Page 1 of 46

NEBRASKA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 13

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 15

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 18

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 18

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 31

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 35

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 36

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 46

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.” 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary 

State FY 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018) was a highly successful year for the Nebraska HSIP Program. 

Over $7 million was obligated for forty-one projects. Six major new projects were let for bids of over $5.3 

million. In addition, over $1 million was obligated for Preliminary Engineering on eleven projects that will be 

constructed in the future.

Completed HSIP projects were shown to be effective, with seven evaluations resulting in an overall BenefitCost Ratio of 6.68. Although statewide fatalities increased slightly from 2016 to 2017, the fatality rate of 1.085 

fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles traveled is lower than the rate of ten years ago. A continuing bright 

spot is the reduction in Serious Injuries. Serious Injuries declined by nearly 7% in 2017, when compared to 

2016. Since 2008, Serious Injuries have decreased by over 20%.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 46

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 HSIP in Nebraska is administered by the NDOT under the direction of the State Traffic Engineer. The 

NDOT maintains three separate committees that are responsible for identifying projects that qualify for HSIP 

funding. The long-standing Safety Committee is made up of members from several NDOT Divisions, local 

governments, and the FHWA Division Safety Engineer. They review crash studies in an attempt to find 

countermeasures for a location, both at sites identified by NDOT's High Crash Locations computer program 

and those requested by others. When they find a potential project, a benefit/cost study is prepared by Traffic 

Engineering's Highway Safety/Accident Records section. Local governments or their consultants also present 

potential projects to the Committee. If the B/C ratio shows significant benefit, the Committee may vote to 

advance the proposal as an HSIP project.

The Strategic Safety Infrastructure Team was created by the NDOT when HSIP funding was significantly 

raised by Congress. It is made up of several NDOT division heads and a District Engineer. Higher cost projects 

(typically over $400,000) that are approved by the Safety Committee are passed up to the SSIT for final 

approval and determination of funding splits. The committee also identifies projects on its own, especially 

systemic projects. The committee developed and maintains a five-year HSIP and RHCP Expenditures Plan. 

A High Risk Rural Roads committee was formed by NDOT when specific funding for HRRR projects was 

available. The Department has elected to maintain this committee, even though the dedicated HRRR funding 

no longer exists. The committee is made up of representatives from NDOT's Traffic Engineering Division, Local 

Assistance Division, LTAP, and a representative from the Nebraska Association of County Officials. They work 

to find viable HSIP projects on rural county roads.

Approved HSIP projects generally go through NDOT's letting system. Many completed projects are evaluated 

to see whether or not they were effective in reducing crashes.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 46

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

The State Traffic Engineer is ultimately responsible for the HSIP program. Analysis and technical support is 

provided by the Highway Safety/Accident Records Section of the Traffic Engineering Division.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

The NDOT has three teams that determine projects for HSIP funding. The Strategic Safety Infrastructure Team 

has final approval over higher cost jobs. The Highway Safety/Accident Records Section supplies these teams 

with crash data analysis which can lead to projects at specific sites or systemic projects. These must support 

the SHSP critical emphasis areas. Project proposals can also be brought to these teams by local governments, 

District Engineers, or other NDOT engineers.

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

Local road projects are regularly funded under the HSIP. The NDOT's various safety committees identify 

potential locations for projects and send this information to local governments for their consideration as HSIP 

projects. City governments are encouraged to submit potential projects to the NDOT for consideration. 

Representatives of the state's four largest cities, Omaha, Lincoln, Bellevue, and Grand Island regularly attend 

Safety Committee meetings and officials from the smaller cities are always welcome. Representatives from the 

Nebraska LTAP Center and the Nebraska Highway Superintendents Association sit on the High Risk Rural 

Roads committee, which continues to function despite the loss of dedicated funding. The number of projects 

built on local roads varies from year to year. Over $5.4 million in HSIP funds were spent on local projects in 

State FY 2018. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Program Management

Other-Communication

Other-Project Development

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 46

All of these areas have some part in the HSIP process, some more than others. Most of them are represented 

on at least one of our three safety committees.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

All of the above named disciplines play a role in the HSIP process. Highway Safety prepares collision 

diagrams, spot maps, or lists of high accident locations and presents them to committee members at their 

monthly meetings. They coordinate with the engineering divisions to get estimated project costs, from which 

they calculate benefit-cost ratios. They also complete evaluations of completed projects and present them to 

the group for use in making future decisions. Proposed projects on the state highway system are sent to the 

appropriate District Engineer for concurrence. The DE often submits the required paperwork to begin the 

project process. The Traffic Engineering Division is the lead office for all HSIP activity. All HSIP projects are 

approved by either the NDOT Safety Committee or the Strategic Safety Infrastructure Team. The usual 

procedure is for an approved HSIP project to be assigned to Roadway Design Division, Traffic Engineering 

Division, or Local Assistance Division as the lead element, depending on the type of project and whether or not 

it is on a local road. These units work with Program Management to get the project scheduled and to make 

sure it is progressing adequately through the steps in the Clarity software, which is used for project 

programming. This includes the important step of working with the Environmental Section to make sure all 

environmental concerns are met. The lead units either design the project or oversee the design of a consultant 

and prepare the project for letting. If railroad property is involved in the project, the Rail and Public 

Transportation Section of Local Assistance Division must also be consulted. The Operations Division has taken 

the lead on projects involving bridge anti-icing systems, dynamic message signs, and required engineering 

analysis. The NDOT has begun using the Highway Safety Manual procedures in the analysis and evaluation of 

some HSIP projects. The Communication Division prepares professional documents for use in the HSIP 

program, such as the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, as well as print, television and radio spots focusing on 

highway safety improvements, like roundabouts and flashing yellow arrows.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Other-City of Omaha Public Works Department

Other-City of Lincoln Public Works Department 

Other-City of Bellevue

Other-City of Grand Island 

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

Each of these partners sit on one or more of our Safety Committees, giving them the opportunity for input into 

the project selection process.

Describe coordination with external partners.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 46

Most of the interaction with our external partners occurs through one of our three safety committees. 

Representatives from the Public Works departments of our two largest cities, Omaha and Lincoln, regularly 

attend the monthly meetings of the long-standing Safety Committee, reviewing crash locations, making 

suggestions for countermeasures, presenting project proposals, and agreeing to make low cost changes or do 

further studies at locations within their own jurisdiction. Delegates from other cities attend less often, but do 

come when they have a project proposal to present. 

LTAP has proven to be very helpful to the High Risk Rural Roads committee. Not only have they been involved 

in the development of projects, they have agreed to serve as liaison with the individual counties, recruiting 

them to take part in systemic projects. The County Highway Superintendent's representative helps NDOT 

better see the picture from the county's point of view. The FHWA Division Safety Engineer provides all of the 

committees with good information on whether ideas are likely to qualify for HSIP funding.

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?

Yes

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

NDOT's RFP for a new crash database went out earlier this year. A vendor was tentatively selected and 

negotiations on a contract are currently taking place. A new crash report, which follows Version 5 of MMUCC, 

has been designed to work in conjunction with the new database.

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 Process Document 2015.doc

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

HRRR

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 46

While Nebraska may include projects that fall under many of these categories in our HSIP, we have no specific 

programs, such as those that would require that a certain amount of money be spent each year on a given 

category of projects.

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/23/2015 

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

Other-22% of NE fatalities occur on rural local roads 

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 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Volume 

Lane miles Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

No

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

Crash frequency and crash types at specific locations or systemically

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 46

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 2 

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

The Rate Quality Control method is used to identify high crash locations on state highways. This same method 

is not used on local roads because traffic volume data is incomplete, preventing valid comparisons of different 

sites. 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/23/2015 

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 

All crashes Volume Other-Roadway Departure, 

Intersection, or other 

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

Relative severity index

Critical rate

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

Yes

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

No

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 46

Crash frequency and crash type at specific locations

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 2 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 22.8 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Horizontal curve signs 

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

The percentage of HSIP funds used for Systemic Projects will vary from year to year.

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

Engineering Study 

Crash data analysis

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? 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 46

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

NDOT has not considered any connected vehicle technology for HSIP funding. We have funded projects for 

dynamic message signs, anti-icing systems on bridges, and Adaptive Traffic Signal systems that were 

considered ITS.

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.

Highway Safety Manual techniques are used to determine benefit/cost ratios for some project proposals.

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.

The NDOT is partnering with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on the development of a new high crash 

software package. The Rate Quality Control method which we currently use is based on 1950's research. The 

new program will select locations using the Empirical Bayes method, similar to what is used in the Highway 

Safety Manual.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 46

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.

Since the latest Federal Fiscal Year will not be over at the time the HSIP Report is due, we are reporting on the 

State Fiscal Year, July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $10,232,932 $7,173,399 70.1%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

Rule (23 U.S.C. $0 $0 0%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $2,606 $2,606 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $1,249,570 $797,044 63.79%

Totals $11,485,108 $7,973,049 69.42%

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?

$6,566,641 

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

$5,407,044 

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

The percentage of HSIP that goes to local projects varies significantly from year to year. The FY 2018 

percentage was on the high end. Incidentally, 42.56% of the local funding went to Omaha.

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 46

$1,047,000 

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

$47,000 

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

All of the current Nebraska non-infrastructure projects are crash records type projects.

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.

No fund transfers were made in FY 2018.

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

As projects become more expensive and more complex, it often takes longer to move them from the planning 

stage to completion. We have been successful, however, in obligating most of our available HSIP funds. We 

have an expenditure plan in place which should allow us to continue at this pace into the future. At this point in 

time, we don't have any serious impediments to HSIP obligation.

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

No
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 46

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

00868 Advance 

Railroad Signing 

for County Roads

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

Approaches $44648 $308452 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Making drivers 

aware they are 

approaching a 

railroad crossing

00975 Flagging 

Training

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

Numbers $10000 $10100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Not Applicable 0 Not Applicable Systemic Work Zones Teach flaggers 

proper techniques 

in work zones

00976 Work 

Training

Zone Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

$10000 $10100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Teach county 

personnel how to 

properly set up 

work zones

00984 Nebraska 

Vehicle Crash 

Information Portal

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $27000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Not Applicable 0 Not Applicable Systemic Data Creating a 

computer system 

to easily 

determine crash 

data by location

12944 Lincoln - 

14th Street & 

Cornhusker 

Highway (US-6) 

(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $147336 $2838596 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

46,280 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Rebuild stop sign 

controlled 

intersection as a 

roundabout

13147 Lincoln - 

S. Coddington 

Ave. & W. Van 

Dorn Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $39987 $2344368 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,015 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Rebuild stop sign 

controlled 

intersection as a 

roundabout

13227 Lincoln - 

66th & Fremont 

Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $493127 $763429 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

7,400 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Rebuild stop sign 

controlled 

intersection as a 

roundabout

13249 Palmyra 

Southwest (PE)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

1 Curves $12786 $947978 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

260 50 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent vehicles 

from running off 

the road

13347 Lincoln - 

56th Street & 

Yankee Hill Road 

(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $441275 $3062405 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,085 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Rebuild stop sign 

controlled 

intersection as a 

roundabout

13349 Lincoln -

80/I-180 

Interchange

 I- Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 Intersections $208953 $233269 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

73,800 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Clarify directional 

guidance in 

complex 

interchange area

13367 

Signs

Malcolm Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 Village $1000 $1000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Agreed to be part 

of pilot program

Reduce crashes in 

villages

Ensure villages 

have proper 

signage

13368 Syracuse 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 Second Class City $5000 $5000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Agreed to be part 

of pilot program

Reduce crashes in 

Second Class 

Cities

Ensure Second 

Class Cities have 

proper signage
2018 Nebraska 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

22449 Omaha - 

144th Street 

Adaptive Traffic 

Signals, F St. to 

Arbor St. (PE)

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

7 Traffic Signals $9000 $1235512 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

28,730 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Intersections Improve traffic 

signal 

coordination

22438 Omaha - 

132nd St. 

Adaptive Traffic 

Control System, 

Farnam St. to 

Cuming St. (PE)

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

7 Traffic Signals $9000 $947540 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

23,005 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Intersections Improving Traffic 

Signal 

Coordination

22482 Omaha - 

Dodge St. 

Adaptive Traffic 

Control System, 

93rd St. to 69th 

St.

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

9 Traffic Signals $1413803 $2168948 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

53,950 3545 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Intersections Improving Traffic 

Signal 

Coordination

22506 Omaha - 

24th Street Road 

Diet, L St. to 

Leavenworth St. 

(PE)

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

1.37 Miles $64109 $3626475 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,405 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Reduce rear-end, 

left-turn collisions

Provide a safer 

street for 

pedestrians, 

bicyclists, as well 

as drivers

22629 Omaha - 

132nd St. & West 

Center Road (PE)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $6174 $6889016 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

48,450 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Add dual left-turn 

lanes, close 

medians, upgrade 

signals

22660 Ralston - 

84th Street (N-85) 

& Ralston Avenue

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $73318 $199405 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

31,165 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install median to 

prevent left-turns 

from westbound 

Ralston Ave.

22695 Omaha - 

84th St. Adaptive 

Traffic Control, 

Lincoln St. 

(Papillion) to W. 

Center Rd

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

23 Traffic Signals $2981278 $3971818 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

27,085 3545 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Intersections Improve Traffic 

Signal 

Coordination

22702 Omaha - 

72nd & Maple St. 

(N-64) (PE)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

2 Approaches $18971 $4700783 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

47,940 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Build dual leftturns on Maple St. 

to reduce 

congestion in leftturn lane

22706 Omaha - 

30th St. Road 

Diet, Cuming St. 

to Ames Ave. 

(PE)

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

1.11 Miles $10001 $2686643 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,920 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Reduce left-turn 

collisions

Provide a safer 

street for 

pedestrians, 

bicyclists, as well 

as drivers

31417A Norfolk - 

US-275 & 37th 

Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $27595 $7037818 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

8,650 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce crash and 

crash severity by 

building a 

roundabout

42809 District 4 

Shoulders

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

16.79 Miles $126234 $1768947 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,615 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Resurface existing 

shoulders and 

install shoulder 

rumble strips

Page 16 of 46
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 46

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

42812 Grand 

Island - Stolley 

Park Rd road 

reconfiguration, 

Webb Rd to 

Locust St.

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

2.06 Miles $1135056 $1307111 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,570 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Corridor Reduce rear-end, 

left-turn collisions

Provide a safer 

street for 

pedestrians, 

bicyclists, as well 

as drivers

42863 Grand 

Island - Five 

Points Intersection 

(State St., 

Broadwell Ave., 

Eddy St.) (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $12000 $2221500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,335 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce crash and 

crash severity by 

building a 

roundabout

51507 Scottsbluff 

- Minatare (Jct. of 

US-26 & L79E)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

modify right-turn 

lane offset

1 Intersections $128406 $4156574 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

6,170 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Offset eastbound 

right-turn lane 

(Safety project 

included with 

larger project)

71018 

Benkelman 

Northeast (PE)

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

0.40 Miles $43966 $230617 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

215 50 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Grading to widen 

and realign 

roadway to 

improve sight 

distance

71166 Grant 

North (N-61)

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

10.93 Miles $881375 $4607573 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,745 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Add surfaced 

shoulders and 

install shoulder 

rumble strips

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 46

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 223 190 181 212 211 225 246 218 228

Serious Injuries 1,944 1,750 1,768 1,661 1,536 1,620 1,520 1,588 1,478

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.165 0.973 0.947 1.103 1.092 1.147 1.216 1.053 1.085

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

10.153 8.965 9.251 8.640 7.949 8.260 7.514 7.668 7.034

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

12 10 9 15 15 11 24 13 23

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

132 110 156 139 132 130 125 113 121
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 46

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

The Nebraska FARS operation is located within the Highway Safety/Accident Records Section of Traffic 

Engineering (NDOT). Consequently, the FARS data and the state fatality data should always be the same.

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

Year 2017

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 19.6 84 0.7 2.98

(RPA) - Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial 6.6 72.6 0.64 7.09

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 41 136 1.77 5.86

(RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial 40.8 161.8 1.73 6.85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 46

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 5.4 35 2.21 14.32

Rural Major Collector 20.2 149.8 1.35 10.02

Rural Local Road or Street 34.2 172.8 3.08 15.57

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

6 54.6 0.4 3.6

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

2.4 56.2 0.22 5.14

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

20 271.6 0.94 12.72

Urban Minor Arterial 13 212.6 0.61 9.98

Urban Minor Collector 0 1.6 0 9.7

Urban Major Collector 2.8 41.4 0.47 6.95

Urban Local Road or Street 13.6 97 1.04 7.38
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 46

Year 2017

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)

5.52

13.56

10.5

State Highway Agency 131.6 713.8 1.02

County Highway Agency 55.4 313.8 2.39

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

38.6 519 0.78

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
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 46

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?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

As we move farther away from the recession years, when fatalities were lower, the 5-year rolling averages for 

fatalities and fatality rate continue to increase. Given the increases in traffic volume, this result is not surprising. 

On the other hand, the 5-year rolling averages for serious injuries and serious injury rate have declined. Nonmotorist fatality and serious injury numbers are small, but pedestrian fatalities have risen in the last few years, 

as have motorcycle fatalities.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 239.0 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

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

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 46

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

This target was selected based on the trend line of fatalities over the last several years. 

Based on this trend, we believe this is a realistic goal. If we meet this target, or fall 

below it, the basic goal of the SHSP, the reduction of fatalities, will be advanced. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1540.0 

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

This target was selected based on the trend line of serious injuries over the last several 

years. Based on this trend, we believe this is a realistic goal. If we meet this target, or 

fall below it, the basic goal of the SHSP, the reduction of serious injuries, will be 

advanced. 

Fatality Rate 1.180 

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

This target was selected based on the trend line of the fatality rate over the last several 

years. Based on this trend, we believe this is a realistic goal. If we meet this target, or 

fall below it, the basic goal of the SHSP, the reduction of fatalities, will be advanced. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.500 

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

This target was selected based on the trend line of the serious injury rate over the last 

several years. Based on this trend, we believe this is a realistic goal. If we meet this 

target, or fall below it, the basic goal of the SHSP, the reduction of serious injuries, 

will be advanced. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 140.0 

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

This target was selected based on the trend line of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries over the last several years. Based on this trend, we believe this is a realistic 

goal. If we meet this target, or fall below it, the basic goal of the SHSP, the reduction 

of fatalities and serious injuries, will be advanced. 

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. 

The NDOT Highway Safety Office is also located within the Traffic Engineering Division, so it is easy for us to 

get together to establish performance targets. Since their annual Highway Safety Plan must be to NHTSA by 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 46

July 1, it is necessary for us to determine the targets we share with them early, which we did. This year we 

held a teleconference with our MPOs to discuss target setting. We explained to them again their 

responsibilities under the rule and offered to provide crash data and VMT data to them.

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.

The fatality rate on Nebraska's High Risk Rural Roads (Rural Major Collectors, Rural Minor Collectors, and 

Rural Local roads) was 2.214 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for the 5-year period from 2010 to 

2014. For the comparable 5-year period from 2012 to 2016, the fatality rate was 2.143 fatalities/100 million 

VMT. Since the rate decreased, the HRRR special rule does not apply to Nebraska.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

29 24 30 21 33 37 41

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

181 186 182 161 182 199 233
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 46

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

Using the population of drivers and pedestrians age 65 and older included in the Special Rule Guidance, the 5-

year rolling average through 2014 and through 2016 are both, when rounded, 0.8. Thus, the Special Rule does 

not apply to Nebraska.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 46

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.

NDOT uses benefit/cost analysis in the selection of most HSIP projects and then evaluates completed projects 

to see if they were effective in reducing crashes. A few projects that are not chosen on the basis of crash data 

will not be evaluated.

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

level evaluations.

The Nebraska HSIP Program was very successful in State FY 2018. The combined benefit-cost ratio for all the 

HSIP projects evaluated during this year was 6.68. Although our fatality numbers have fluctuated up and down 

in recent years, even the highest years have been significantly below the numbers recorded in the first decade 

of this century. Serious injuries, on the other hand, have steadily declined during this same time period.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Policy change 

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

We have been successful in increasing our HSIP obligations over the last several years. Although we do not 

reserve a specific amount of funding for them, we try to include some High Risk Rural Roads projects each 

year. We have instituted several systemic projects in recent years and hope to include more of them in our 

HSIP program. Several improvements that started as HSIP projects have become agency policy, such as 

shoulder rumble strips and the beveled edge.

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.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 46

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 129.8 626.2 0.64 3.1

Intersections Intersections 77.6 798.2 0.38 3.96
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 46

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?

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 46

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 46

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Omaha - I-80 & 

72nd Street 

Interchange - 

Westbound OnRamp

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

89.00 35.00 34.00 9.00 123.00 44.00 9.20

Omaha - I-80 & 

84th Street 

Interchange - WB 

Off-Ramp

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

62.00 40.00 1.00 18.00 3.00 81.00 43.00 4.58

Omaha - 

Intersection of "F" 

Street/16th 

Street/and Spring 

Lake Drive

Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

3.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 0.83

NW of Columbus - 

Jct. of US-81 & N22

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

modify right-turn 

lane offset

4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 10.00 3.00 14.05

Omaha - 30th 

Street (US-75) & 

McKinley 

Street/L28H

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

modify left-turn 

lane offset

22.00 18.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 26.00 24.00 N/A

Hamilton County - 

I-80 Bridges over 

BNSF RR (RP 

327+93) & Co. Rd 

"M" (RP 328+15)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 2.74

Lincoln - 

Northbound I-180 

Ramp Terminal at 

Superior Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

9.00 15.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 15.00 22.00 N/A

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?

Yes

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

The NDOT has increased the effectiveness of its HSIP Program over the last several years. We are obligating a higher percentage of our available funds and are building projects that have a positive affect on crashes, fatalities, and 

serious injuries based on Benefit-Cost Analysis.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

Page 41 of 46

Compliance Assessment

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

 03/31/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021 

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

 2022 

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. 
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 46

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

One/Two Way 

(91)

Operations 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)

INTERSECTION

100 100 100 100 100 100

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)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

70 70

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

70 70
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 46

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

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.55 94.55 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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.

The NDOT is already collecting all the required MIRE fundamental data elements. We are still populating the two elements shown as 70% complete, but should have no trouble meeting the 2026 deadline.

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 Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes Suspected Serious Injury -- Severe 

laceration resulting in major blood loss, 

broken or distorted arm or leg, crush 

injuries, suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury, significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body), unconsciousness or paralysis.

Yes Severe laceration resulting in major blood 

loss, broken or distorted arm or leg, crush 

injuries, suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury, significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body), unconsciousness or paralysis.

Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury Yes None No None No

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

The Suspected Serious Injury Identifier is included in all four of the locations required. We are receiving reports with this identifier on all electronic submissions from law enforcement. Although the change has been made for printing the 

paper form, which accounts for less than 20% of our police reports, we have a large backlog of older reports, where the only difference is the Serious Injury definition, that we have elected to use up before distributing any new reports. The 

lengthy definition appears in the Instruction Manual, but is left off the other documents because of lack of space. We are in the process of creating a new MMUCC 5 crash report that will have the full definition listed.

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?
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 46

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.

No specific date for a program assessment has been discussed. Our FHWA Division Office has recently added a Safety Engineer, so it would probably depend on when he is ready to get involved in this project.
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Process Document 2015.doc

Project Implementation: 

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 46

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

fatality rate). 

(e.g. annual 

Emphasis area means a highway safety 

collaborative process. 

priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

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 

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

a 

Systematic refers to an approach 

system. 

where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

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.