Page 1 of 46

NEBRASKA
2017 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 ...................................................................... 36

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41
2017 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.” 
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary

During the state fiscal year 2017 (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) the NDOT obligated $4.61 million for 32 HSIP 

projects. Another $2.66 million in HSIP funds is planned to be obligated by the end of the federal fiscal year 

(September 30, 2017).

Twenty-two of the 32 projects obligated were HRRR-type, including 15 projects for advance warning pavement 

marking at railroad crossings and three pilot project County Safety Plans in Adams, Platte, and Scotts Bluff 

counties. Among the other projects funded were two roundabouts in Lincoln, two road diet/road reconfiguration 

projects in Omaha and one in Grand Island, and adaptive signal control technology systems in both Omaha and 

Lincoln.

After increasing each of the last two years, fatalities in Nebraska declined by 11.4%, from 246 in 2015 to 218 in 

2016. Suspected serious injuries, on the other hand, increased by 4.5%, from 1,520 to 1,588.
2017 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 administrated 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. A few years ago members of this committee developed a multi-year plan for spending HSIP 

dollars.

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 and 

Local Projects Section of the Materials and Research 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
2017 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 HSIP is administered by the Traffic Engineering Division, with the State Traffic Engineer ultimately 

responsible for the program. The Highway Safety/Accident Records Section supplies the main support for the 

HSIP, providing data, reports, and evaluations while tracking projects. Other sections within Traffic 

Engineering (Traffic Controls, Traffic Analysis) provide input, along with engineers from other NDOT 

Divisions (Roadway Design, Local Projects, Operations, etc.), into the planning of projects.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

Some HSIP projects, mainly those on the state highway system, are proposed by members of the Department's 

three safety committees. Other projects are presented to these committees by local governments or their 

consultants. Scheduling of projects depends on the time needed to develop and design them and the availability 

of funding.

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. Nearly $4.6 million in HSIP funds were spent on local projects in 

State FY 2017. The total amount spent on HRRR projects was over $1.1 million.

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.
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 46

Traffic Engineering, Roadway Design, and Local Projects have the most involvement in the HSIP 

program. The other groups noted have membership on one or more of the safety committees and may become 

more involved when they have a particular project to advance.

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 the Local Projects Section of Materials and Research 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 

Section of Intermodal Planning Division must also be consulted. The Operations Division has taken the lead on 

projects involving bridge anti-icing systems, adaptive signal control, and dynamic message signs, which require 

systems engineering analysis. The Governor's Highway Safety Office is responsible for non-infrastructure 

projects addressing driver behavior issues. The NDOT stopped using HSIP funds for behavioral-type projects 

during the previous fiscal year to comply with changes in the FAST Act. 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 television and radio commercials focusing on highway safety improvements, like roundabouts.

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 groups has representatives that sit on one or more of NDOT's Safety Committees, the bodies 

which approve HSIP projects. In addition to these duties, when a project is approved for one of the cities within 

an MPO boundary, the MPO must add it to its TIP.
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 46

Describe coordination with external partners.

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 selected Crash Magic for its automatic collision diagramming software. The vendor created a 

configuration file for the Nebraska crash database and the product is now operational. The Location Analysis 

unit of Highway Safety/Accident Records section has started to use its output to supplement their MicroStation 

drawings.

The NDOT is in the process of designing a new crash report that follows Version 5 of MMUCC. A NHTSA Go 

Team has reviewed the proposed report and offered their appraisal of it. Nebraska is also preparing an RFP for 

creation of a new crash database to replace the current one that has been used since 1993, using HSIP 

funds. The existing database was not designed to accept electronically submitted crash reports, and although it 

is currently doing that, we are not receiving the full value from the electronic report processes.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 46

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.

NDOT has no specific programs for spending HSIP funds, but do emphasize projects that address the two 

infrastructure-based Critical Emphasis Areas in our SHSP, Roadway Departure crashes and Intersection 

crashes.

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
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 46

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

Crash frequency and crash types 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

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

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
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 46

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 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

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 9.37

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Safety Edge

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 varies greatly from year-to-year. Last year the 

majority of HSIP funds were used for systemic projects. This year only 9.37% was for systemic projects.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 46

Engineering Study

Crash data analysis

Stakeholder input

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

Countermeasures are normally identified by engineers on one of the NDOT safety committees. Crash studies 

are available to help guide them in these decisions. Project proposals from local jurisdictions often come with 

pre-determined countermeasures, although these may be amended by the committee.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

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 and anti-icing systems on bridges 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?

No
2017 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.

The State Fiscal Year, from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, is the reporting period for HSIP funding in this 

report.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $14,119,190 $13,321,412 94.35%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$536,800 $536,780 100%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $14,655,990 $13,858,192 94.56%

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

The High Risk Rural Roads funds noted were remaining from the pre-MAP21 bill, not the result of the Special 

Rule. Available funds were estimated from the Nebraska 2017-2020 STIP and revisions, the MAPA TIP, and 

the Lincoln TIP. No HSIP projects were included in the TIPs from the other two Nebraska MPOs. The 

obligation totals came from a FMIS query for the July 2016 - June 2017 time period.

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

$4,865,590

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

$4,598,693

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

Page 14 of 46

Approximately 1/3 of Nebraska's available and obligated HSIP funds went to local governments during the state 

FY 2017.

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

$969,400

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

$914,810

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

Nebraska chose to flex 10% of its HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects when given the opportunity, since 

60% of the Critical Emphasis Areas in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan address behavioral issues. Because 

the flex option no longer exists, funding for non-infrastructure projects dropped to 6.6% during the most 

recent state fiscal year.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

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

stage to completion. This is not, however, really an impediment to obligating HSIP funds. We have been 

successful, over the last few years, in obligating most of our available HSIP funds. We have a spending 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
2017 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

00787 

Statewide County 

Road Horizontal 

Curve Signs, 

Phase 3

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

$38,000 $38,000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep Vehicles on 

the Roadway

00869 Adams 

County Advance 

Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

14 Approaches $69,390 $77,100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869A Cass 

County Advance 

Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

4 Approaches $15,102 $16780 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869B 

Dakota County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

2 Approaches $19,225 $21,362 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a

Railroad Crossing

00869C 

Dawson County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

5 Approaches $17,758 $19,708 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869D 

Dodge County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

6 Approaches $31,700 $35,223 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers of 

approaching 

Railroad Crossing

00869E 

Holt County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

4 Approaches $23,559 $26,176 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869F 

Lancaster County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

10 Approaches $25,395 $28,215 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869G 

Lincoln County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

2 Approaches $19,643 $21,825 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869H 

Nemaha County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

2 Approaches $10,905 $12,116 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 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

00869J 

Phelps County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

8 Approaches $13,280 $14,755 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869K 

Platte County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

10 Approaches $25,443 $28,269 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869L 

Saline County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

2 Approaches $9,344 $10,382 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers of 

approaching 

Railroad Crossing

00869M 

Saunders County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Marking

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

10 Approaches $31,701 $36,223 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers they 

are approaching a 

Railroad Crossing

00869N 

Scotts Bluff 

County Advance 

Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

15 Approaches $65,193 $72,436 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers of 

approaching 

Railroad Crossing

00869P 

Seward County 

Advance Railroad 

Pavement 

Markings

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

4 Approaches $15,070 $16,744 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Warn Drivers of 

approaching 

Railroad 

Crossings

00960 

County Safety 

Plan Technical 

Assistance

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

3 Numbers $16,840 $18,711 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Not Applicable 0 Pilot Project -

Adams, Platte, 

and Scotts Bluff 

counties 

volunteered

Helping Counties 

Develop their own 

Safety Plans

Educate county 

staff on how to 

address their 

safety problems

00968 EAF 

2.0 to TraCS 

Conversion

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $180,000 $200,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Not Applicable 0 State Patrol 

changing to 

TraCS for 

collecting citation 

and other data

Data Changing our 

standard software 

for crash collection

00970 

TraCS Location 

Tool Licensing

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $11,700 $13,000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Not Applicable 0 This tool is 

designed to work 

with TraCS, the 

software we are 

switching to

Data Provide standard 

tool for accurate 

collection of 

locations on crash 

reports

13147 

Lincoln - South 

Coddington 

Avenue & West 

Van Dorn Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $1,327,071 $2,301,048 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,090 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce traffic 

conflicts, and thus 

crashes, by 

building a 

roundabout

22615 

Omaha - NB US75 Off Ramp to 

Cuming Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify intersection 

corner radius

1 Numbers $286,347 $467,365 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

60,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Provide wider 

turning radius 

reduce sideswipes 
2017 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

of dual left-turning 

vehicles

22682 District 2 

- Rebuild Poor 

Condition 

Shoulders, add 

rumble strips

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

16.63 Miles $2,368,627 $2,537,320 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 10,950 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep vehicles on 

the roadway

22698 

District 2 -

Districtwide 

Striping

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

82.45 Miles $1,714,249 $1,905,923 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 47,770 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep vehicles in 

their designated 

lanes

22698 

District 2 -

Districtwide 

Striping

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

82.45 Miles $1,714,249 $1,905,923 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 47,770 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep vehicles in 

their designated 

lanes

31417A 

Norfolk - US-275 

& 37th Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $487,900 $685253 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,060 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce traffic 

conflicts, and thus 

crashes, by 

building a 

roundabout

32274 

District 3 - Rebuild 

Shoulders, add 

rumble strips

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

15.91 Miles $1,289,753 $1,409,822 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,950 60 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep vehicles on 

the roadway

42690 

Grand Island -

US-281 & Webb 

Road (north)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

2 Lanes $520,976 $578,862 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,260 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Add left-turn lanes 

to reduce rear-end 

collisions

42809 

District 4 - Rebuild 

Shoulders, Add 

Rumble Strips

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

16.79 Miles $1,443,896 $1,768,047 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,620 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep vehicles on 

the roadway

61289 

Brule Southwest

Roadside Drainage 

improvements

1.06 Miles $411,507 $486,536 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

160 50 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Preventing 

vehicles from 

striking fixed 

objects

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

The HRRR funds listed here were left over from the earlier bill, not the result of the HRRR Special Rule. Several of the projects include multiple sites. The AADTs listed for these projects are an average of all the sites, functional 

classification and speed are those at the majority of sites.
2017 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 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 208 223 190 181 212 211 225 246 218

Serious Injuries 1,854 1,944 1,750 1,768 1,661 1,536 1,620 1,520 1,588

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

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.828 10.153 8.965 9.251 8.640 7.949 8.260 7.513 7.668

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

5 12 10 9 15 15 11 24 13

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

118 132 110 156 139 132 130 125 113
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 20 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 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 FARS data should always be identical to the state data in Nebraska. Our FARS Analyst resides within the 

Highway Safety/Accident Records Section of Traffic Engineering and we always follow the FARS rules for 

determining whether a fatality should be counted.

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

20 80.8 0.73 2.95

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

7.2 72.4 0.69 6.96

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 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 Principal Arterial -

Other

37.6 142.4 1.62 6.14

Rural Minor Arterial 41 175.8 1.75 7.48

Rural Minor Collector 5.4 62.4 2.27 26.28

Rural Major Collector 18.6 132.2 1.23 8.72

Rural Local Road or Street 36.8 184.4 3.34 16.72

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

5.2 53.6 0.36 3.68

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

4 60.2 0.38 5.76

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

18.6 276.4 0.86 12.83

Urban Minor Arterial 13.4 206.6 0.65 10.1

Urban Minor Collector 0 0.4 0 5.44

Urban Major Collector 2.4 38 0.42 6.6

Urban Local Road or Street 12.2 98.4 0.99 8
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 46

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 129 712 1.28 7.07

County Highway Agency 57.8 341 3.1 18.29

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

35.6 530.8 0.95 14.18

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 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

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

Page 31 of 46

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

In past years we did not report crashes on any Urban Minor Collectors. When the HPMS Report was submitted 

in July, some roads of this classification were included. It appeared that some roads were reclassified during 

2016. This resulted in a reevaluation of crash fatalities and Serious Injuries to determine whether any of them 

occurred on the Urban Minor Collectors. Only two crashes were determined to have happened on this 

classification of roadway. We should get a better understanding of the crashes on Urban Minor Collectors next 

year when they will be counted in the same way as all other classifications of roadways.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 228.5 

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

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

Page 32 of 46

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

The 2018 target is set on a reduction of 1% from the current increasing trend. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1520.4 

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

The 2018 target is set at a reduction on the current five-year rolling trend line. 

Fatality Rate 1.117 

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

The 2018 target is set at a reduction of 1% from the current increasing trend. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.386 

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

The 2018 target is set at a reduction on the current five-year rolling trend line. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 145.3 

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

NDOT evaluated several different trend lines and selected the one that best fit the data. 

If the trend indicated an increase in crashes, a percentage reduction was taken from the 

predicted 2018 figure to set the target. If the trend was downward, the predicted 

number was used as the target. 

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

NDOT tried out several trend lines and selected the one that best fit the data. If the trend indicated an increase 

in crashes, a percentage reduction was taken from the predicted 2018 figure to set the target. If the trend was 

downward, the predicted number was used for the target.

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

targets. 

The NDOT made sure the four Nebraska MPOs were aware of the targets with a presentation at a quarterly 

NDOT/MPO meeting in the spring of 2016. Then, in both May and June of 2017, additional meetings were held 

with NDOT safety personnel and representatives of all of our MPOs. NDOT's targets were established after the 

June meeting and we agreed to report them to the MPOs, as well as to provide them with crash data for their 

MPO areas. them with crash data for their MPO areas. NDOT will disclose our five performance targets to the 

MPOs with the submittal of this HSIP Report.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 46

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.

From FARS data, Nebraska had 319 fatalities on Rural Major Collectors, Rural Minor Collectors, and Rural 

Local Roads during the 5-year period from 2009-2013. The average annual number of fatalities on these roads 

was 63.80. From 2011-2015 298 fatalities were reported on HRRR roads, for an average annual number of 

50.00.

Taking the Annual vehicle miles (in millions) from our HPMS submittal, the average annual VMT for the 5-

year period from 2009-2013 was 2,873.784, compared to 2,880.230 for the 5-year period from 2011-2015. 

Thus, the fatality rate on HRRR for the 2009-2013 period was 2.22 fatalities/hundred million vehicle miles 

traveled (63.80 fatalities/year divided by 2,873.784 million vehicle miles traveled). By comparison, the 2011-

2015 period had a fatality rate of 1.74 on HRRR (50.00 fatalities/year divided by 2,880.230 million vehicle 

miles traveled).

Since the fatality rate did not increase, we are not subject to the HRRR Special Rule.

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

30 29 24 30 21 33 27

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

208 203 207 196 181 210 210
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 46

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

The fatality data was taken from the Nebraska FARS system. The serious injury data was taken from the state 

crash records system.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 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.

Nebraska evaluates the effectiveness of completed HSIP projects and determines benefit/cost ratios for 

successful jobs. We also pay close attention to our fatalities and serious injuries, while recognizing that these 

can be heavily influenced by outside factors.

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

level evaluations.

Four of the five projects we evaluated this year did not have crash rate changes that were statistically significant 

at the 95% confidence level. When aggregated, however, they had a benefit/cost ratio of 0.26.

Despite the low benefit/cost for these projects, they did result in reductions of 14.1% in total crashes and 80% in 

fatal crashes.

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.

The development of a formal funding plan for HSIP funds, with the help of the FHWA Division Safety 

Engineer, has helped Nebraska move from a low percentage of HSIP obligations to where our program is now 

nearly full for several years into the future. Part of this plan was to increase the number of systemic 

projects. Several of these appear in this year's project list, including projects to add shoulder rumble strips to 

highways that were skipped during our previous projects because of the poor condition of the shoulders. We are 

rebuilding the shoulders at these locations so that rumble strips can be added. The standardization of rumble 

strips on highways with surfaced shoulders is one of the policy changes that grew out of HSIP activity. Another 

was the development of a standard for applying the beveled edge to our overlay projects.

When MAP-21 eliminated High Risk Rural Roads funding, the Nebraska DOT chose to maintain its High Risk 

Rural Roads Committee. Working with Local Projects Section and LTAP, we have continued to fund projects 
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 46

on rural roads. The use of HSIP funds for urban local projects has always been strong, especially by Omaha 

and Lincoln. We recently added a representative from MAPA (the Omaha area MPO) to our Safety Committee.

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 129.4 637.2 0.65 3.21

Intersections Intersections 72.8 814 0.37 4.11
2017 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

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 46

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

The targeted crash type for Roadway Departure is really Roadway Departure crashes, not just run-off-road. It 

includes cross centerline crashes (head-ons, opposite direction sideswipes). Since that was not one of the 

choices, the closest thing was chosen.

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

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 46

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

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

No evaluations of this type were completed during the most recent state fiscal year.
2017 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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Lancaster County 

- Intersection of 

US-34 & 148th 

Street

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

8.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 12.00 7.00

Sarpy County -

Intersection of N50 and Giles Road

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

modify turn lane 

storage

24.00 22.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 16.00 20.00 43.00 47.00

Kearney County -

E. Jct. of US-6 & 

N-44

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

modify right-turn 

lane offset

2.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 8.00 8.00

Nebraska City -

11th Street, 10th 

Corso to 14th 

Corso

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add two-way leftturn lane

12.00 4.00 2.00 14.00 4.00 0.42

Platte County -

Jct. of US-81 & N91

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

4.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 3.00 15.00 13.00 N/A

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

Several of these projects have no benefit/cost ratio because there was not a statistically significant reduction in the project purposes. Also, several of these projects had multiple improvements, but only one could be noted from the list 

provided.

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

No
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 46

Compliance Assessment

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

 2017-03-31

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. 

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

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)

0 0
2017 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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

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 81.82 81.82 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

See the response to Question 49.

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.

All of the MIRE fundamental data elements are available now, with the exception of "Roadway Type at Beginning of Ramp Terminal" and "Roadway Type at End of Ramp Terminal". These elements are collected now, but there are no 

tables in the database to receive them. A project for the NDOT Business Technology Support Division to build tables in the database for these elements is scheduled, but was postponed due to other priorities. This project should be 

completed in 2018, so we should easily meet 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.

Everything has already been changed except for the paper report. We will reprint these when our stock of forms gets low.
2017 Nebraska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 46

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

The wording was changed on our electronic report. The paper report has also been changed, but we have not reprinted it, so agencies are still using the old form. We have no definitions in our database or in our data dictionary.

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

No

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

2017

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 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:
2017 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 (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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