Maryland

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: MD
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 34

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 34

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 37

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 45

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 45

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 59

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................63

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 65

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 70

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 75

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 81

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 83
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2014

• HSIP is administered centrally

• Local roads are not allocated HSIP funds

• The Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) along with the Maryland Transportation Authority 

(MDTA) and the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important internal 

partners with the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. Several 

regional planning organizations also coordinate with the SHA as external partners.

• Programs administered under the HSIP

o Median Barrier

o Horizontal Curve

o Skid Hazard

o Roadway Departure

o Left-turn crash

o Intersection Crash Data

o Low Cost Spot Improvements

o Pedestrian Safety

o Rural State Highway

o Right Angle Crash

o Highway Sections

• The data types used in the HSIP program methodology are vehicle crashes ,traffic volume and 

highway mileage

• The project identification methodology used in the HSIP program are crash frequency and 

relative severity index

• The HSIP projects are advanced for implementation by an SHA selection committee. The criteria 

considered are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support

• The proportion of HSIP program Funds used in CY 2014 for funding systemic improvements is 

80%

• The types of systemic improvements include

o Cable median barriers

o Rumble strips

o Traffic control device rehabilitation

o Pavement installation and improvement 

• Engineering studies are used to identify potential countermeasures

• The HSIP funding for CY 2014

o Programmed - $37,556,765
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

 Non-infrastructure portion - $6,434,995

o Obligated - $43,369,755

 Non-infrastructure portion - $8,723,537

• Additional site specific information is expected to be available in future years for individual HSIP 

related projects

• The General listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, intersection geometry 

and non-infrastructure projects

• The Overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have decreased 

from 581 in 2010 to 481 in 2014 (rolling average format) and that the number of serious injuries 

have decreased from 4,925 in 2010 to 3,456 in 2014 (rolling average format)

• The Roadway ownership indicates that in 2014 the top four road systems experienced the 

following number of fatalities:

o MD State Highways – 197

o County Roads – 103

o US Highways – 53

o Interstate Highways – 49

• Older Driver (65+) Fatal and Severe Injury per capita rate has decreased from 2007-11 (3.0) as 

compared with 2009-2011 (2.6)

• The effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends. Additional site 

specific data is expected to become available in subsequent HSIP reports

• The significant programmatic change in the HSIP program is that efforts have progressed in 

response to the projected MAP-21 Safety Target Setting Methodologies. Additionally work on 

the 2016-20 SHSP will be completed later this year.

• Overall yearly crash trends for the individual SHSP (Strategic Highway Safety Program) areas 

along with the HSIP Sub-Program areas are shown in tables in the annual report
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

Local Roads are not given HSIP funds from the State

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

Design

Planning
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The Traffic Development and Support Division (TDSD) along with the Maryland Highway Safety Office 

(MHSO) (Note: MHSO moved from SHA in 2012 and is now part of MVA) and other Office of Traffic and 

Safety (OOTS) divisions provided leadership, support, and coordination for Maryland's highway safety 

projects in CY 2014. Part of TDSD and MHSO’s responsibility is to work with other State agencies to 

address highway safety issues. This effort results in a multi agency approach which includes the Motor 

Vehicle Administration, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for Emergency 

Medical Services and others that have roles in highway safety problems. The seven SHA District Offices 

also provide a network of field personnel willing to coordinate and provide technical assistance to local 

agencies. There is a continuing relationship between OOTS and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) along with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-: External partners including MPOs, local government, police agencies and academic 

organizations are included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Work the 2016-20 SHSP is will be finished later this year

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

would like to elaborate.

none at this time

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Saftey 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Opeartions 30
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Highway mileage Other 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Safety 60

Congestion / Operations 30

Support / Opportunity 10

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

80

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-Transition to electronic crash report form (ACRS)
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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

would like to elaborate. 

none at this time
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 9302545.2 25 % 10628055 25 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 3055939.25 8 % 3172321.13 7 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

2592345.13 7 % 4427319 10 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

912131.26 2 % 999999 2 %

State and Local Funds
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Other HSIP (SAFETEALU)11618368.47 31 % 12539890 29 %

Other HSIP (MAP 21) 10075436.04 27 % 11602171 27 %

Totals 37556765.35 100% 43369755.13 100%

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

$6,434,995.00

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

$8,723,537.00
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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? 

$2,592,345.00

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

overcome this in the future.

None at this time

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Additional site specific information is expected to be available in CY 2015 for individual HSIP related 

projects
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AADT Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

#00DB(094) Roadway 

delineation 

Raised 

pavement 

markers

Miles 154151

9

171277

6

HSIP 

(Map 21)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#0682(04

8)

Roadside 

Barriermetal

2.95 

Miles

500000 180166

6

HSIP 

(Map 21)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

16451 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

#1066(00

9)

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

1.37 

Miles

537841 591652 HSIP 

(Map 21)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6462 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#3003(00

9)

Roadside 

Barrier -

other

5.46 

Miles

119168

5

119168

5

HSIP 

(Map 21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

51621 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#3121(01

1)

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists 

Miscellaneou

s pedestrians 

and bicyclists

1.59 

Miles

152210

0

152210

0

HSIP 

(Map 21)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

10782 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians Develop and 

evaluate 

model 

approaches 

to 

engineering 

built 

environment
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

s that 

accommodat

e safe 

pedestrian 

travel

#5030(01

0)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

Miles 756972

6

891495

3

HSIP 

(Section 

148) 

(Map 21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

16960 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Identify high 

crash 

locations 

(intersection

s and 

locations) 

and make 

safety 

improvemen

ts statewide

#6956(34

7)

Interchange 

design 

Interchange 

design -

other

Miles 319080

2

325674

3

HSIP 

(Section 

148) 

(Map 21)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

19551

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastructu

re

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#2361(03

7)

Roadside 

Barrier -

6.24 

Miles

801595 801595 HSIP 

(Map 21)

Urban 

Principal 

41171 55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Identify high 

crash 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

other Arterial -

Other

Agency locations 

(intersection

s and 

locations) 

and make 

safety 

improvemen

ts statewide

#2881(00

6)

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - no 

control to 

roundabout

Miles 764460 849400 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7123 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#2391(00

5)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

Miles 199808

7

199808

7

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

14731 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

e crashes

#2571(01

6)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

Miles 290834

7

293978

9

HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU) 

(Map 21)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

18702 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000A(71

2)

Roadside 

Barrier -

other

Miles 447465 447465 HSIP 

(Section 

148) 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000A(81

3)

Roadside 

Barrier -

other

Miles 109670

4

109670

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148) 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000A(72

6)

Noninfrastructur

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

Miles 134190

0

149100

0

HSIP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Data analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000A(73

1)

Noninfrastructur

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

Miles 158861

9

180521

9

HSIP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Data analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000A(75

4)

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

Miles 287715

8

287715

8

HSIP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Highway 

Infrastructu

re

analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

friction 

surface

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#1191(02

9)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

Miles 407105 508855 HSIP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

55582 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data analyze data 

to identify 

system wide 

improvemen

ts to reduce 

the number 

and severity 

of 

infrastructur

e crashes

#000B(05

3)

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists 

Modify 

existing 

crosswalk

Miles 376717

7

413497

5

HSIP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

areawide State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians Develop and 

evaluate 

model 

approaches 

to 

engineering 

built 

environment

s that 

accommodat

e safe 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

pedestrian 

travel
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 581 548 527 502 481

Number of serious injuries 4925 4439 4030 3714 3456

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.03 0.97 0.94 0.9 0.85

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.75 7.9 7.19 6.62 6.13

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

23.8 73.4 0.74 2.29

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

29.2 185.4 0.92 5.98

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

34 173.8 1.54 7.84

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

16.6 76.4 1.4 6.51

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

32.2 182.6 1.69 9.6

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

19.6 113.4 1.19 6.87

URBAN PRINCIPAL 62.8 382 0.45 2.76
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

41.2 232.6 0.7 3.97

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

119.8 1063 1.17 10.39

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

60 475.2 0.95 7.5

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

27.6 243.8 0.77 6.82

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

17 239.4 0.56 7.91
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 333.6 2101.4 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 113.6 935 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 14.8 260.2 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0.6 11.8 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

none at this time

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.594 0.546 0.518 0.522 0.49

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

2.838 2.57 2.438 2.266 2.116

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

3.434 3.118 2.958 2.786 2.604

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

2005 to 2013 Driver and Pedestrian Fatal 65 and older

Fatality

Year Drivers Peds Combined Pop Figure Rate

2005 55 24 79 112 0.71

2006 63 13 76 115 0.66

2007 40 11 51 118 0.43

2008 51 13 64 121 0.53

2009 57 21 78 121 0.64

2010 42 16 58 123 0.47

2011 47 18 65 126 0.52

2012 39 19 58 130 0.45

2013 35 14 49 134 0.37

Severe Injury

Year Drivers Peds Combined Pop Figure Rate

2005 355 43 398 112 3.55

2006 312 29 341 115 2.97
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

2007 287 43 330 118 2.80

2008 259 43 302 121 2.50

2009 238 49 287 121 2.37

2010 230 42 272 123 2.21

2011 241 50 291 126 2.31

2012 214 38 252 130 1.94

2013 199 35 234 134 1.75

2007 to 2011 Driver and Pedestrian Fatality and Severe Injury 65 and older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2007 381 118 3.23 1

2008 366 121 3.02 1

2009 365 121 3.02 1

2010 330 123 2.68 1

2011 356 126 2.83 1

14.78 5 3.0

2009 to 2013 Driver and Pedestrian Fatality and Severe Injury 65 and older

Year Accidents Pop Figure Rate Years Total Rate

2009 365 121 3.02 1

2010 330 123 2.68 1

2011 356 126 2.83 1

2012 310 130 2.38 1

2013 283 134 2.11 1
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

13.02 5 2.6

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-The effectiveness of the HSIP program will be indicated by the crash data trends. More 

site specific data is expected to become available in subsequent HSIP reports

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Work on MAP 21 fatality and serious injury goals in progress

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Work is in progress for the MAP-21 Safety Target Setting Methodologies. Additionally the 2016-20 SHSP 

will be complete later this year (2015).
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Distracted Driving All 232 2339.6 0.41 4.17 0 0 0

Impaired Driving All 171.2 531.6 0.3 0.95 0 0 0

Aggressive Driving All 50.6 351.4 0.09 0.63 0 0 0

Occupant Protection All 121.6 344.8 0.22 0.61 0 0 0

Highway 

Infrastructure

Intersection, CZ, 

ROR

328 2383.8 0.58 4.25 0 0 0

Pedestrian Crashes Vehicle/pedestrian 106 363.8 0.19 0.65 0 0 0
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2013

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 106 363.8 0.19 0.65 0 0 0

Angle Crash Angle 60.8 675.4 0.11 1.2 0 0 0

Wet Surface 

Crashes

Wet road 81.6 652.2 0.15 1.16 0 0 0

Intersection Intersections 102.8 1322.2 0.18 2.36 0 0 0

Left Turn Crash Left-turn 26 340 0.05 0.6 0 0 0
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier Head on 64.4 308.8 0.11 0.55 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve Run-offroad

179.6 908 0.32 1.62 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

Run-offroad179.6 908 0.32 1.62 0 0 0
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

1. 2014 crash data is unavailable as of reporting time for certain categories.

2. Under "Roadway Ownership" State Highway and State Toll (MDTA) totals are combined under "State 

Highway Agency" categorythe

3. No overall crash totals (except for fatalities) are available for federally maintained highways in 

Maryland.
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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