Page 1 of 45

KANSAS 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 45

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................18

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................18

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................20

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................25

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................25

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

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

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

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

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

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................39

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................40

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................44

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................45
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 45

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. 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.”
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 45

Executive Summary

In Kansas we continue to spend our HSIP dollars in a variety of independently managed sub-programs, 

including intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, guardrail and general safety 

improvements. The rail program is reported with the RHGCP report. This is the eighth year HRRR is reported 

with the HSIP report. Collectively, these programs cover all 140,000 centerline miles of public roads in Kansas 

while applying a multitude of proven countermeasures designed to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes 

statewide. 

Concurrent with this annual report, we are developing our FFY 2021 HSIP Implementation Plan, completing an 

HSIP Assessment, publishing our 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and preparing to apply a new 

HSIP Evaluation Framework based on the sub-programs in this report. We anticipate each of these projects 

will contribute in a substantive way to improvements in our HSIP process.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 45

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. 

Our HSIP is managed via eight independent sub-programs, including intersections, signing, pavement 

markings, lighting, rail, HRRR, guardrail and general safety improvements. Each of these programs, with the 

exception of rail, is described in detail within this report. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Design

Intersections, signing, pavement markings, lighting, and general safety improvements are managed in the 

Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology within the Division of Planning and Development. HRRR is 

managed by the Bureau of Local Projects, and rail and guardrail by the Bureau of Road Design, both within the 

Division of Engineering and Design. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Headquarters 

A committee made up of the HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Division Safety Engineer, sub-program 

managers, and management meet monthly to measure program progress based on planned obligations and to 

estimate and distribute allocations moving forward. The discussion begins based on historical precedent, but 

actual distribution is based on anticipated needs over the next two years. As we work to improve our HSIP, we 

intend to work toward a more data-driven distribution of dollars to each sub-program. 

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

Our HSIP program is made up of eight sub-programs: lighting, pavement marking, signing, rail, intersections, 

HRRR, guardrail and general safety improvements. Lighting, pavement marking, signing, guardrail and general 

safety improvement projects are exclusive to the State Highway System, although projects may impact 

intersecting non-state roads. Intersections and rail projects may include local roads, that is, public roads not a 

part of the State Highway System. HRRR is exclusive to local roads. The rail program is addressed in the RailHighway Grade Crossing Program report. 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 45

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 

• Districts/Regions 

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

• Maintenance 

• Operations 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Lighting sub-program: Projects are selected with input from the structural engineer in our State Bridge Office 

responsible for foundations for lighting, as well as field information from our Area Offices, and road safety 

audits performed by our Traffic Engineering Section. 

Signing sub-program: This blanket replacement program was originally programmed to cover the entire state 

highway system in ten years. We are currently on our second cycle of replacement. Our Area Offices complete 

a sign inventory for each project. In recent years, projects that are primarily on conventional roads the Area 

Offices typically installed the new signs and posts; however due to staffing and other considerations we are 

moving back to contractor let. Projects that are on urban expressways and freeways have been and will 

continue to be contractor let. Area Offices then administer the construction engineering duties. 

Pavement Marking sub-program: Our pavement marking technician works closely with our district maintenance 

engineers to identify recommended routes based on field experience and retro-reflectivity data. Works also 

with Traffic Engineering Section to identify locations in need of improved markings for safety. 

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP) and traffic studies. When the intersection is located on the State Highway System, our District 

and Area Offices are made part of the discussion as well. Once locations are identified a competitive process 

for funding begins using Part B of the Highway Safety Manual and engineering judgment.

HRRR sub-program: District Offices provide construction oversight. The Bureau of Local Projects manages the 

program and utilizes a scoring rubric to score and rank potential projects. 

General Safety Improvements sub-program: Projects are selected and scoped in partnership with District and 

Area Offices. 

Guardrail: Projects are selected and scoped in partnership with District and Area Offices. 

All sub-programs: The Traffic Safety Section in our Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology manage and 

report on crash data as needed. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA 

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-Kansas Association of Counties 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 45

• Other-Local Roads Emphasis Area Team (SHSP) 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Intersections sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to cities and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP) and KDOT traffic studies. 

HRRR sub-program: Projects are identified through solicitation to counties and their recommendations. 

Additionally, projects may be identified through studies such as Traffic Engineering Assistance Program 

reports (TEAP), road safety audits, and Local Road Safety Plans. 

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

As noted last year, the semi-annual meetings with sub-program managers have moved to monthly. This 

change was intended to improve communication, discuss challenges, find solutions, and ultimately increase 

the obligation rate. Also, we officially added guardrail as a sub-program; although, we have been funding 

projects for a couple of years with the genesis to address safety on our resurfacing (1R) program once we 

found ourselves in the position of having to use federal funds. 

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

elaborate. 

A total of $26,113,822 in safety funds (HSIP and Rail) was apportioned for FFY 2020, distributed to each 

sub-program as follows:

Lighting: $0

Pavement Marking: $6,000,000 

Signing: $2,000,000 

HWY/RR Gr Xing: $0.00 HSIP and $6,509,648 Rail 

Intersections: $6,604,174 

GSIP: $500,000 

HRRR: $4,500,000 

Guardrail: $0 

The following dollars were obligated for SFY 2020 in each program:

SFY-2020 Obligated: $25,690,994.95 ($18,543,062.92 HSIP, 799,375.36 HRRR, $4,008,729.97 Rail and 

$2,339,835.70 ACHSIP)

Lighting: $734,458.92 HSIP

Pavement Marking: $5,336,762.96 HSIP 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 45

Signing: $2,192,648.10 

HWY/RR Gr Xing: $4,995,642.25: $32,945.58 HSIP, $4,008,720.97 Rail and $953,975.70 ACHSIP

Intersections: $3,060,266.34 HSIP 

GSIP: $200,000 HSIP 

HRRR: $4,495,943.90: $3,696,568.54 HSIP and $799,375.36 HRRR 

Guardrail: $4,675,272.48: $3,289,412.48 HSIP and $1,385,860 ACHSIP 

Each of the programs discussed further in this report are consistent with our SHSP. It is our intent that 

strategies identified or developed as part of the SHSP process will contribute to the continued success of these 

programs. A portion of our HSIP funding is programmed as part of our RHGCP. See RHGCP report for more 

information. For the purpose of this question, "apportioned" is that dollar amount made available to each subprogram prior to the beginning of the fiscal year; this value--which varies from year to year based on 

anticipated need--does not include carry-over. (Please note: In future reports we will exclude reference to ACadvanced construction. These projects and related dollars will not be reported until converted.) 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

This will be a recommendation of the aforenoted HSIP Assessment. 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Intersection 

• Local Safety 

• Sign Replacement And Improvement 

• Other-Pavement Marking 

• Other-Lighting

• Other-General Safety Improvements 

• Other-Guardrail 

• Other-Rail 

Our HRRR Program may also be referred to as Local Safety since it applies exclusively to locally-owned roads. 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:8/25/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Must satisfy a need based on the HSM, address crashes, and have a B/C>1.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 45

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Fatal and SI crashes

• Traffic

• Volume

• Population

• Lane miles

• Functional classification

• Other-Turn lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-B/C ratio

• Other-Observed crashes and patterns

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.

Process is same except local road projects include a periodic solicitation letter to all cities with 

population of 5000 or greater requesting project proposals.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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:2

Available funding:3

Other-Crash patterns:1

This program is increasingly focused on low-cost safety improvements as well as higher-cost that addresses 

observed crash patterns. Additionally, HSM tools such as Safety Analyst help us rank and quantify the 

countermeasures to address intersections with the greatest potential to improve safety. 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:2/11/2011
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 45

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Traffic

• Volume

• Population

• Lane miles

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-Shoulder width, sign 

sheeting type, percent in 

district, past projects, cost, road 

safety audit, county priority

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

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.

This program applies only to local roads (non-state owned and operated.)

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-Scoring rubric

• 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
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 45

Available funding:2

Other-Scoring rubric:1

Other-Geographical distribution:3

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Sign inventory

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Pre-programmed blanket replacement program

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Projects were pre-programmed based on a blanket replacement program.

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Per established cyclical program:1

This program was established in 1996 to address necessary sign replacements on the State Highway System 

due to pending (now final) federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity of highway signs. This program 

schedules sign replacements based upon highway route-mileage statewide and the total mileage of all the 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 45

routes in each District Sub-Area with multiple Sub-Areas in each District being addressed each year. This 

program excludes signs on any other state project that include sign replacement for that highway route in the 

same year. This program also excludes any signs that were replaced within seven years of the scheduled date 

of the replacement project. This is the 14th year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve permanent signing. 

The projects in the program are administered using two separate methods. Sub-Areas comprised primarily of 

routes classified as freeways and expressways with interchanges are let to contract via normal letting 

procedures. Sub-Areas with routes that are classified as expressways and conventional roads were 

administered by releasing contracts to purchase the signs and posts with installation performed by KDOT 

maintenance crews. However, due to KDOT maintenance work force reductions, the program will rely on 

contractors to install the signs regardless of route classification moving forward. 

Program: Other-Pavement Marking

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Volume

• Population

• Other-If we considered only 

traffic volumes, only high 

volume districts (1 and 5) would 

get funded, thus population is 

taken into account. At the 

district level, we then consider 

higher volume routes first and 

take into account retroreadings.

• Other-Retro-reflectivity. 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Mobile retro-reflectivity data

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 45

• Other-Pavement Marking Specialist works closely with district maintenance engineers to select 

projects.

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

This set-aside program was established in FY 1996 to address pavement marking necessary due to pending 

new federal requirements for minimum retro-reflectivity of pavement markings. Improvements in this category 

utilize high-performance, long-life pavement marking materials. Efforts are also made to identify those marking 

materials with wet-weather retro-reflectivity. This program is limited to projects that do not have highperformance markings included under any other KDOT program. Projects are selected by the BTS&T based 

upon a roadway's traffic volumes, past performance of marking material, geometry, surface condition, surface 

type, crash history, and, in the case of new marking materials, the research benefit. We are also expanding our 

use of mobile retro-reflectivity data to identify potential projects. This is the 15th year KDOT has used HSIP 

funds to improve pavement markings. 

Program: Other-Lighting

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Night-time unlit crashes • Volume • Other-Road type: Interchanges

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Locations are identified by District Engineers and public

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

program?

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 45

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Lighting Unit

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Because lighting is beneficial to the safety and operation of the highway system, this set-aside program was 

established in FY 2000. Projects are selected by the Bureau of Transportation Safety & Technology (BTS&T) 

based on the roadway's volume and the potential for night-time crash history. This program is limited to 

projects which are not included under any other KDOT program. Projects are scheduled until the available 

lighting funds are exhausted. This is the 15th year KDOT has used HSIP funds to improve lighting. 

Program: Other-General Safety Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:2/10/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Volume

• Population

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 45

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Cost Effectiveness:1

Please note: This program is being phased out. 

Program: Other-Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Bureau of Road Design
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 45

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

This program was started in 2019 with the proposal to eventually address all remaining blunt end guardrail 

terminals on the NHS. KDOT has a MOU dated October 22, 2019 with the Division Office that describes the 

goals of the program. The program is managed by the Bureau of Road Design. Guardrail set-aside program 

criteria is detailed in the MOU. This countermeasure is included in strategy two under Roadway Departure in 

our 2020-2024 SHSP. 

Program: Other-Rail

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

program?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

Please reference the RHGC report for more information. 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 59
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 45

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Install/Improve Lighting 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Upgrade Guard Rails 

Percent was calculated by summing amounts apportioned for Lighting, Pavement Marking, Signing , Guardrail 

and 80% of HRRR, and then dividing by the total HSIP apportioned.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

• SHSP/Local road safety plan 

• Other-Highway Safety Manual and CMF Clearinghouse 

• Other-Crash data analysis to identify systematic countermeasures 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

The State of Kansas has formed an autonomous vehicle (AV) task force to consider the impacts of this 

emerging technology on everything from state statutes to infrastructure safety expenditures.

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. 

Our intersections sub-program is working to integrate Part B (Roadway Safety Management Process) and Part 

D (Crash Modification Factors) into the program methodology. 

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

Guardrail was added as a new sub-program in this year's report. 

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

elaborate. 

Guardrail was added as a new sub-program with this year's report.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 45

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $19,604,174 $18,543,063 94.59%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $4,438,411 $5,198,354 117.12%

Totals $24,042,585 $23,741,417 98.75%

HSIP values were provided by our Management Systems Analyst; State and Local values were provided by 

our WinCPMS Administrator. Both persons in our Division of Program and Project Management. State and 

Local values are based on original estimates and obligations that occurred between 07/01/2019 and 

06/30/2020.

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

safety projects?

57%

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

$6,676,621

Programmed is the total apportionment (that is, available) to those programs that include non-state owned 

roads in the methodology and may include dollars that get obligated to projects on state-owned roads: 

$6,604,174 (intersections) + $4,500,000 (HRRR) / $19,604,174 (total) = 57% 

Obligated is the total obligated to those programs that include non-state owned roads in the methodology 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 45

excluding projects in the intersections program on state-owned roads. $2,180,677 (intersection projects on 

locally-owned roads listed in the project listing) + $4,495,944 (HRRR) = $6,676,621.

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

$0

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

$1,127,480

No funding is programmed directly to non-infrastructure safety projects. However, each sub-program may have 

non-infrastructure projects and those obligated in SFY 2020 are included in the total: $200,000 for C-4855-20 

for TEAP, and $927,480 to C-4790-03 for LRSP.

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%

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

the future.

Nothing to report at this time.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 45

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

N-0644-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

Intersections $980676.86 $4922224.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

N-0670-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

Intersections $1200000 $1682871.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 5,005 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

KA-4536-01 Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

Intersections $4177860.22 $4262057.52 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,085 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

KA-5323-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

15.359 Miles $247826.4 $247826.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,640 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5324-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

7.731 Miles $118945.51 $118945.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5325-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

8.51 Miles $131410.81 $131410.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,690 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5405-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

8.625 Miles $196883.79 $196883.79 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

8,360 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5406-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

0.913 Miles $159156.77 $159156.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,410 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5407-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

12.81 Miles $769932.3 $769932.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate10,800 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5408-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

6.34 Miles $114146.62 $114146.62 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate18,100 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5409-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

9.1 Miles $124878.77 $124878.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther8,440 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5410-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

23.46 Miles $1019988.81 $1019988.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate18,400 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 45

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

KA-5425-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

10.18 Miles $117711.12 $117711.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 935 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5426-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

8.953 Miles $106425.56 $106425.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 745 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5427-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

1.246 Miles $24831.86 $24831.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,150 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5428-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

10.732 Miles $136280.55 $136280.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,170 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5442-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

24.153 Miles $367823.1 $367823.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,010 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5489-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

2.099 Miles $151560.7 $151560.7 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,890 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5491-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

2.577 Miles $43968.58 $43968.58 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,270 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5492-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

14.3 Miles $211463.57 $211463.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

9,280 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5493-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

24.199 Miles $367202.37 $367202.37 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,050 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5494-01 Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

1.065 Miles $15427.33 $15427.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,880 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Pavement 

Markings

KA-5145-01 Lighting Site lighting - 

intersection

Intersections $265161.23 $265161.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

KA-5313-01 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

Interchanges $177043.86 $177043.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate11,775 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

KA-0726-02 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

Interchanges $267446.3 $267446.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

C-4790-03 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$927479.7 $1030532.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 45

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

C-4855-20 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$200000 $220000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Committee 

selection

Local Roads

C-4896-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

71 Miles $100704.54 $122044.24 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4898-01 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

0.3 Miles $869905.18 $1114274 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads

C-4929-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

224 Miles $186097.23 $204706.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4930-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

165 Miles $312754.45 $344029.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4931-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

61 Miles $184420.73 $248078.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4932-01 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

42 Miles $201793 $269797 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4933-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

120 Miles $284184 $277224.71 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4934-01 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

100 Miles $228809 $206040.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Local Roads

C-4936-01 Roadway Roadway - other 0.5 Miles $519421.77 $577242.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads

C-4937-01 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

0.3 Miles $72903.43 $80193.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads

C-4938-01 Roadway Roadway - other 0.2 Miles $200000 $388839 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Local Roads

KA-4697-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $0 $1305015.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-4812-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $525153.67 $532520.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 45

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

KA-5008-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $721325.94 $721458.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5012-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $187900.65 $192536.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5048-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $364235 $316235 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5092-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $505674.99 $505674.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5121-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $346608.7 $346956.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5126-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $184493.06 $344084.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5127-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $171689.7 $171967.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5128-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $231000 $232000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5129-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $103126.95 $117748.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5130-02 Roadside Barrier- metal Locations $89250 $90250 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5614-01 Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

5 Locations $673800 $673800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-5615-01 Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

4 Locations $146460 $146460 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

KA-4744-02 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

49 Miles $1381664 $1381664 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 45

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

KA-4746-03 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

205 Miles $3125005 $3125235 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Project no. C-4790-03 is out local road safety plans and only applies to rural major collectors (i.e. county-owned highways.) 

The projects listed above represent those with HSIP dollars obligated in state fiscal year 2020 (July 2019 thru June 2020.) For construction projects with multiple work phases, the projects are reported in the year the construction dollars 

are obligated. We only report projects in this report once. The values shown above are those figures in our project reporting system (WinCPMS) at the time of this report and do not necessarily represent the final project costs. References 

to total obligation dollars in SFY 2020 represent all activity on all projects during the fiscal year. This may include PE on a construction project or adjustments during closeout. For this reason, obligation totals in this report may not match.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 45

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 386 405 350 385 355 429 461 404 410

Serious Injuries 1,597 1,596 1,456 1,204 1,195 1,176 1,032 1,003 1,394

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.290 1.325 1.159 1.250 1.130 1.340 1.430 1.260 1.260

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.320 5.220 4.820 3.921 3.808 3.673 3.204 3.116 4.291

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

16 33 31 31 27 46 39 33 25

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

97 106 108 88 101 110 94 99 121
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 45

Describe fatality data source. 

Other

If Other Please describe

Both FARS and state motor vehicle crash database

Question 30 is answered based on FARS data. This is the same data we use when developing our safety 

performance targets. Question 32 is answered based on KCARS (state database) data because the required 

level of detail is not available in FARS. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

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 (RPA) - 

Interstate

28.2 55.8

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

11 26

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

67 112.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 45

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Arterial 52.2 99.4

Rural Minor Collector 6 14.6

Rural Major Collector 47.2 117.2

Rural Local Road or 

Street

79.2 117.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

25.4 88

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

15.2 43.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

26.2 105.8

Urban Minor Arterial 24.8 144.6

Urban Minor Collector 0.6 11.6

Urban Major Collector 9.8 69

Urban Local Road or 

Street

16.4 99.8
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 45

Year 2019

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

209.2 446.8

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency 188.4 668.8

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 13.4 42.4

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Dept. of Defense 0 1.4

Fatalities and Serious Injuries are recorded for all functional classifications and years. Fatality Rates and 

Serious Injury Rates are only recorded for the 2017 FYA, the last year official VMT data is available on the 

KDOT website.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 45

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:364.0

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

Going back to 2015, the five-year moving average projects to 432 in 2021. Historically, we established our 

targets at or up to one percent below the projection depending on current trends. The 2019 baseline is 412. 

Our 2018 target was 364. Going forward, our target will be whichever is less of these three: one percent below 

projected, baseline, or 2018 target. To hit our target of 364 requires a two-year average of 272.5 in CY 2020 

and 2021; to hit the baseline of 412 requires a two-year average of 392.5.

Number of Serious Injuries:1190.0

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

Going back to 2015, the five-year moving average projects to 1231 in 2021 based on a curvilinear trendline to 

adjust for the change in serious injury definition. Historically, we established our targets at or up to one percent 

below the projection depending on current trends. The 2019 baseline is 1160. Our 2018 target was 1190. 

Going forward, our target will be whichever is less of these two: one percent below projected or 2018 target. To 

hit our target of 1190 requires a two-year average of 1260.5 in CY 2020 and 2021; to hit the baseline of 1160 

requires a two-year average of 1185.5. Because of the change in serious injury definition, we will evaluate this 

approach annually. As a reference, with the new definition the total in 2019 was 1394.The goal in our 2020-

2024 SHSP is to be at or below 35 fatal and injury crashes per 100MVM in 2024. But our vision remains the 

same: Drive to Zero. This target moves us toward our goal but emphasizes our vision.

Fatality Rate:1.160

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

Going back to 2015, the five-year moving average projects to 1.32 in 2021. Historically, we established our 

targets at or up to one percent below the projection depending on current trends. The 2019 baseline is 1.28. 

Our 2018 target was 1.16. Going forward, our target will be whichever is less of these three: one percent below 

projected, baseline, or 2018 target. To hit our target of 1.160 requires a two-year average of 0.925 in CY 2020 

and 2021; to hit the baseline of 1.28 requires a two-year average of 1.225.

Serious Injury Rate:3.726

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

Going back to 2015, the five-year moving average projects to 3.764 in 2021 based on a curvilinear trendline to 

adjust for the change in serious injury definition. Historically, we established our targets at or up to two percent 

below the projection depending on current trends. The 2019 baseline is 3.619. Our 2018 target was 3.774. 

Going forward, our target will be whichever is less of these two: one percent below projected or 2018 target. To 

hit our target of 3.726 requires a two-year average of 4.010 in CY 2020 and 2021; to hit the baseline of 3.619 

requires a two-year average of 3.742. Because of the change in serious injury definition, we will evaluate this 

approach annually. As a reference, with the new definition the rate in 2019 was 4.291.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:138.0
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 45

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

Going back to 2015, the five-year moving average projects to 142 in 2021. Historically, we established our 

targets at or up to one percent below the projection depending on current trends. The 2019 baseline is 139. 

Our 2018 target was 138. Going forward, our target will be whichever is less of these three: one percent below 

projected, baseline, or 2018 target. To hit our target of 138 requires a two-year average of 139.5 in CY 2020 

and 2021; to hit the baseline of 139 requires a two-year average of 142. As a reference, with the new definition 

for the serious injury the total in 2019 was 146.

Establishing targets for 2021 was complicated by two items: the change in serious injury definition that became 

effective in Kansas January 1, 2019 and the unknown impact of COVID-19. Regarding the former, serious 

injuries increased by about 40 percent in 2019 compared to 2018. Regarding the latter, much remains 

unknown; but as of this report, like many states fatalities are up in Kansas while VMT is down. 

In our new 2020-2024 SHSP, the overall goal of the five-year plan is to achieve a fatal and injury crash rate of 

less than 35 crashes per 100 MVM travel by 2024. But our vision remains the same: Drive to Zero. These 

targets help move us toward our intermediate goal, while placing emphasis on our long-term vision.

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

safety performance targets. 

The state of Kansas is fortunate in that both the SHSP and HSP administrators are in the KDOT Bureau of 

Transportation Safety and Technology. Both plans rely heavily on the same data sources to establish 

strategies and goals. These data sources include, but are not limited to: FARS, the statewide crash database, 

and observational surveys. The three identified performance measures – fatalities, fatality rate, and serious 

injuries – have the same definition and goals.

On February 22, 2017 we hosted a Kansas Safety Target Setting Coordination Training Workshop presented 

by the FHWA. Most MPOs in the state were represented at this training. On April 17, 2017 we hosted a 

conference call with all the MPOs to present state targets and discuss next steps. We have been and will 

continue to provide each MPO with the data necessary to calculate their 2021 targets. At present, we are not 

certain whether individual MPOs will adopt the state targets or their own. Our SHSO and SHSP/HSIP 

coordinator are housed in the same section within the Kansas DOT, making coordination simple.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 389.0 411.8

Number of Serious Injuries 980.0 1160.0

Fatality Rate 1.200 1.284

Serious Injury Rate 3.000 3.618

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

136.0 139.0
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 45

2019 Safety

Performance 

Target 

Achievement 

Determination 

Summary 

(estimated) 

Performance 

Measure 

2015-

2019 

Target

2015-

2019 

Outcome 

2013-

2017 

Baseline 

Met 

Target?

Better 

than 

Baseline? 

Discussion 

Target 

relative to 

trendline 

Fatalities 389 412 396 No No

From 2011 to 2015, we were 

above 400 only once; since 

2016 we have not been below 

400.

At

Fatality Rate 1.2 1.28 1.26 No No See above. 1% below 

Serious Injuries 980 1160 1213 No Yes 

From 2011 to 2018, serious 

injuries fell by 35 percent; with 

the new definition in 2019, 

they increased by 39 percent. 

For this reason targets 

including serious injuries will 

be difficult to set the next few 

years. 

1% below 

Serious Inury 

Rate 3 3.619 3.885 No Yes See above. 2% below 

Non-motorized 

Fatalities & SI 136 139 135 No No

Our 2020-2024 SHSP 

includes a chapter on 

pedestrian/cyclists for the first 

time. 

1% below 

Applicability of Special Rules 

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 

No

The HRRR special rule has never applied to Kansas. However, we continue to spend HSIP funding on locallyowned roads thru the HRRR sub-program as described in this report. 

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

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

70 63 50 78 74 64 75
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 45

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

117 84 89 102 102 91 128

The numbers above reflect our interpretation of the older driver rule. Specifically, these are only older drivers 

and pedestrians who have died or been seriously injured. These numbers do NOT include older passengers, 

or, for example, fatal crashes where an older driver was involved but did not have serious injuries.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 45

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Other-Obligation of HSIP dollars. 

We are developing an evaluation framework for each of our sub-programs and hope to have more information 

to report next year.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

In FFY 2019 we were apportioned $19.3 million. In SFY 2019 we obligated $19.9 million, providing good 

indication we are spending our HSIP funding. In FFY 2020 we were apportioned $19.6 million. In SFY 2020 we 

obligated $18.5 million. While scheduling and timing often dictate the values of these calendar totals, we have 

challenged our program managers to spend $55 million in FFY 2020-2021 (on quality projects within the 

parameters of each program) in order to reduce our carryover balance into FFY 2022. As of this report, over 

$33 million is programmed in FFY 2021. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

• More systemic programs 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure 243.8 575.6

Intersections 89.2 363

Pedestrians 29.2 72

Bicyclists 5.2 33.2

Older Drivers 101.4 229.2

Motorcyclists 51.8 173.8
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 45

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)

Work Zones 6.6 20.4

Horizontal Curves 75 173.6

Impaired Driving 128.2 209.2

Teen Drivers 47.8 191.8

Occupant Protection 146.6 237.4

Large Commercial 

Vehicles

80.2 106
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 45

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 45

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Nothing to 

report
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 45

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/26/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019

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

 2019

We are publishing our 2020-2024 SHSP on October 1, 2020. We have worked closely with the FHWA Division Office in Kansas and members of our Executive Safety Council.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 99

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 99 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 50 100 50

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

99 98

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 45

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

99 50

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 95

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

99 99

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

99 99 90 90

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

98 98 90 90

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 98 80 80 80 80

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

97 97

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

97 97

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

97 97

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

70 60

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

50 20

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 90

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 90

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

97 97

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

99 99

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 45

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

99 99

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

99 99

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

99 99

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

99 99

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

20 20

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

50 50

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

50 50

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

85 85

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.67 93.61 88.50 81.00 72.73 72.73 95.56 90.00 96.00 96.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

We last updated this table in the 2018 annual report. Since then, our roadway database has undergone a significant modernization that allows a much higher level of detail to provide for this report. As a result, in some instances the 

percentages have gone down. That is only because we have better information with which to access. 

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. 

Complete access to MIRE FDE on all public roads in Kansas is being accomplished by two projects: K-Hub and work associated with Next Generation 911. 

K-Hub is our new Linear Referencing and Transportation Database System (referenced in the previous question) which replaced the CANSYS II database system. K-Hub is an opportunity for KDOT to develop a combined statewide 

geospatially enabled roadway and transportation data management system that allows KDOT to efficiently meet current and future business requirements. Successful deployment of K-Hub will position KDOT to maintain data on all 

140,000 miles of Kansas public roads with the current level of staffing. Bottom line, this has been a colossal IT project that will influence almost every KDOT system. 

Primary objectives of the K-Hub project include: 
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 45

• Deploy an innovative solution that balances upfront project cost, system lifecycle cost and total cost of ownership to achieve the best value and level of service for KDOT.

• Utilize commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software components licensed to KDOT and additional components, as needed, to meet K-Hub System Requirements. 

• Innovative approaches to accomplish system functions and data exchanges to support current and future KDOT business processes while minimizing the need for custom components. 

• Project planning and execution to ensure successful and timely transition to K-Hub from the existing system. 

• Integration of hardware and software components to provide system response performance that consistently meets system benchmarks. 

• Flexibility that allows for modification and enhancement by KDOT, the bidder team or third parties. 

• User friendly and easily accessible design for enterprise-wide usage. 

• Configurable system parameters. 

• Position KDOT to maximize its ability to support the system post implementation. 

Next Generation 9-1-1 (abbreviated NG9-1-1) refers to an initiative aimed at updating the 9-1-1 service infrastructure in the United States and Canada to improve public emergency communications services in a growingly wireless mobile 

society.
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 45

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Kansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 45

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 noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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