Page 1 of 49

OKLAHOMA
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 20

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 24

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 24

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 36

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 39

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 43

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 44
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 49

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary 

For FFY 2016, exclusive of rail projects, ODOT obligated $37.8 million in HSIP funds. The major project 

types were bridge repairs and ITS infrastructure.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 49

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. 

HSIP funding is not rigidly structured. Safety infrastructure programs using HSIP funds administered by 

Traffic Engineering Division constitute a minority of HSIP funds allocated. 

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? 

Other-Central Office

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

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

Local road projects do not currently use HSIP funds. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Districts/Regions

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

Page 6 of 49

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The majority of HSIP funds are not allocated to the Division (Traffic) which is responsible for preparing this 

report. This report applies primarily to those funds which are allocated to Traffic Division. Traffic Division is 

not able to report on the administrative practices relevant to the remainder of the HSIP spending.

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.

Coordination with external partners does not involve use of HSIP funds at this time. 

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

period?

No

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?

No

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Roadway Departure

Sign Replacement And Improvement
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 49

Shoulder Improvement

Other-Shoulder Rumble Strip 

Other-Centerline Rumble Strip

Other-Striping

Other-Guard Rail Improvement

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Shoulder Width 

Other-Speed Limit 

Other-Design Speed 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 49

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Primarily delineation and advance warnings. HFST may be considered.

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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 

Other-Angle Crashes 

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

Crash frequency

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 49

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

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

Other-Crash Frequency : 1 

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

Intersection Signalization.

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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 

Other-Crossover Crashes Traffic 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Other-Access Control 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Other-Crash Severity Prediction Function 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 49

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Cable Median Barrier

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles 

Roadside features 

Other-terrain type 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 49

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Clear Zone Mitigation

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 49

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles Other-terrain type 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Reference Tab 2B Collision Digest. Funding may not all be HSIP. These projects are from Roadway 

Engineering, not Traffic Engineering. 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Other-Safety Infrastructure

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

Funding set-aside
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 49

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-None 

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

Other-District Selection

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District Selection

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

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

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

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

Other-District Selection : 1

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

Program: Other-Shoulder Rumble Strip 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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]
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 49

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

Lane miles Other-Shoulder Width 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District Selection

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Reference Tab 2C of Collision Digest, however this does not screen out sites with existing rumble strip. 

Program: Other-Centerline Rumble Strip 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 49

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 

Other-Left of Center Volume 

Lane miles Other-Shoulder Width 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Program: Other-Striping 
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 49

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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 

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

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-option of field districts 

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).

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

Restriping and replacing existing 4" stripe with 6" stripe in some cases.

Program: Other-Guard Rail Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

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 

Other-run off road injury/fatal Traffic 

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

Crash frequency

Other-Average crash frequency for facility type and ADT

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

No

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

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

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

Other-Risk of guard rail being hit : 1

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

Upgrading existing guardrail to current standard.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 28

 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 Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

High friction surface treatment

Other-backplate upgrades

Other-centerline rumble strip

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

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Stakeholder input

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.

HSM predictive method is used to evaluate potential benefits of projects.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

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?

Yes

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

Most HSIP projects created by Traffic Division are systemic. Predictive methods are used to prioritize 

locations for treatment where practicable, otherwise crash frequency is used. Predictive methods have been 

used in one case (median cable barrier) as a way of indirectly prioritizing one program in comparison to 

others. Predictive methods are also used to help identify hot spot locations and (outside of Traffic Division) to 

prioritize locations for shoulder widening. The core metric for prioritization is benefit/cost ratio, either 

explicitly or through some metric that is an approximate surrogate.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $37,801,068 $37,801,068 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $37,801,068 $37,801,068 100%

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?

0% 

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

0% 

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

Local government safety projects are funded through STP funds. 

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 49

$8,837,526 

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

$8,837,526 

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

All non-infrastructure funding is for ITS. 

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.

N/A

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

No
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 49

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

ACSTP-144C001 Roadway Roadway - other 2.1 Miles $4471365 $36616973 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

6,600 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIPIG-3500013 Roadway Roadway - other 7 Locations $1420137 $1420137 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data ITS Infrastructure

HSIPG-272C122 Roadway Roadway - other 23 Locations $2892502 $2892502 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data ITS Infrastructure

HSIPG-255F180 Roadway Roadway - other 7 Locations $3998018 $3998018 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data ITS Infrastructure

HSIPG-272F084 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

69 Intersections $702572 $615383 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Backplate 

Program

HSIPG-255F342 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

125 Intersections $1030532 $898671 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Backplate 

Program

HSIP-210N029 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $188755.43 $270889 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HSIPIG-3500014 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $526869 $526869 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data ITS Infrastructure

HSIP-224C021 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Locations $23211.84 $29680 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,300 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians None

HSIP-251C049 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Locations $16687.06 $20882 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians None

HSIPIG-255H366 Roadway Roadway - other 12 Locations $273747.29 $327969.29 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

None

HSIP-214C065 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $174292 $212156 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

27,700 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Traffic Signals

HISP-209N039 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Locations $64513 $64513 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians None

HSIPG-224F039 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

2.96 Miles $445000 $1335000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-226C042 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

9 Miles $202000 $1010000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

12,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-259N031 Roadway Roadway - other 2.35 Miles $2651081 $4097522 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,700 75 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail Program
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

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

HSIPG-276F021 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

0.24 Miles $349000 $1396000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

ACSTP-141C232 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $3944578 $3944578 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,900 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-214C044 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $3547155 $2280126 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-202C029 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $2729379 $1577761 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-161C226 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $843976 $576312 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-270C022 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $1969921 $1203598 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

600 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

ACSTP-258C023 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $3418031 $2350318 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot N/A Bridge Projects

HSIP-226N035 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 Locations $21192 $26490 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,600 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians None

HSIPG-244F053 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

5.77 Miles $63292.87 $65000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-251F066 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

4.1 Miles $59842 $59842 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-263N037 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

2 Intersections $107527 $107527 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,100 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Hot Spot 

Improvements

HSIPG-245F046 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

0.42 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPG-272F198 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

0.1 Miles $364900 $364900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Striping Program

HSIPY-255E371 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $786095 $786095 Multiple 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data ITS Infrastructure

HSIPG-213N018 Roadway Rumble strips -

center

18 Miles $264897 $264897 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure CLRS Program

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

Zeroes for ADT and speed limit indicate projects with multiple values in different areas.
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 49

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 751 732 664 684 709 672 653 634 645

Serious Injuries 16,574 16,198 16,624 16,201 16,378 15,040 14,907 14,344 13,064

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.601 1.558 1.391 1.441 1.485 1.400 1.369 1.329 1.320

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

35.339 34.466 34.818 34.134 34.306 31.335 31.252 30.063 26.727

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

53 43 75 46 72 75 55 76 84

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

644 569 555 583 606 543 554 685 568
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 49

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 27 of 49

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

Previous fatality numbers have been revised, primarily for 2015, due to the discovery of a number of duplicate 

records in the database.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

State data are used only when FARS data are not available.

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

39 117.8

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

4 8.2

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

83.8 234.6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 28 of 49

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 Arterial 85.2 208.6

Rural Minor Collector 3.4 13.4

Rural Major Collector 130.4 388.8

Rural Local Road or Street 63.8 291

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

47.2 258.8

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

19 104.2

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

68.6 524.8

Urban Minor Arterial 53.4 448.4

Urban Minor Collector 0 2

Urban Major Collector 25.2 167

Urban Local Road or Street 42 287.8
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 49

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 408.6 1,487.6 0 0

County Highway Agency 110.4 443.8 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

121.6 1,041.4 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad 4.6 2.6 0 0

State Toll Authority 28 78.4 0 0

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 49

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 49

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

VMT were not available by functional classification to calculate rates.

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 691.0 

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It projects 

a limit to an increasing trend. 

Number of Serious Injuries 14083.0 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Railroad State Toll Authority

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 49

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It predicts 

that the recent decrease can be sustained. 

Fatality Rate 1.410 

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

This target was set by the Highway Safety Office using an ARIMA model. It projects 

a limit to an increasing trend. 

Serious Injury Rate 28.900 

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

This target was calculated by applying the difference between the projections for total 

fatalities and fatality rate to the serious injury total established by the Highway Safety 

Office. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 698.0 

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

The target is a linear least-squares regression of the five-year rolling averages 

calculated for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

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. 

ODOT has met regularly with HSO to discuss goal setting methodology. 

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? 
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 49

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

92 72 91 77 81 97 92

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

216 245 233 247 235 202 230

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

There is no measure for the HSIP as a whole. Specific projects and programs may be evaluated by Benefit/Cost 

ratio or by reductions in targeted crash types. 

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

level evaluations.

Sign and Marking Improvements at Stop Controlled Intersections: Preliminary data indicate that a statistically 

significant crash reduction was achieved, but the amount cannot yet be estimated. 

Shoulder Rumble Strip: Considering those projects for which five years of post-installation data were available, 

the combined naive benefit/cost ratio for all crash types was 248:1. 

Median Cable Barrier: Crossover crashes with death or severe injury on access controlled state highways 

(where most of the median cable barrier has been installed) declined from an average of 34.4 per year from 

2002-2006 (the last period before significant construction began) to an average of 7.6 per year from 2012-2016. 

Intersection Traffic Signals: For the 26 intersections for which five years of post-installation data were 

available, the combined naive benefit/cost ratio for all intersection related crashes was 92:1. 

Crash data are insufficient for evaluation, or cannot be isolated, for systemic curve treatment, signal backplate 

upgrades, centerline rumble strip, guardrail upgrades, ITS installations, and district signing and striping. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

Policy change 

Organizational change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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

Miles of improvement has been used for median cable barrier. Recent systemic programs include intersection 

sign and marking improvement, retroreflective backplate upgrades, curve delineation, centerline rumble strip, 

and high friction surface course. The introduction of centerline rumble strips represents a policy 
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 49

change. Organizational changes have been proposed on the basis of increased internal awareness of data-driven 

safety.

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

Yes

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period.

Implementation of systemic programs for centerline rumble strip and for curve delineation. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

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 286.6 913.6 0.6 1.91

Roadway Departure 505 1,689.8 1.05 3.52

Intersections 152.2 1,093.6 0.32 2.28

Pedestrians 65.8 150.8 0.14 0.32

Bicyclists 7 43.6 0.01 0.09

Older Drivers 79.2 217.6 0.16 0.45

Motorcyclists 82 330.8 0.17 0.69

Work Zones 17.2 68.2 0.04 0.14

Data 0 0 0 0
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 49

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 49

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?

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

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

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 49

Yes

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

CounterMeasures: Safety Corridor 

Description: 

Signage indicating zero tolerance. 

Enhanced enforcement was intended 

but amount was not documented. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 3 

Number of Installations: 3 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

One safety corridor showed a 

statistically significant decline in 

crashes (98.93%) after adjusting for 

AADT, one showed a statistically 

significant increase in crashes 

(99.96%), one showed no significant 

change. A fourth corridor showed a 

decrease in crashes but concomitant 

improvements (mainly centerline 

rumble strip) prevent isolating the 

effect of zero tolerance 

enforcement. The corridor which 

showed an increase in crashes was 

one in which local law enforcement 

chose not to participate. The project 

as a whole did not have statistically 

significant results at the 95% level.

 

HSIP funds were not used.

File Name: Hyperlink
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/20/2015 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 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 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

50 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 90 0 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 95 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 90 0 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 50 0
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

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) 50 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

95 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

95 0 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

90 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 49

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)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

78.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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.

ODOT intends to implement the MIRE implementation plan submitted along with OHSO's Traffic Record Strategic Plan in July 2017.

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 4 No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred.

No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving, or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred.

No

Crash Database 4 No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary A No As reported by police. No As reported by police. No

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

This is being addressed by the Department of Public Safety and Highway Safety Office.

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

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 49

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 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Oklahoma Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 49

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.