Page 1 of 47

MARYLAND 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 47

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................6

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration .....................................................................................................................6

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................22

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................22

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................24

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................27

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................27

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................32

Applicability of Special Rules ...........................................................................................................36

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................38

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................39

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................42

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................43

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................46

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................47
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 47

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. 407 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.” 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 47

Executive Summary

Summary Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CY 2021 

• The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division. 

• The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, 

to identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience 

and, as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. 

• HSIP Staff is located in the Planning, Engineering and Highway Safety Office portions of MDOT. 

• HSIP is administered centrally via Statewide Competitive Application Process. 

• Local roads were planned for HSIP funds in CY 2021 under the new program was established in 2020. 

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

Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services are important partners with the Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA) in the HSIP process. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and several regional planning 

organizations along with local governments, various police agencies and academic organizations also 

coordinate with the SHA. 

• Programs administered under the HSIP 

1. Median Barrier 

2. Horizontal Curve 

3. Skid Hazard 

4. Roadway Departure 

5. Left-turn crash 

6. Intersection Crash Data 

7. Low Cost Spot Improvements 

8. Pedestrian Safety 

9. Rural State Highway 

10. Right Angle Crash 

11. Highway Sections 

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

mileage. 

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

index. 

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

considered are Safety, Congestion, Operations and Local Support. This will be revised in the future. 

• Engineering studies and Road Safety Assessments are used to identify potential countermeasures. 

• The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies that are related to the HSIP. 

• Reporting period for HSIP funding is CY 2021. 

• All police crash reports used for the crash database are in electronic format as of January 1, 2015. 

• The general listing of projects includes various traffic control, roadside, lighting, intersection geometry and 

pedestrian-bicyclist access projects. 

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of fatalities have increased from 558 

(FARS) in 2017 to 562 (MD) in 2021 (annual format) and that the number of serious injuries (MD) have 

decreased from 3,347 in 2017 to 3,054 in 2021 (annual format). Please note that all 2020 FARS totals are 

preliminary at the time of this report. 2021 FARS totals are not available with state totals being used instead at 

the time of the report. Please also note that with the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2021 VMT dropped for about 6%, 

but the number of serious injuries didn’t drop at the same rate and the number of fatalities increased instead, 

compared with 2019 data. The impact of the Pandemic on fatal and serious injury crashes seems still 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 47

considerable and please use caution when analyzing safety performance in CY 2021.

• The overview of safety trends indicates that the reported number of non-motorized fatalities have increased 

from 128 (FARS) in 2017 to 132 (MD) in 2021 (annual format) and that the number of non-motorized serious 

injuries (MD) have decreased from 563 in 2017 to 493 in 2021 (annual format). Please see above note on 

2020-21 FARS totals and impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

• Overall five-year average crash trends for the individual functional classification and roadway ownership are 

shown in tables in the annual report.

• Maryland maintains the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach by developing interim targets to reduce 

fatalities by at least 50 percent in the next two decades.

• “To begin, the development team conducted one-on-one interviews with key traffic safety partners across 

Maryland. Safety partners included leaders from government agencies, education and outreach professionals, 

local law enforcement, and emergency services agencies. During the interviews, the team solicited insight into 

the status of traffic safety initiatives and current and future safety priorities for Maryland roadways.” 

“Information gathered from this safety partner survey helped refine goals, solicit new/updated action steps, 

identify emerging issues, and examine the progress of each SHSP Emphasis Area.” (2021-25 SHSP).

• Older Driver and pedestrian (65 and older) Fatalities decreased from 106 in 2014 to 75 in 2021 (FARS –

annual numbers. 2021 FARS totals are preliminary at the time of this report). Serious Injuries decreased from 

258 in 2014 to 256 in 2021 (MD – annual numbers).

• The State measures effectiveness of the HSIP by the change in fatalities and serious injuries.

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

shown in tables in the annual report.

• All Maryland counties along with Baltimore City are now provided a three-year listing of pedestrian involved 

crashes which includes a summary of serious injury and fatal crashes on state highways along with a detailed 

listing for local roads.

• Maryland’s current SHSP was approved by the Governor or designated State representative in January 2021.

• The years being covered by the current SHSP are 2021 to 2025. 

• Maryland anticipates completing its next SHSP update by 2025. 

• The status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts are shown in tables in 

the annual report.

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and 

LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. 

With the Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be 

able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026.• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began 

the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and 

Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by 

the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county 

jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be used for the integration of the remaining 

counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and 

cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with the 

appropriate, authoritative information.

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate 

local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local 

jurisdictions do not have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. 

Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an 

ongoing activity.

• Following in Federal law, 23 U.S.C. 148(i), an HSIP Implementation Plan was developed in CY 2022 to define 

strategies and projects that will result in Maryland reaching or making substantial progress toward achieving its 

Safety Performance Targets for FY2023 and beyond.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 47

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 purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roads. To obligate “core” safety funds MDOT SHA must have in effect an HSIP under which the State: 1) 

develops and implements a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies and analyzes highway safety 

problems and opportunities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, 2) produces a program of projects or 

strategies to reduce identified safety problems, 3) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy 

of the data and priority of proposed improvements, 4) submits an annual report to the FHWA Division. 

Emphasis on Maryland’s highways is placed on improving the safety of intersections, sections and ramps that 

are identified as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) or through Road Safety Audits, on 

implementing proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis, and on applying systemic approach 

to identify and improve areawide locations with low-cost, proven countermeasures proactively. Safety 

improvements include the installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and 

markings; improving lighting; improving geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction. 

The processes used to identify locations, referred to in the HSIP as hazardous locations, which have abnormal 

accident experience. Those locations, referred to herein as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs), 

include intersections, spots and sections where the combination of accident frequencies and/or rates are 

significantly higher than those at similar locations. The identification of CSILs is based on all police reported 

collisions, i.e., those crashes reported by law enforcement agencies across Maryland to the Maryland State 

Police. Information from these reports is entered into a statewide accident database for analysis. 

The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) typically identifies 

CSILs only on the state-maintained highway system. Several local jurisdictions use the accident data, which 

MDOT SHA provides to all of the jurisdictions annually, to identify similar location on their road systems. 

The principal objective of Maryland's Fund 76 Safety and Spot Improvement Program is: on an annual basis, to 

identify those highway locations that contain safety deficiencies based on abnormal collision experience and, 

as quickly as possible, implement safety improvements to reduce or eliminate these deficiencies. Locations 

identified by the District Engineers as having a combined safety/capacity problem although not necessarily 

qualifying as Candidate Safety Improvement Locations, also can be included as candidate Fund 76 Program 

projects. The MDOT SHA Administrator makes the final project selection. 

Maryland's Fund 76 Spot Improvement Program was developed under the guidelines set forth in 23 CFR 924, 

and was designed to address the most critical highway safety problems statewide through a systematic and 

unbiased approach. The Fund 76 Program is under the direction of the MDOT SHA's Deputy 

Administrator/Chief Engineer for Operations, with program development and assistance from the Office of 

Traffic and Safety. 

Through the Fund 76 process, accident data for all State highways is reviewed annually, and all sections and 

intersections experiencing abnormally high accident rates are studied to determine what countermeasures are 

applicable. In addition, listings of accidents on local roads are sent to the local governments for their use. 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 47

Systemic countermeasures are applied in the Fund 76 Program. In addition, MDOT SHA is developing a 

Systemic Approach Program following the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. We identified 

statewide focus crash types and risk factors, screened and prioritized candidate locations, selected 

corresponding countermeasures, and prioritized systemic improvement projects for each facility type. The 

systemic projects are currently under review and will start to be implemented in the near future.

In Maryland about 1⁄4 fatalities and serious crashes occurred on roadways maintained by local agencies and 

HSIP fund need to be allocated to them to improve traffic safety on local roadways. MDOT SHA developed the 

HSIP Local Fund Program and stared the application in FFY2021. Multiple projects from various Counties and 

Municipalities in Maryland were reviewed and selected by MDOT SHA for implementation.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

MDOT SHA just developed the HSIP Local Fund Program in recent years. Draft Guideline and application 

forms were provided to local agencies. Eligible Counties must have a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Cities 

and municipalities can also participate through their county. For the first several years or the new program, we 

would support systemic improvement only and spot improvement will be eligible in later years. The application 

was due by May 15 each year and MDOT SHA reviewed and selected projects based on systemwide data, 

with emphasis on characteristics frequently present in severe crashes, and identified and prioritized locations 

across the roadway network for implementation. The selected local project will be supported with HSIP fund in 

the next federal fiscal year starting from October 1.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Maryland State Highway District Offices

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Within the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) the State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) 

Office of Traffic and Safety (OOTS) and Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering (OPPE) along with the 

Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) provided leadership, support, 

and coordination for Maryland's highway safety projects in CY 2021. Part of MDOT SHA and MVA's 

responsibility is to work with other State agencies to address highway safety issues. This effort results in a 

multi-agency approach which includes the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Maryland Institute for 

Emergency Medical Services and others that have roles in highway safety problems. The seven MDOT SHA 

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

to local agencies.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 47

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

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

organizations were included in the 2016-20 SHSP planning process

Describe coordination with external partners.

As stated in the 2021-2025 SHSP (Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan), stakeholder groups which 

included HSIP external partners participated in the development of the SHSP to identify, develop, and finalize 

strategies for the 2021-2025 SHSP. Stakeholder groups have coordinated in the collection and maintaining of 

safety data for all public roads and processes for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection 

and analysis through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee’s (TRCC).

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

The HSIP manual is currently a draft and it is being updated to include process for funding local agencies.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 47

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 47

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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? 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 47

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 47

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 47

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Opeartions:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 47

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 47

• Relative severity index

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?

Yes

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 47

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 47

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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

• Other-Highway mileage • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 47

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 47

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-Safety:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:10/20/2020

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?
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 47

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).

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

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 • Volume

• Other-Highway mileage

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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?

• 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 47

Other-Saftey:60

Other-Congestion / Operations:30

Other-Support / Opportunity:10

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 66

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• High friction surface treatment

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

We have a Connected & Automated Vehicle (CAV) program in Maryland. One CAV/ITS projects is currently 

supported by HSIP fund.

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.

The Highway Safety Manual is used in site specific studies as part of the HSIP Planning Process.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 47

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $36,816,495 $36,816,495 100%

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 $0 $0 0%

Totals $36,816,495 $36,816,495 100%

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

safety projects? 

$31,035

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

$31,035

MDOT SHA developed a HSIP Local Fund Program in FFY2021. Several local safety projects were submitted 

to MDOT SHA by various Counties in FFY2021. MDOT reviewed and selected local projects eligible for HSIP. 

The selected local safety projects were in design or PS&E review stages with Local's own costs during 

CY2021. 

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

$631,035

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

$631,035
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 47

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.

None at this time.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 47

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEED OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASI

S AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

 I-195 at MD 295 and MD170 

Interchange Lighting Reconstruction

Lighting $62351 $62351 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

I 68 AT Haystack Mountain - New and 

Upgraded Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Statewide Sign Condition Assessment 

and Retro-reflectivity Evaluation-Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$5099543 $5099543 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 43 at Honeygo Boulevard Intersection 

traffic control

$30600 $30600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

 US 40 Baltimore National Pike at 

Rolling Road

Intersection 

geometry

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Traffic Safety Data Collection Miscellaneous $31035 $31035 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 40 Pulaski Hwy at MD 213 Intersection 

geometry

$405099 $405099 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 228 Berry Road East Bound Left 

Turn At Western Parkway

Intersection 

geometry

$65626 $65626 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 140 Baltimore Boulevard at MD 91 

Emory Road

Intersection 

geometry

$499534 $499534 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 15 Catoctin Mountain Highway from 

MD 550 to Roddy Road

Intersection 

geometry

$751256 $751256 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 15 Catoctin Mountain Highway at 

Angleberger Rd

Intersection 

geometry

$1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

I-68 from WV State Line to Structure 

110039 over MD 42 Traffic Barrier 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, 

terminals)

$1560472 $1560472 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 1 (Washington Boulevard) at Kit Kat 

Road

Intersection 

geometry

$25024 $25024 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 1 Washington Boulevard at Four 

Locations Between PG County Line and 

Doctor Patel Drive

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Leading 

pedestrian 

interval

$130000 $130000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Statewide: HSIP Administrative and 

Screening Services

Miscellaneous $600000 $600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 47

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEED OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASI

S AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

MD 124 Quince Orchard Road and 

Russell Avenue

Intersection 

geometry

$345740 $345740 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US29 From Lockwood Drive to Burnt 

Mills Road

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $343333 $343333 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 29 Columbia Pike At Stewart Lane Intersection 

geometry

$350000 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 223 at Floral Park Road/Piscataway 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

$201248 $201248 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 202 LARGO RD FROM MD 450 TO 

56TH AVE

Intersection 

geometry

$931000 $931000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 210 from Swan Creek 

Road/Livingston Road to Palmer 

Road/Livingston Road – Traffic Control 

Device Safety Enhancements – Phase II

Intersection 

traffic control

$53809 $53809 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 50 Ocean Gateway from Lomax 

Street to Dutchman's Lane

Intersection 

geometry

$140000 $140000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 40 Dual Highway from Eastern 

Boulevard to All Star Court

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $450000 $450000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MD 12 Snow Hill Road at Robins 

Avenue

Intersection 

geometry

$300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

US 50 Ocean Gateway at Old Railroad 

Rd

Intersection 

geometry

$653064 $653064 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals at 

Various Locations in District 4

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$490890 $490890 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Mod/Install/Recon of Traffic Signals - 

Statewide

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

$700014 $700014 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

High Friction Surface Treatment of 

Roadways at Various Locations 

Statewide

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

$5368660 $5368660 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

High Friction Surface Treatment of 

Roadways at Various Locations - 

Statewide

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

$300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Modification / Installation / 

Reconstruction of Signing Statewide

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$1063506 $1063506 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Statewide Mod/Install/Recon/ of Signing Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$381024 $381024 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 47

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEED OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASI

S AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Install and/or Replace RPM's in 

Allegany, Garrett & Washington 

Counties – Various Locations

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

$681452 $681452 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

ADA Sidewalk Upgrades in District 4 

(Re-Advertisement)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk $3304064 $3304064 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Mod/Install/Recon Lighting at Various 

Locations in Dorchester, Somerset, 

Wicomico, Worcester, Caroline, Cecil, 

Kent, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Baltimore

Lighting $1778297 $1778297 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

MOD/INSTALL/RECON OF LIGHTING - 

DO, SO, WI, WO, CO, CE, KE, QA, TA, 

BA, HA

Lighting $423360 $423360 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Modification/Installation/Reconfiguratio

n of Signing in District 3, 4 & 5

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

$911059 $911059 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Traffic Barrier Upgrade at Various 

Locations in Caroline, Cecil, Kent, 

Queen Anne, and Talbot Counties

Roadside Barrier - other $30361 $30361 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Thermoplastic Thinline Striping at 

Various Locations in Montgomery and 

Prince George’s Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1873469 $1873469 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Thermoplastic Thin Striping at Various 

Locations in Baltimore & Harford 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$2268094 $2268094 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Line Striping at Various Locations in 

Baltimore and Harford Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1129128 $1129128 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0

Line Striping at Various Locations in 

Montgomery and Prince George’s 

Counties

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

$1584383 $1584383 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 47

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 465 442 520 522 558 512 535 573 562

Serious Injuries 2,957 3,053 2,598 3,167 3,347 3,233 3,122 2,722 3,054

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.820 0.780 0.890 0.880 0.930 0.860 0.890 1.133 0.993

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.240 5.410 4.533 5.370 5.588 5.422 5.193 5.380 5.394

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

114 106 108 124 128 137 134 146 132

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

396 432 372 486 563 527 506 428 493
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 47

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 47

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 47

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

2013-2019 fatalities: FARS Final (updated since last year) 

2020 and 2021 fatalities: State data 

*State includes pedestrian type/non-motorist types 01, 02, 03 only. (Benchmark Reports/Profiles). 

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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

12.4 29.4 0.59 1.4

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

30.8 106.2 1.57 5.38

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

6 11.4 1.19 2.27

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 47

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 33 110.4 1.92 6.42

Rural Minor Collector 27.8 100.2 1.8 6.45

Rural Major Collector 10.6 57 1.46 7.76

Rural Local Road or 

Street

15.6 74 0.91 4.33

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

51.8 215.8 0.35 1.44

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

44.4 129.6 0.68 1.98

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

150.8 723.6 1.48 7.07

Urban Minor Arterial 81.6 473 1.12 6.45

Urban Minor Collector 38 243.8 0.93 5.98

Urban Major Collector 5.8 37.8 0.82 5.38

Urban Local Road or 

Street

25.8 219.2 0.8 6.77
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 47

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

376.4 1,781

County Highway 

Agency

106.8 738

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

26.8 226.6

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 0 2.8

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

1.4 6.8

Indian Tribe Nation

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:485.9

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 47

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Annual targets for the SHSP 

are set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over time are set 

using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate future 

targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure targets will 

be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing increasing 

trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, continuing 

with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average. 

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2016-2020.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Number of Serious Injuries:2323.8

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Annual targets for the SHSP 

are set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over time are set 

using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate future 

targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure targets will 

be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing increasing 

trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, continuing 

with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average. 

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2016-2020.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Fatality Rate:0.809

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Annual targets for the SHSP 

are set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over time are set 

using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate future 

targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure targets will 

be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing increasing 

trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, continuing 

with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average. 

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2016-2020.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 47

Serious Injury Rate:3.815

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Annual targets for the SHSP 

are set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over time are set 

using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate future 

targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure targets will 

be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing increasing 

trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, continuing 

with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average. 

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2016-2020.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:554.7

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

Targets are derived from the 2021-2025 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Annual targets for the SHSP 

are set using a two-pronged approach. Targets that are experiencing a decreasing trend over time are set 

using five-year rolling averages and an exponential trend line without a fixed endpoint to calculate future 

targets. By removing the fixed endpoint, it is anticipated that more practical performance measure targets will 

be computed by following historically decreasing data patterns. For those targets experiencing increasing 

trends, however, projections are based on a 2% decrease from the 2016-2020 five-year average, continuing 

with a 2% decrease for each successive five-year average. 

Current targets through 2021-2025 are set using a baseline five-year average of 2004-2008, updated to 

include trend changes in 2016-2020.

This method is applied to the five performance measures required by the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA): fatalities, fatality rate, serious injuries, serious injury rate, and non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries with the first three being identical in Maryland's HSP and HSIP.

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

safety performance targets. 

" To begin, the development team conducted one-on-one interviews with key traffic safety partners across 

Maryland. Safety partners included leaders from government agencies, education and outreach professionals, 

local law enforcement, and emergency services agencies. During the interviews, the team solicited insight into 

the status of traffic safety initiatives and current and future safety priorities for Maryland roadways.” 

“Information gathered from this safety partner survey helped refine goals, solicit new/updated action steps, 

identify emerging issues, and examine the progress of each SHSP Emphasis Area.”[1]

The list of stakeholder safety partner agencies is as follows:

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

AAA Mid-Atlantic

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Baltimore County Police Department

Baltimore Metropolitan Council
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 47

BWI Airport

Calvert County Police Department

Carroll County Department of Health

Carroll County Department of Public Works

Cecil County Department of Public Works

Chesapeake Region Safety Council-NSC

Crash Center for Research and Education

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Harford County Sheriff’s Office

Howard County Fire & Rescue

Howard County Government

Johns Hopkins University

MADD

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Maryland Department of Health

Maryland Department of Transportation

Maryland Farm Bureau

Maryland Highway Safety Office

MD Institute for Emergency Medical Services

Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration

Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association

Maryland State Police

Maryland State Highway Administration

Maryland Transportation Authority Police

Montgomery County Engineering and Planning

Montgomery County Police Department

Morgan State University

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Prime Engineering

Prince George’s County Dept. of Public Works

Prince George’s County Fire & Rescue

University of MD Medical Center

University of Maryland National Study Center

Washington College

Washington Regional Alcohol Program [2]

[1] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2021-25 PG 3

[2] Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2021-25 Appendix A

The process stakeholders from SHSP were consulted to establish safety performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 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 420.6 548.0

Number of Serious Injuries 2905.8 3095.6
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 47

Fatality Rate 0.742 0.961

Serious Injury Rate 5.075 5.395

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

467.7 638.8

Motor vehicle crashes continue to present a major public health concern in the U.S. and in Maryland, 

representing a leading cause, or among the top ten causes, of death for all age groups under 65. Crash trends 

are largely attributable to corresponding fluctuations in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from economic 

upturns and downturns. For example, with increased Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on Maryland roadways, the 

number of vehicles and drivers on the road creates greater exposure in environments, where risky driver 

behavior escalates negative outcomes.

Mirroring some national trends, Maryland experienced an increase of fatalities for three straight years (2018–

2020), with a slight decrease in 2021. VMT over the years fluctuated with COVID restrictions and return to 

work outcomes, with historic lows in 2020 (16% decrease in VMT compared to 2019); and then a 12% increase 

in VMT in 2021 compared to 2020. 2021 VMT was still down by nearly 6% compared to pre-pandemic levels in 

2019.

Maryland saw slight improvements in overall fatalities, non-motorist fatalities, and the fatality rate in 2021 

compared to 2020. But serious injuries did tick up toward pre-pandemic levels.

Maryland has experienced a general downward trend in serious injuries for more than the past decade, though 

2021 saw the first year-over-year increase since 2017. Some reasons for the fluctuations in serious injury 

trends can be attributed to changes in how law enforcement is trained and submitting injury severity 

information on the Maryland crash report (ACRS), but also improvements in patient care and vehicle 

technology.

Year-to-year fluctuations are a challenging measure to track and comment on as most trends, whether positive

or negative, occur over longer periods of time and are affected by changes in national, state, and local policies; 

transportation investments; safer vehicles and newer technologies; and shifts in generational and cultural 

norms.

Maryland is not alone, with increases in pedestrian fatalities also noted nationally, indicating a larger trend 

throughout the country that is reflected at the state and local level. Mirroring national trends, Maryland has 

steadily experienced increases in fatalities and serious injuries in its most vulnerable road users—nonmotorists (pedestrians and bicyclists). While Maryland does not have an exposure measure to determine 

precisely an increase in road use by pedestrians and bicyclists, Maryland has increased pedestrian and 

bicyclist facilities year after year and is experiencing similar trends in changes in transportation mode use seen 

nationally.

MDOT monitors these fluctuations and works diligently to prevent injuries and fatalities by implementing the 

strategies in the Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 47

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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

123 116 89 73 100 86 75

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

172 263 279 248 265 191 256
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 47

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Program Type: Wet Surface Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Wet Road 

2019 Fatalities - 70

2020 Fatalities – 91

2021 Fatalities – 69

2019 Serious Injuries - 368 

2020 Serious Injuries – 371 

2021 Serious Injuries – 343 

For Wet Surface crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 1% and Serious Injuries decreased for 17% during the 

2019-21 period. 

Program Type: Left Turn Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Left Turn 

2019 Fatalities - 25

2020 Fatalities – 27

2021 Fatalities - 26

2019 Serious Injuries - 222 

2020 Serious Injuries – 154 

2021 Serious Injuries – 225 

For Left Turn crashes, the Fatalities increased for 4% and Serious Injuries increase for 1% during the 2019-21 

period. 

Program Type: Angle Crashes 

Target Crash Type: Angle 

2017 Fatalities - 73

2018 Fatalities - 81

2019 Fatalities - 55

2017 Serious Injuries - 538 

2018 Serious Injuries – 488 

2019 Serious Injuries – 603 

For Angle crashes, the Fatalities decreased for 12% and Serious Injuries increase for 11% during the 2019-21 

period. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 47

• Increased focus on local road safety 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021

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 171.8 736.8 0.3 1.29

Intersections 153.4 1,145.6 0.27 2

Pedestrians 124.2 428.6 0.22 0.75

Bicyclists 9.6 74.4 0.02 0.13

Aggressive Driving 44 173.6 0.08 0.3

Occupant Protection 132.2 481 0.23 0.84

Distracted Driving 208.4 1,459.6 0.37 2.54

Impaired Driving 169 472.8 0.3 0.83
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 47

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 47

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 47

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 47

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/31/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2021 To: 2025

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

 2025

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]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

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]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 47

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]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 90 100 90

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 98 55

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

50 50

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

45 45

AADT Year (80) [82] 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 47

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]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 99.33 77.50 77.50 100.00 100.00 95.00 87.78 100.00 100.00

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

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. 

• MDOT SHA has implemented Esri’s Roads and Highways (R&H) software to manage our GIS roadway and LRS data for HPMS submission. This year MDOT SHA used Roads and Highways for their HPMS submission. With the 

Intersection Manager tool, our ability to better manager intersection data, and data gaps, we will be able to be 100 percent compliant by 2026. 

• In conjunction with the Esri R&H implementation, we also began the One Maryland, One Centerline (OMOC) program where MDOT SHA has met with all 23 counties, and Baltimore City, to discuss the sharing of data between 

jurisdictions via one common geometry, maintained by the appropriate authority. We have begun a pilot conflation process between MDOT SHA and two county jurisdictions to test process and develop the protocols that will be used for 

the integration of the remaining counties of Maryland. This geometry will be the base of the R&H data model. This data sharing and cooperation between the local and state jurisdictions will better allow us to identify and fill data gaps, with 

the appropriate, authoritative information. 

• FHWA has authorized several pilots to investigate developing methodologies to more accurately calculate local AADTs for lower functionally classified roadways. MIRE FDEs require this type of data, while the local jurisdictions do not 

have the wherewithal nor need to completely capture and maintain this type of data. Therefore, the need to develop better proxies or models to better estimate these AADTs for local roads is an ongoing activity.
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 47

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

MDOT SHA HISP_Version 3.0.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Maryland Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 47

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.