collector

0 0 City of 

Municip

Improving 

the design 

2.5.A1 -

Reduce 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Alderwood 

Mall Blvd & 

40th Ave

traffic control - other ers n 148) al 

Highway 

Agency

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

traffic control 

and 

operational 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

Mason 

County -

Countywid

e

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Sign 

sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

8 

Numb

ers

476000 476000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A5 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway

signage and 

delineation)

Okanogan 

County -

Patterson 

Lake 

Rd/Old 

Riverside 

Hwy/Toats 

Coulee 

Rd/TwispWinthrop 

Roadside Barriermetal5 

Numb

ers

496000 496000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Eastside 

Rd/LoomisOroville Rd

Pend 

Oreille 

County -

Deer Valley 

Rd/Southsh

ore 

Diamond 

Rd/LeClerc 

Rd

Roadside Barriermetal3 

Numb

ers

395000 395000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 

(install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Pierce 

County -

Spanaway 

Loop Rd

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

400000 400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

Pierce 

County -

Orville 

Rd/304th 

St/Cramer 

Roadside Barriermetal5 

Numb

ers

362000 362000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

1.2.B4 -

Minimize the 

consequence

s of leaving 

the roadway 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Rd 

KPN/118th 

Ave/John 

Rd

road (install 

guardrail/bar

riers where 

necessary)

Pierce 

County -

8th Ave S & 

288th St 

S/8th Ave S 

& 304th St 

S/8th Ave E 

& 304th St 

E

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

flashers - add 

overhead 

(continuous)

3 

Numb

ers

138000 138000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A1 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

traffic control 

and 

operational 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Renton - SR 

900 & 

Duvall Ave

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

396000 396000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of Intersection traffic 1 72000 72000 HSIP Urban 0 0 City of Improving 2.5.A1 -
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Shoreline -

15th Ave & 

150th St

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

Numb

ers

(Sectio

n 148)

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

traffic control 

and 

operational 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Shoreline -

SR 99

Access management 

Grassed median -

extend existing

1.01 

Miles

110500

00

110500

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

Skagit 

County -

Best Rd & 

McLean Rd

Intersection traffic 

control Modify 

control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

800000 800000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

ns improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Spokane -

Mission St 

& S 

Riverton

Access management 

Access management -

other

1 

Numb

ers

34000 34000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

Spokane 

County -

Deer ParkMilan/Palo

use 

Hwy/Trails

Rd/CheneyPlaza Rd

Roadway Rumble 

strips - center

4 

Numb

ers

498000 498000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

3.1.A1 -

Reduce 

oppositedirection 

multi-vehicle 

collisions 

(implement 

centerline 

treatments 

such as 

rumble strips 

to reduce 

head-on 

crashes on all 

two lane 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

highways 

where 

possible)

Thurston 

County -

Morris Rd

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

1 

Numb

ers

216000 216000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

1.2.A3 -

Reduce runoff-the-road 

collisions 

(improve 

roadway 

geometrics)

City of 

Vancouver 

- Andresen 

Rd & 40th 

St

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

335000 335000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Vancouver 

- Thurston 

Way & 

Parkway Dr

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

273000 273000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

City of 

Vancouver 

- Thurston 

Way & 

Vancouver 

Mall Dr

Intersection 

geometry Auxiliary 

lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 

Numb

ers

270000 270000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of highway 

intersectio

ns

2.5.A2 -

Reduce 

motor vehicle 

collisions at 

intersections 

(implement 

geometric 

improvement

s where 

appropriate)

A couple of possible online reporting tool suggestions:

1) For project output options, it might be worthwhile to have more than just numbers or miles as options. For the numbers category, 

some of these projects (depending on the countermeasure used) are measured in number of roads, number of intersections, or 

number of curves.

2) I did not see a countermeasure option for adding a new signal at an intersection. This seems like a standard option that should be 

in the list.

Also, a few of the functional class types did not input correctly (even though they were selected using the template provided). The 

ORT requested each of these to be reported under Other.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of fatalities 569 519 493 461 454

Number of serious injuries 2718 2551 2648 2481 2122

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1 0.94 0.87 0.8 0.8

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 4.78 4.62 4.67 4.31 3.74

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2012

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

18 51 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

19 45 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

37 89 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

37 107 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

14 74 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

72 234 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

17 70 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 26 134 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

25 107 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

38 220 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

27 144 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

7 27 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

5 27 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

216 817 0.68 2.57

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

128 535 1.36 5.67

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

94 821 0.62 5.41

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

4 24 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 2 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 2 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 2 0 0

OTHER 1 4 0 0

FEDERAL 0 2 0 0

NATIONAL PARK 0 0 0 0

NATIONAL PARK 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

The functional classification data ONLY includes state and county road data. Our state database does not include federal functional 

classification for crashes on city streets or miscellaneous roadways. So the rural information should be accurate. The urban

information would change significantly. This also means that an accurate rate per facility type cannot be provided either.

For the roadway ownership data, the rates (for all years) are based on 2010 splits between jurisdiction types. VMT data is only 

available for state/county/city jurisdiction types, so this is the only rate data provided.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.77 0.48 0.59 0.7 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

1.72 1.52 1.84 1.43 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

2.48 1.99 2.43 2.13 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

FHWA shared the following information on population (# people 65+ per 1000 state 

population):

2005 = 111, 2006 = 115, 2007 = 117, 2008 = 120, 2009 = 120, 2010 = 123, 2011 = 126

Calculate rate to 0.01, round final result to 0.1. Rate calculation example:

2011 F+SI Rate = [(2011 F+SI / Pop) + (2010 F+SI / Pop) + (2009 F+SI / Pop) + (2008 F+SI / Pop) + 

(2007 F+SI / Pop)] / 5

FARS (for fatalities) and WSDOT state collision repository (for serious injuries) shows older road 

users (65+) in crashes as:

2005 = 104 fatalities, 215 serious injuries

2006 = 69 fatalities, 197 serious injuries

2007 = 74 fatalities, 175 serious injuries

2008 = 92 fatalities, 206 serious injuries

2009 = 57 fatalities, 182 serious injuries

2010 = 73 fatalities, 226 serious injuries

2011 = 88 fatalities, 180 serious injuries

The rates in the table above are calculated simply as # / Pop = Rate.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

2005-2009 Combined Rate (see equation above) = 2.36 or 2.4

2007-2011 Combined Rate (see equation above) = 2.23 or 2.2

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

B/C ratio calculated using projects completed in 2009. Before data is from 2006-2008. After 

data is from 2010-2012.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

Focus is already on fatal & serious injury collisions, and includes local roads.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Ensuring drivers are 

licensed and fully 

competent

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

motorcycle awareness

Making truck travel 

safer

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing vehicle-train 

crashes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in the 

roadway

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway intersections

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing head-on and 

across-median crashes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enhancing emergency 

medical capabilities to 

increase survivability

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving information 

and decision support 

systems

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Speeding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Young Drivers (16-25) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Drowsy Drivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wildlife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

School Bus Involved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Matched our SHSP priorities as much as possible. State priorities/emphasis areas are set on problem crash types or groups. Consider 

the following equivalent for reporting purposes:

Ensuring drivers are licensed & fully competent = Unlicensed Drivers - priority 2

Sustaining proficiency in older drivers = Older Drivers (75+) - priority 3

Reducing impaired driving = Impaired Drivers - priority 1

Keeping drivers alert = Distracted Drivers - priority 1

Increasing seat belt use and improving airbag effectiveness = Unrestrained Occupants - priority 2

Making walking and street crossing easier = Pedestrians - priority 2
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Ensuring safer bicycle travel = Bicyclists - priority 3

Improving motorcycle safety and increasing motorcycle awareness = Motorcyclists - priority 2

Making truck travel safer = Heavy Trucks - priority 3

Reducing vehicle-train crashes = Vehicle-Train - priority 3

Keeping vehicles in the roadway = Run-Off-the-Road - priority 1

Improving the design and operation of highway intersections = Intersection-Related - priority 1

Reducing head-on and across-median crashes = Opposite Direction - priority 2

Designing safer work zones = Work Zones - priority 3

Enhancing emergency medical capabilities to increase survivability = EMS & Trauma Care - priority 2

Improving information and decision support systems = Traffic Data Systems - priority 1

Also included are:

Speeding - priority 1

Young Drivers (16-25) - priority 1

Drowsy Drivers - priority 3

Wildlife - priority 3

School-Bus Involved - priority 3

Note that serious injury data for unlicensed drivers is not available. So only the fatalities & fatality rates for that item are shown.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Groups of similar project types
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

These programs 

are funded on a 

multi-year basis 

(not individual per 

year). In addition, 

the programs 

target multiple 

priority areas 

from the SHSP. 

Success is 

measured in the 

previous question. 

No individual 

analysis is done 

on a per program 

basis (too difficult 

to separate 

between 

programs, which 

overlap with other 

ongoing efforts -

any success 

claimed would not 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

be individual to 

each program 

independently).
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

These programs are funded on a multi-year basis (no individual funding or analysis on a yearly basis). The majority of these programs 

also target multiple crash types from the SHSP. So effectiveness is ultimately measured in the previous question. No individual 

analysis is provided here.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Systemic Treatments
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Separate analysis 

has not been 

completed for each 

of these programs. 

While rumble strips 

have an ongoing 

evaluation, the 

program is more 

complex than a 

simple answer here 

(we have a variety 

of rumble strips, 

such as an 

extensive 

centerline rumble 

strip program on 

state highways, 

shoulder rumble 

strips on the 

interstate, some 

combinations of 

centerline and 

shoulder rumble 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

strips on two-lane 

highways, etc.). 

While programs 

exist for the other 4 

systemic 

improvements 

listed here, they 

have not been 

individually 

analyzed for 

effectiveness 

(indeed, most 

would be hard to 

single out for true 

effectiveness 

tracking).
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

none

Overall results compiled to answer the previous question on B/C for the program.
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Washington Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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. 

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.