Iowa

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: IA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology......................................................................................................................... 3

Progress in Implementing Projects........................................................................................................... 5

Funds Programmed.......................................................................................................................... 5

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................... 8

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets................................................................................. 12

Overview of General Safety Trends.................................................................................................... 12

Application of Special Rules............................................................................................................... 26

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation)......................................... 27

SHSP Emphasis Areas......................................................................................................................... 29

Groups of similar project types.......................................................................................................... 33

Systemic Treatments......................................................................................................................... 34

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 41
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

2. Executive Summary

Iowa is still interested in modifying how HSIP funds are sub-allocated within the state, and how projects 

are selected. This is evidenced by the fact that last year's multi-state peer review led to the hiring of a 

consultant to develop an HSIP manual to guide how the state's program is administered moving 

forward. The final product is expected by the end of calendar year 2016. In addition, the state is 

finishing up the development of District Road Safety Plans, which utilizes a risk-based model to identify 

approximately $10 million worth of candidate safety projects for each of Iowa's six district offices. This 

should provide each district with approximately 5 years' worth of potential HSIP projects. The goal is to 

have a new structure established in time for FY 2019 project selections that incorporates a formula for 

distribution of funds to DOT districts.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance 

HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP MAP21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists of four sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing HSIP projects, progress in achieving safety performance targets, and 

assessment of the effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

3. How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds administered in the State? 

Central

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

Iowa's HSIP addresses local roads in two ways: through Local Road Safety Plans and through the HSIPSecondary program.

Last year's HSIP funds were utilized to complete local road safety plans for 12 counties spread 

throughout Iowa. These plans were developed to address local safety issues within specific counties, 

and they address driver-related crashes and countermeasures in addition to traditional engineering 

countermeasures. From an engineering standpoint, the plans are intended to be proactive rather than 

reactive. Roadway intersections, curves, and segments were evaluated for risk factors, and the plans 

provide recommendations for systemic, low-cost safety treatments totaling at least $1 million per 

county. Counties are not required to participate but ultimately, we hope to develop plans for all 99 

counties in Iowa.

The HSIP-Secondary program was established in 2013 as a $2 million yearly set-aside out of Iowa's HSIP 

to address safety issues on the secondary (county-owned) 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, improved signage, and guardrail updates.

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

Other-Districts
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

6. Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

consulted early 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. The districts 

provide input on which projects align with their goals, staffing, and other planned project timelines. In 

recent years, shoulder paving projects have been selected in order to complete specific highway 

corridors. However, this practice may be nearing an end as administration of the HSIP program shifts to 

be more data driven and supported by recommendations from the District Road Safety Plans.

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

Other-None.

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

the last reporting period.

Other-None.

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

would like to elaborate.

The state has contracted with a consultant to develop an HSIP manual which will outline a framework 

for the selection, implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP program over the long term. The plan is 

to have HSIP guidelines in place so that districts will be able to select projects that align with HSIP goals 

and the SHSP. Projects will most likely originate from District Road Safety Plans, but other projects may 

be submitted for consideration based on selection criteria in the manual. The manual is scheduled to be 

completed prior to solicitation of projects for state fiscal year 2019.

Program Methodology

10. Select the programs that are administered under HSIP. 

Local Safety
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

11. Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/26/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-Collaboration with county engineers

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

Yes

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

No

If 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.

How are highway safety improvement projects 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

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

99%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Delineation

13. What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Other-SHSP

Other-Project concepting by district staff

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

the last reporting period.

Other-None

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

you would like to elaborate. 

None.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

16. Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

HSIP (Section 148) $20,026,089.00 99 % $15,501,365.00 99 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

$163,500.00 1 % $163,500.00 1 %

Totals $20,189,589.00 100% $15,664,865.00 100%
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

$1,008,189.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$842,026.00

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

$163,500.00

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

$163,500.00

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

reporting period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this 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. Also, regarding the HSIPSecondary program, applications have been slow to come in and the entire $2M allotment is not being 

spent. This reluctance may be due to the perception of increased costs and effort associated with 

federal funding. Our goal is to work with counties - especially those with recently completed Local Road 

Safety Plans - to alleviate these concerns and to encourage increased participation in the program.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

HSIPX004-1(15)-

-3L-39

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

10.22 

Miles

177055

3

196728

1

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX014-2(36)-

-3L-59

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

7.9 Miles 167687

3

188186

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

2420 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX014-3(49)-

-3L-63

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

12.27 

Miles

173520

4

194667

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX071-5(75)-

-3L-14

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

12.42 

Miles

140402

5

156002

8

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4880 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

HSIPX092-4(27)-

-3L-61

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

12.41 

Miles

161170

8

199719

6

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3560 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX150-4(61)-

-3L-33

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

10.84 

Miles

134685

5

150352

7

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2512 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX169-6(88)-

-3L-94

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

19.84 

Miles

216842

0

263777

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIPX218-

2(145)--

3L-44

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

6.94 

Miles

294570

0

328575

7

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8700 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

BRSC017(57)--

60-17

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

0.19 

Miles

110664 974373 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

530 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIP-SC021(130)

--6C-21

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

0.68 

Miles

101050 112278 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1190 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

paved or 

other

STP-SC023(102)

--5E-23

Shoulder 

treatments 

Pave existing 

shoulders

7.37 

Miles

68331 205506

4

Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

520 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIP-SC033(113)

--6C-33

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

37.63 

Miles

186830 208195 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1800 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

STP-SC044(77)--

5E-44

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

6.14 

Miles

270000 404213

6

Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

1060 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

HSIP-SC081(66)--

6C-81

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

21.89 

Miles

105151 116834 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Shoulder 

Treatment

s

SBIN(015) Noninfrastructure 

Educational 

efforts

1 

Number

s

150000 150000 Incentiv

e Grants 

(Section 

406)

0 0 Education Deliver 

safety 

messages

BACS(004) Noninfrastructure 

Educational 

1 

Number

s

13500 13500 Incentiv

e Grants 

(Section 

0 0 Education Deliver 

safety 

messages
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

efforts 406)
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

2015

(5-yr avg)

Number of fatalities 395.8 379.6 360.6 350.6 336.6

Number of serious injuries 1716.6 1646 1586.8 1565.6 1530.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.262 1.214 1.15 1.11 1.056

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5.48 5.252 5.042 4.944 4.788

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

13
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

14
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

Year - 2015

Function 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

21.4 75.2 0.41 1.44

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

55 193.4 0.9 3.14

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

34.4 115.6 1.35 4.54

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

25.4 95.4 3.01 11.33

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

63.8 236.4 2.01 7.44

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

45.8 182.8 4.57 18.24

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

11.2 42.6 0.43 1.61

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

24.4 156.6 0.67 4.33

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

21 175 0.61 5.05

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

11.4 79.2 0.89 6.19

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

22 175.2 0.89 7.13
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

16
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

17
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

18
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 147.6 568.6 0.74 2.85

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 118.6 392.4 2.24 7.41

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

42.8 326.2 0.63 4.83
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

23
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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

elaborate.

It appears that Iowa's HSIP investments are having a positive effect on the reduction of serious injuries 

and fatalities. However, it is noted that the fatality rate on locally owned roadways is significantly 

higher than for state-owned roadways. This is a disparity that we hope to address in future years by 

continuing to develop Local Road Safety Plans and through a possible increase in the percentage of

funds that gets applied to the local system.

Application of Special Rules

27. Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians 65 

years of age and older.

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010

(5-yr avg)

2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.76 1.7 1.63 1.57 1.54

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

4.07 3.8 3.62 3.61 3.7

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

5.83 5.51 5.25 5.18 5.24

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

The number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries in Iowa was summed for each 

year from 2006 to 2014. For each year, this sum was divided by the number of older person population 

in the State of Iowa, as published by FHWA, to determine a yearly rate. This rate was multiplied by 

10,000 in order to present the rate as a whole number with decimals.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

28. Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Crash data

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

None

31. Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

None.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

SHSP Emphasis Areas

32. Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

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

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Lane Departure All 205.6 634.2 0.64 1.98

Intersections All 75.8 420 0.24 1.31
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Groups of similar project types
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

33. Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

Systemic Treatments

34. Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 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

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Local Safety 162 720.8 1.35 5.98

Local Safety Intersections 43 324.6 0.64 4.81

Local Safety Run-off-road 110 359 2.08 6.78

Year - 2015

Systemic 

improvement

Target 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

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Cable Median 

Barriers

Multi-vehicle 

cross median

5.4 11.8 0.07 0.15
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Iowa continues a program of installing cable barriers in the median of its Interstates. These barriers 

were installed at a rate of approximately 20 miles per year, with the exception of 2011, when more than 

170 miles were installed. At the end of 2015, approximately 38 percent of Interstate miles had cable 

barrier installed. This practice has had a significant effect on reducing the average frequencies and rates 

of multi-vehicle cross-median fatalities and serious injuries in the last 5 years.
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Iowa Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.