Page 1 of 42

IOWA
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 42

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 37
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 42

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 42

Executive Summary 

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

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

involve a mixture of hot-spot and systemic improvements. Secondary projects are identified by county 

engineers, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their Local Road Safety 

Plan. District projects are identified by the districts, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, 

such as their District Road Safety Plan. All projects are selected for funding by central office staff, however 

secondary projects consider input from a selection committee. District and secondary projects are typically 

designed in-house, but the majority of statewide projects are designed by an outside consultant. All projects are 

tracked by central office staff, including crashes, costs, and construction dates. Crashes for 3 to 5 years preconstruction are compared 3 to 5 years of post-construction crashes, and a benefit-cost analysis is conducted for 

all projects.
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 42

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

involve a mixture of hot-spot and systemic improvements. Secondary projects are identified by county 

engineers, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, such as their Local Road Safety 

Plan. District projects are identified by the districts, based on their judgment or the results of a safety study, 

such as their District Road Safety Plan. All projects are selected for funding by central office staff, however 

secondary projects consider input from a selection committee. District and secondary projects are typically 

designed in-house, but the majority of statewide projects are designed by an outside consultant. All projects are 

tracked by central office staff, including crashes, costs, and construction dates. Crashes for 3 to 5 years preconstruction are compared 3 to 5 years of post-construction crashes, and a benefit-cost analysis is conducted for 

all projects.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

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

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

allocated to statewide initiatives spearheaded by central office staff. The remaining 80 percent of funds are 

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

in that district.
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-Districts

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

with their own forces. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-None.

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

None. 

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

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 42

Iowa recently published its very first HSIP manual which documents how the HSIP program is to be 

administered, starting with the 2019 state fiscal year. The manual describes the purpose of the program, 

suggests methods for selecting good projects, outlines the application procedures, and explains methods of 

evaluation. 

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Local Safety

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

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/26/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Horizontal curvature 
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 42

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Other-Collaboration with county engineers 

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

performance, or from their Local Road Safety Plan.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 99 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

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

Page 9 of 42

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

Engineering Study 

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

Yes

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

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

calibrating the SPFs in HSM, as well as developing state-specific SPFs. The SPFs will be used to screen the 

system for locations that could benefit from a safety improvement. Although the state has been using CMFs for 

years, the number of CMFs available on the CMF clearinghouse has grown exponentially, yet there remains 

many countermeasures for which a good CMF does not exist - especially for those countermeasures that 

typically occur simultaneously (such as paving shoulders and adding rumble strips). Therefore, the need for 

state-specific CMFs was identified, and a consultant has been brought on board to aid in selecting appropriate 

CMFs and values. In addition, the consultant will be developing a state-specific framework for conducting 

safety evaluations consistent with HSM methods, likely via a spreadsheet tool. It is envisioned that this tool 

will exist in different forms in order to accommodate evaluations at different points during the project 

development timeline.

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 42

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $30,492,449 $26,922,526 88.29%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Incentive Funds (Section 406) $175,000 $175,000 100%

Totals $30,667,449 $27,097,526 88.36%

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

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

$2,376,000 

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

$2,047,467 

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

Page 11 of 42

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

$175,000 

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

$175,000 

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

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

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

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

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

coordination, clearances, and unforeseen circumstances. Our goal is to work with project sponsors to improve the

accuracy of cost estimates and to minimize time delays in order to obligate HSIP funds to the fullest extent.

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

No
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

HSIPX-001-2(33)-

-3L-51

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

10.8 Miles $1198010 $1332172 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,664 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-002-6(45)-

-3L-93

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

12.1 Miles $1413804 $6463833 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,064 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-003-5(79)-

-3L-35

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

8.9 Miles $916923 $1018803 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,220 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-003-6(64)-

-3L-09

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

12.2 Miles $1449725 $6086613 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-006-

4(165)--3L-77

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

3.9 Miles $343124 $5457963 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,900 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-020-4(53)-

-3L-40

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing

shoulders

12.6 Miles $1405834 $4208003 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

IHSIPX-029-

4(106)62--08-78

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.8 Miles $1198593 $1331770 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

20,300 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Cable barrier

HSIPX-034-2(61)-

-3L-69

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

9.9 Miles $1099202 $1221335 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,900 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

IHSIPX-035-

5(105)125--08-85

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.3 Miles $711206 $790229 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

21,600 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Cable barrier

HSIPX-052-

2(110)--3L-49

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

10.1 Miles $1301754 $1492596 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder

treatments

HSIPX-052-

2(140)--3L-31

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

1.5 Miles $329165 $1491037 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,380 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-061-3(59)-

-3L-58

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

11.3 Miles $1433345 $22281748 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,136 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-063-4(40)-

-3L-79

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

4.8 Miles $657165 $3397352 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-063-4(46)-

-3L-79

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

14.6 Miles $1953680 $2511876 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,220 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-064-2(57)-

-3L-49

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

11.3 Miles $1122801 $4540258 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-065-1(31)-

-3L-93

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

9.8 Miles $1925594 $2255049 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,840 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-067-2(64)-

-3L-23

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

5.4 Miles $1171027 $1301141 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,460 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

Page 12 of 42

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period.
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 42

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

HSIPX-071-3(55)-

-3L-15

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

10.4 Miles $1488352 $1653724 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,640 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-071-6(50)-

-3L-81

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.7 Miles $1095255 $1227450 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,030 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-071-6(51)-

-3L-81

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

9.9 Miles $1196519 $1329465 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,135 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIPX-092-5(52)-

-3L-91

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

6.7 Miles $1463981 $1626645 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,745 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIP-S-C010(95)-

-6C-10

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

3.5 Miles $351000 $868689 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Major 

Collector

2,650 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIP-SC025(104)--6C-25Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

2.7 Miles $294791 $2728404 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Major 

Collector

2,930 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIP-SC025(107)--6C-25Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

0.2 Miles $49925 $710869 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Major 

Collector

6,400 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIP-S-C026(95)-

-6C-26

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

31.2 Miles $140278 $155864 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,470 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-S-C026(99)-

-6C-26

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

34.7 Miles $189947 $211052 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,950 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-S-C038(98)-

-6C-38

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

2 Intersections $19042 $21158 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

750 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Intersection 

improvements

HSIP-S-C059(75)-

-6C-59

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

51.4 Miles $236000 $296192 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-S-C069(60)-

-6C-69

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

19.4 Miles $102346 $113718 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

870 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Delineation

HSIP-SC074(100)--6C-74Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

4.9 Miles $389042 $432269 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,140 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

HSIP-SC075(149)--6C-75Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

6.2 Miles $275096 $3563579 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

640 55 County Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Shoulder 

treatments

SBIN(015) Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 1 Numbers $175000 $175000 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

0 Education Deliver safety 

messages

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

Page 14 of 42

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 412 371 390 360 365 317 322 320 404

Serious Injuries 1,841 1,615 1,644 1,501 1,629 1,545 1,509 1,470 1,504

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.331 1.186 1.235 1.146 1.156 1.005 0.996 0.967 1.197

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.948 5.161 5.206 4.779 5.158 4.898 4.667 4.440 4.444

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

25 25 28 31 25 23 25 37 35

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

129 123 126 126 124 115 101 121 133
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 16 of 42

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 17 of 42

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

26.2 78.4 0.5 1.5

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

26.8 81.2 0.51 1.55

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

32.2 95.4 0.62 1.82

Rural Minor Arterial 42.4 143 1.72 5.82

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 18 of 42

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 34.8 127.6 4.58 16.83

Rural Major Collector 80 298.2 2.6 9.7

Rural Local Road or Street 65.2 245 6.85 25.72

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

13.2 55.6 0.46 1.98

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

10.8 51.2 0.38 1.82

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

21 137.6 0.74 4.9

Urban Minor Arterial 36 254.4 0.99 7.03

Urban Minor Collector 0.8 6 1.08 8.03

Urban Major Collector 19.6 138.4 1.4 9.88

Urban Local Road or Street 38.4 294.4 1.53 11.75
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 42

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 171.8 697.6 0.52 2.12

County Highway Agency 126.2 478.2 0.68 2.56

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

47.8 361.2 0.34 2.55

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 21 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 22 of 42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 23 of 42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 24 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 25 of 42

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 26 of 42

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 42

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 367.9 

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

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

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

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

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

than the target. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 42

Number of Serious Injuries 1562.2 

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

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

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

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

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

than the target. 

Fatality Rate 1.080 

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

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

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

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

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

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

rate to 1.000 per HMVMT by 2020. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.587 

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

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

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

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

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

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

injury rate to 4.300 per HMVMT by 2020. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 150.7 

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

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

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

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

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

rolling average will be less than the target. 

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

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

targets. 
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 42

We formed an Iowa Department of Transportation/Department of Public Safety working group to discuss 

methodology and coordinate with stakeholders. Staff include representatives from Governor’s Traffic Safety 

Bureau, Traffic & Safety, Systems Planning, and Organizational Improvement. Discussion items included crash 

data, road improvements, driver distraction, seat belt usage, fuel prices, and vehicle safety.

These targets were presented at the March 29th MPO/RPA Quarterly Meeting, the April 6th Transportation 

Asset Management team meeting, and the May 4th Strategic Highway Safety Plan team meeting. The working 

group reviewed all comments received.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

53 57 78 55 59 56 53

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

204 243 214 215 228 225 196
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 42

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 42

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

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

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

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

level evaluations.

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

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

improvements. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Policy change 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 42

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 202.2 634.8 0.62 1.93

Intersections 69 392.8 0.21 1.2

Pedestrians 22 73.6 0.06 0.22

Bicyclists 4 36.6 0.01 0.11

Older Drivers 66.2 200.8 0.2 0.61

Motorcyclists 44.2 221.2 0.14 0.67

Work Zones 4.8 16 0.01 0.05
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 42

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

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

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 42

No

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

Page 36 of 42

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Optional

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

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

No
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 42

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/30/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2018 

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

 2018 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 42

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

97 97

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

97 97

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

97 97

Ramp Length (187) 99 99

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp

Terminal (195)

97 0
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 42

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

97 0

Interchange Type (182) 97 0

Ramp AADT (191) 99 99

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 99 99

Functional Class (19) 99 98

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

99 98

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.91 71.27 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

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

Iowa is currently moving forward with collecting interchange/ramp elements as part of our implementation of ESRI's Roads and Highways. The segment elements have been collected for years, and they will also be in Roads and 

Highways. Intersection elements have been collected over the past few years and cover state and full MIRE requirements. Maintenance of these elements has yet to be determined, but is being discussed. Iowa is working toward full MIRE 

implementation across the board. Horizontal curve elements are in progress and a reassessment of gaps is needed.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Suspected serious/incapacitating No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected serious/incapacitating No any injury, other than a fatal injury, that 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of before the injury 

occurred. This includes 

No severe lacerations (exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood); broken or 

distorted limbs (arm or leg); skull, chest 

injuries or abdominal injuries other than 

bruises or minor lacerations; crush injuries; 

significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10 percent or more of the body); 

unconsciousness at or when taken from the 

crash scene; and unable to leave the crash 

scene without assistance (paralysis). This 

does not include momentary 

unconsciousness. 

No

Crash Database Suspected serious/incapacitating No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected serious/incapacitating No any injury, other than a fatal injury,

that prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving, or normally continuing the

No severe

lacerations (exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant

No
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 42

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

activities the person was capable of before 

the injury occurred. This includes 

loss of blood); broken or distorted limbs 

(arm or leg); skull, chest injuries or 

abdominal

injuries other than bruises or minor 

lacerations; crush injuries; significant burns

(second and third degree burns over 10 

percent or more of the body);

unconsciousness at or when taken from the 

crash scene; and unable to leave the

crash scene without assistance (paralysis). 

This does not include momentary

unconsciousness. 

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

If FHWA confirms that Iowa DOT is indeed non-compliant, the state will work with the developers of the crash reporting system and database in order to modify the identifiers, definitions, and attributes to be compliant with MMUCC 4th 

Edition before April 15, 2019. 

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

Historically, Iowa DOT has been told by FHWA that its identifiers, definitions, and attributes are generally compliant with MMUCC 4th Edition. This new requirement utilizes the term "verbatim", so it brings into question whether Iowa is 

compliant or not. The form above was filled out conservatively, noting that these items do not follow MMUCC verbatim. However, if FHWA could provide additional clarification of (and perhaps the reasoning behind) the "verbatim" 

requirement, it is possible that Iowa could consider itself compliant without having to make any changes. 

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

No

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

2020 

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

Page 41 of 42

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Manual FINAL FY 19.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 42

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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