Page 1 of 70

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 70

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Program Structure................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Administration ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Methodology......................................................................................................................................................11

Project Implementation........................................................................................................................................................35

Funds Programmed ..........................................................................................................................................................35

General Listing of Projects................................................................................................................................................38

Safety Performance...............................................................................................................................................................40

General Highway Safety Trends........................................................................................................................................40

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................................51

Applicability of Special Rules............................................................................................................................................53

Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................................................56

Program Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................................56

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements........................................................................................57

Project Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................61

Compliance Assessment .......................................................................................................................................................62
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 70

DISCLAIMER

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into 

evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising 

from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

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

collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, 

hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for 

the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing 

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

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

mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.” 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 70

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The District of Columbia's Safety Program is the focal point of the HSIP program. The Safety Program has continued to 

evolve since 2011. The Department took a major initiative in 2010 by aligning Divisions and staff to ensure that Safety 

becomes the core of every activity performed by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). As a result, the Safety 

Division was expanded to handle the added responsibilities. The Safety Team at DDOT reviews all transportation planning 

and engineering studies, traffic control plans and design plans at all stages of design and construction. The new alignment 

has helped with the integration of Safety into all tasks and activities performed within the District of Columbia.

The DDOT Executive Management has adopted the Six Sigma for process improvements. Six Sigma principles have been 

used as a foundation in shaping the new Safety Team. Six Sigma is a proven disciplined approach for improving measurable 

results for any organization. Using these tools has helped with the coordination performed by in-house staff, other District 

of Columbia agencies and residents of the District. Using data and applying Six Sigma methodologies has positively 

impacted all road users by helping the Safety Team be able to address issues using the appropriate data over the last year.

The Agency continues to operate the Traffic Safety Data Center at Howard University, which was established to support 

DDOT and Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in developing and sustaining an effective process for providing timely, 

accurate, complete, uniform and accessible traffic and related transportation data. In addition, DDOT has completed the 

upgrade of TARAS Traffic Accident Record and Analysis System) to TARAS 2.0 in collaboration with the MPD. These efforts 

have assisted in access and transfer of MPD's crash data to DDOT and Howard University. Developed by DDOT, TARAS 2.0 

automatically accesses and processes MPD's crash data and extracts all the pertinent variables fields from the PD-10 form. 

DDOT also participated in all the major safety campaigns as mandated by the NHTSA.

Further, the DDOT Safety Team utilizes the Annual Crash Statistics and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) Reports to 

perform safety reviews and analyses for traffic operations and crash data at intersections, corridors and construction work 

zones. The Safety Program has been a success in reducing the accident and fatality rates for pedestrians and bicyclists in 

the District of Columbia by implementing innovative safety approaches. The overall goal is to reduce serious and fatal 

injuries in the District by 50% by the year 2025.

DDOT has also implemented several transportation safety initiatives in the District including but not limited to the 

following:

i. MoveDC (www.movedc.org) 

Develop a coordinated, multimodal long range transportation plan, addressing all modes of 

transportation in the District of Columbia.

ii. goDCgo (www.godcgo.com) 

Provides information and website links on regional buses, DC Circulator, Metrobus and Metrorail as well 

as information on walking and biking in the District of Columbia

iii. Streetcar Safety (www.dcstreetcar.com) 

DC Streetcar vehicles began carrying passengers on the H/Benning line on February 27, 2016. 

As motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists share the road, our safety efforts ensure that the interactions 

among these modes is a safe and positive experience. As construction continues at the Car Barn 

Training Center on the eastern end of the line, the DC Streetcar Team sends regular construction and 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 70

safety updates that encompass all aspects of DC Streetcar system's functions, including Traffic Control 

Plans (TCP's) during construction. In addition, the DDOT Safety Team reviews plans and drawings for 

final design, new traffic signals, traffic signage and pavement markings for the Streetcar 

system. The Safety page of the DC Streetcar website provide many meaningful safety guidance for a 

variety of users including , pedestrians, bicyclist, motorists, and kids.

iv. Safety Matters

Safety Matters projects are high impact, low cost improvements to neighborhood streets such as new 

pavement markings, signs, signals, curb changes, or lighting to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and driver 

safety

v. Safe Routes To School

The DC Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program works to: 

 Improve safety for students who walk and bicycle to school

 Encourage students and their parents to walk and bicycle to school fuel consumption, and 

reduce pollution and traffic congestion near schools

vi. Crash Data Improvement Program

DDOT has established a new Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP) that would identify metrics in 

terms of timeliness, accuracy and completeness of the crash data 

DDOT organized a CDIP workshop within the last year that included participants from DDOT Divisions, 

MPD, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Highway Safety Office (HSO) and private consultants to familiarize the collectors, processors, 

maintainers and users with the concept of data quality and how it improves safety decisions

The CDIP workshop organized by DDOT is TOA staff mainly focused on:

 Crash Data Collection

 Crash Data Reporting, and,

 Crash Data Processing

In addition, this group has held several meetings throughout the year as the MPD upgrades it 

crash database. The MPD database is now becoming more compliant with the standard of 

reporting required under the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)

vii. Traffic Incident Management Program

DDOT continued with the new Traffic Incident Management (TIM) program that involves the effective 

planning and coordination of multidisciplinary processes to detect, respond to and clear traffic incidents 

so that traffic flow may be restored safely and quickly as possible.

DDOT organized a TIM workshop that included participants from MPD, FHWA, NHTSA, HSO, Fire, 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Homeland Security 

and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA), Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), 

Maryland Police, Virginia Police, Howard University, Department of Public Works (DPW) and several 

other agencies 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 70

TOA staff at DDOT followed up on the legislation for Move Over Law and the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with other participating agencies to implement and enforce laws for Traffic 

Incident Management program in the District

viii. Vision Zero Initiative

Vision Zero is a part of Mayor Bowser’s response to the US Department of Transportation’s Mayor’s 

Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets, which aims to improve pedestrian and bicycle 

transportation safety by showcasing effective local actions, empowering local leaders to take action, and 

promoting partnerships to advance pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

Vision Zero Initiative aims to improve pedestrian and bicycle transportation safety by showcasing 

effective local actions, empowering local leaders to take actions, and promoting partnerships to advance 

pedestrian and bicycle safety

As part of the Vision Zero effort, the District identifies a number of high crash intersections through an 

effort between the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Councilmember Mary Cheh. Site 

visits are conducted and involves engaging of the local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), 

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and other business groups, members of the Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Advisory Councils (BAC and PAC), the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA), All 

Walks DC and other concerned stakeholders. Technical staff is also on hand to start to identify issues 

and determine the best possible solutions 

DDOT is partnering with more than twenty (20) District government agencies in the Vision Zero Initiative, 

as MPD, Fire, EMS, HSEMA, Department of Health (DOH), Office of the Attorney General (OAG), Office of 

the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), Office of Planning (OP), City Administrator, etc. to identify effective 

strategies on education, enforcement, and engineering related to the Vision Zero Initiative

 

In addition, DDOT has also implemented the following strategies to improve the safety of pedestrians and 

bicyclists in the District:

 

 Installed High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signals at 5 locations in FY 2017

 Implemented Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) improvement at 50 intersections in FY 2014

 Implemented Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) improvement at 14 intersections in FY 2015

 Reviewed and approved 9 miles of bike lanes
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 70

INTRODUCTION

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a 

significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, 

States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and evaluation 

efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists 

of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in 

achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The HSIP in DC is centrally-managed at DDOT, with HSIP-related safety projects spread across various administration and 

divisions. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Various Administration & Divisions

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

Operations Admin. (OA), including Parking and Ground Transportation Division, Maintenance Division, Traffic Operations 

and Safety Division, Parking and Ground Transportation Division; Project Delivery Admin., including Infrastructure 

Project Management Div. (IPMD), Planning and Sustainability Division (PSD), Traffic Engineering and Signals Division 

(TESD) 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 70

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

HSIP funds are Centrally administered within the District of Columbia by the Department of Transportation through our 

Resource Administration and our Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the District of Columbia.

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

The District of Columbia does not have a local or Tribal roads program. All roads are considered for HSIP and Safety 

Improvement projects.

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

with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Other-See additional comments

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

The HSIP requires coordination among many groups and ulti-disciplinary teams within DDOT, such as: Operations 

Administration (OA), Planning and Sustainability Division (PSD), Transit Delivery Division (TDD), Urban 

Forestry Division (UFD), Infrastructure Project Management Division (IPMD), Citywide Program Support Division, 

Streetlights Operations Branch, Safe Routes to School, and the Vision Zero Team

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The HSIP requires coordination among many groups within DDOT and this is primarily achieved through internal 

meetings. The Agency holds bi-weekly “SafetyStat” meetings where numerous safety projects and issues are 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 70

discussed and organized, and updates provided by groups from different division. In addition to these meetings, 

ward-based project meetings are held on a weekly basis to provide updates on design and construction-related 

projects. Finally, a weekly TranStat meeting is held that includes discussion on our Vision Zero efforts, which is 

consistent with many of the performance measures included as our HSIP targets. The meetings described above 

include many multi-disciplinary teams, including

1. Operations Administration (OA)

OA team includes designers, traffic engineers, transportation technicians, parking specialists, signal 

operation engineers, maintenance staff and street light specialists

OA team identifies issues related to the vehicular safety, accidents, vehicle queuing, sight distance 

obstructions and other traffic safety concerns

OA team performs traffic analysis, engineering design and develops recommendations addressing 

traffic safety concerns

2. Planning and Sustainability Division (PSD)

PSD team includes ward planners, pedestrian and bicycle planners

PSD team identifies pedestrian and bike issues and develops recommendations to improve pedestrian 

and bike safety

3. Transit Delivery Division (TDD)

TDD team includes transportation planners for transit and metro

TDD team provides estimates for transit ridership and identifies issues related to transit circulation 

and capacity and develops appropriate recommendations

4. Urban Forestry Division (UFD)

UFD team includes ward arborists

UFD team identifies streetscaping issues and provides appropriate recommendations

5. Infrastructure Project Management Division (IPMD)

IPMD team consists of engineers, technicians and field operations personnel

IPMD team is responsible for the design, engineering and construction of roadways, bridges, traffic 

signals and alley projects in the District of Columbia

IPMD also manages special construction projects and all roadway assets

6. Citywide Program Support Division

Parking Operations Branch manages operations and conditions of all parking meters

Parking Operations Branch consists of managers and technicians 

7. Streetlights Operations Branch

Streetlights Operations Branch manages operations and condition of the District's street, alley, bridge, 

tunnel and navigation lighting systems through a streetlight asset management contract

Streetlights Operations Branch consists of managers, engineers, technicians and field operations 

personnel

8. Safe Routes to School
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 70

 DC Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program receives funding from the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA)

 DC Safe Routes to School Program works to:

a. Improve safety for students who walk and bicycle to school

b. Encourage students and their parents to walk and bicycle to school

c. Boost student physical activity, reduce parents’ fuel consumption, and reduce pollution and 

traffic congestion near schoolsBoost student physical activity, reduce parents’ fuel 

consumption, and reduce pollution and traffic congestion near schools

To help achieve those goals, DDOT offers Safe Routes to School planning assistance for DC Schools 

that are interested in improving safety for student walkers and cyclist

 

 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) DC Division, Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Metropolitan 

Washington Council Of Governments (MWCOG)/ National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

External partners are involved in various planning- and operations-related issues via scheduled meetings to discuss 

goals, milestones and safety targets. The meetings are arranged by Transportation Safety Manager of the Transportation 

Operations Administration at DDOT

 

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting period?
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 70

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

There is now a multi-disciplinary safety projects team that meets regularly on safety projects. Safety teams form the 

Operations Administration and Project Delivery Administration conduct weekly meeetings that discusses HSIP and other 

safety-related efforts. 

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

No

PROGRAM METHODOLOGY

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

processes?

No

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

The District is currently working on SOPs for HSIP projects that would detail and follow HSM procedures in the 

development of benefit-to-cost (BC) analyses, via crash modification factors, to support the selection of preferred 

alternative for crash mitigation

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Safe Corridor

Bicycle Safety

Skid Hazard

Red Light Running Prevention
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

Other-Sight distance analysis

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Page 12 of 70
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 70

Volume 

Lane miles 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Separate funds are allocated to implement bike safety 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
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 70

Other-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2015 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 70

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-DDOT Safety Team utilizes the annual reports on Crash statistics and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) in 

performing safety reviews and analyses for traffic operations and crash data at intersections, corridors and construction 

work zones

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-Number of injuries : 3

Other-Number of injury collisions : 2

Other-Total number of collisions : 1 

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

Program: Local Safety 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 70

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 70

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT Managers

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 70

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects are advanced by 

"Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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).
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 70

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 70

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

Yes

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

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).

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 70

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT Managers

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 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 70

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Red Light Running Prevention 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 70

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects are advanced by 

"Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Page 24 of 70

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 70

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all the DDOT Managers

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Safe Corridor 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 70

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Projects for Design are automatically implemented through Construction. These projects are advanced by 

"Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 70

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-Total number of collisions : 1

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 70

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-These projects are advanced by "Decision Lens" and internal review of annual Crash statistics report and 

Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) report

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Page 29 of 70

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 70

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Skid improvement projects are implemented by "Decision Lens" software program used by all DDOT Managers

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-Total Number of Collisions : 1

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

Program: Other-Sight distance analysis 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 70

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-These projects are utilized by "Decision Lens" program utilized by all DDOT Managers

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).
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 70

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Total number of collisions : 1

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 75

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

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

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

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 70

Crash data analysis

Other-Design Review, Capital Project Review, Sight Distance Analysis, Roadway Geometry, Accident Analysis

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

The District has been implementing ITS projects and improving its ITS infrastructure through the use of HSIP 

funds. These projects include live cctv cameras, dynamic message boards, and other ITS infrastructure. 

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 DIstrict follows the HSM procedures in the development of benefit-to-cost (BC) analyses, via crash modification 

factors, to support the selection of preferred alternative for crash mitigation. BC analyses were performed for all 

intersection treatment alternatives studied under the 2016 HSIP high crash location effort and will continue to be for 

forthcoming HSIP studies. In addition, DDOT performed predictive method analyses, applying the Empirical Bayes (EB) 

method, to determine the usefulness of this approach. At this time, it has not been determined if the EB method will be 

applied to all reviews moving forward. 

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting period?

• Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

• Highway Safety Manual 

• Road Safety audits
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 70

• Other-Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), MUTCD, AASHTO Green Book, DDOT Design 

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

No
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 70

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

FUNDS PROGRAMMED

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,012,248 $8,462,732 93.9%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

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

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) 

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

(23 $3,141,392 $3,141,392 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $12,153,640 $11,604,124 95.48%

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

Reporting FY17 which is not yet completed.
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 70

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

0%

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

0%

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

Reporting FY17 which is not yet completed.

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

0%

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

0%

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

Reporting FY17 which is not yet completed.

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%
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 70

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting period under 23 

U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

DDOT has been working with various administrations and divisions to ensure that obligations are done in a timely 

manner. The agency now holds regular obligation meetings with various internal stakeholders to improve upon the 

obligation process and provide help to engineers and manager where needed. 

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

No
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 70

GENERAL LISTING OF PROJECTS

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

New Jersey/New 

York Aves., Mass. 

Ave. to N Street 

Safety, 

construction/CE

$14,145,000 0

Blair/Cedar/4th 

Street NW, 

construction/CE

$2,430,000 0

15th St. NW 

Safety 

Improvements, 

construction

$155,000 0

I-395 Sign 

Structure 

Improvements 

(CM/Con) 

$3,841,000 0

15th St, NW 

Intersection Safety 

Improvements 

(Project Change)

$76,000 0

Guardrails and 

Impact 

Attenuators 

Replacements and 

Upgrades

$133,000 0

Guardrails and 

Impact 

Attenuators 

Replacements and 

Upgrades 

(CM/Con)

$2,308,000 0

CCTV Camera 

Installation at 

Locations Citywide

$1,196,000 0

Thermoplastic 

Pavements 

Markings

$1,427,000 0
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 70

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Traffic Safety Data 

Center at Howard 

University

$500,000 0

South Dakota Ave 

NE and New York 

Ave NE 

Interchange 

Improvement 

Study 

$52,000 0

Traffic Safety IDIQ 

Construction 

$1,620,000 0

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

Incomplete FY17 reporting. 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 70

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

GENERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY TRENDS

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 34 29 24 27 15 20 23 23 26

Serious Injuries 306 347 303 305 336 305 311 340 400

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.940 0.800 0.670 0.760 0.420 0.570 0.650 0.650 0.670

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.470 9.570 8.460 8.560 9.410 8.690 8.790 9.610 10.310

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

10 14 15 9 7 10 10 14 10

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

66 113 116 126 140 114 141 119 152
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 70

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 70

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 70

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

3 0.7

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

3 0.83

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

7 0.69

Urban Minor Arterial 11 1.59

Urban Minor Collector 1 0.39

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street 3 0.79
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 70

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 21.4 338 0.59 9.36

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 70

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 70

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial - Other Urban Minor Arterial Urban Minor Collector Urban Major Collector Urban Local Road or Street Urban Collector Uban Local

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

State Highway Agency 2012 Districtwide

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 70

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

State Highway Agency 2012 Districtwide

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 70

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

State Highway Agency 2012 Districtwide

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 70

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

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

No

SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 26.0 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

9.5

9.4

9.3

et

9.2

a R9.1 ryuj

9

n Is8.9 uori8.8 eS

8.7

8.6

8.5

8.4

State Highway Agency

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 70

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

The District's traffic fatalities fluctuates from year to year. Between 2005 and 2016 the 

District annual fatality trend followed the national trend, generally downward from 48 in 

2005 to 15 (lowest) in 2012, followed by an generally upward trend to 2016 of 26 traffic 

fatalities(Preliminary FARS data*). This upward trend, based on actual traffic fatalities (FARS), 

gives a projected value of 31 traffic fatalites in 2018. Now given that the District fatality 

numbers are relatively low, a single random incident can result in significant changes from 

year to year, and it is almost impossible to distinguish between random fluctuations from 

year to year or true trends/changes. To address this issue, we combine the fatality numbers 

over several years so that the analysis is based on a larger number of fatalities. A five-year 

moving average was used to derive the projections for the traget year. Using the 5 year 

rolling average trend to even out the yearly fluctuation, a projected value of 26 (actual 26.2) 

traffic fatalities is anticipated for the 2018 based on the 5-year average. This lower target is 

consistent with the goal of the District’s SHSP to reduce the number of fatalities and serious 

injuries by 20 percent by 2025. 

Number of Serious Injuries 420.0 

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

The District's serious injuries fluctuate from year to year. Between 2007 and 2016 the 

District's serious injury numbers fluctuated from year to year, but was generally flat between 

2008 and 2013, followed by an generally upward trend to 2016. This upward trend is partially 

due to the District's effort to implement a new crash-reporting system that captures injury 

data based on the MMUCC 4th Edition. This trend, however, gives a projected value of 455 

(454.58) serious injury cases in 2018. Using the 5 year rolling average trend a projected value 

of 384 (actual 384.12) serious injuries are anticipated for the 2018 based on the 5-year 

average. An average of the annual projection and the 5-year rolling was used to establish a 

target of 420.0 Now, there is a high probability (based on experiences from other States) that 

future serious injury numbers resulting from a crash will increase as officers complete 

training and more accurately and consistently code in the field. However, this lower target is 

consistent with the goal of the District’s SHSP to reduce the number of fatalities and serious 

injuries by 20 percent by 2025. 

Fatality Rate 0.703 

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

Fatality rate target was established similar to that of fatalities. 

Serious Injury Rate 10.200 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 70

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

Serious Injury rate was established similar to that of Serious Injuries. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities 

and Serious Injuries 148.5 

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

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries was established using a similar 

methodolgies to fatalities and serious injuries, respectively. 

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

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

Team comprised of DDOT teams (including Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Plan, State Highway 

Safety Plan, Vision Zero), MPD, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), and Federal Highways 

Administration (FHWA) met on May 16th, 2017, and established specific targets based on the variety of data sources 

mentioned in this report to address the District traffic safety problems. The Team established the methodology and 

targets for Fatalities, Serious Injuries and Fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles travelled; these are identical for the 

HSP and HSIP for FY2018. The methodologies were used to establish targets for Serious Injury Rate and Non-motorized 

fatality and serious injuries. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

APPLICABILITY OF SPECIAL RULES

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 70

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

2 3 4 1 6 2 5

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

11 20 19 18 17 10 18

0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 70

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

2016 Data

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities - 

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Serious Injuries - 40

In August 2015, the District implemented a new crash-reporting system that captures injury data based on the 4th 

edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). It is likely that the higher serious injury reported for 

2016 was due to more details reports being generated. There is a high probability that future serious injury numbers 

resulting from a crash will increase as officers are fully trained to more accurately and consistently code in the field.

 

 

 

 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 70

EVALUATION

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

DDOT followed the HSM procedures in the development of benefit-to-cost (BC) analyses, via crash modification factors, 

to support the selection of preferred alternative for crash mitigation. BC analyses were performed for iintersection 

treatment alternatives studied under t HSIP effort and will continue to be for forthcoming HSIP studies. In addition, 

DDOT performed predictive method analyses, applying the Empirical Bayes (EB) method.

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

evaluations.

These methodologies were recently adopted. The District will be in a better position to determine result in future 

reports.

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

Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Policy change

Organizational change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

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

Page 57 of 70

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

No

EFFECTIVENESS OF GROUPINGS OR SIMILAR TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Bicyclists bicyclist 1 22 1 22
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 70

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Bicyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Bicyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 70

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Bicyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bicyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 70

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

No

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

Page 61 of 70

PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Optional

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

DDOT has not documented the impacts of improvements under previously implemented projects. The District, however, is embarking on a project to establish Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) specifically for the District. The study, which will focus on high

crash locations (HCL) and improvements that has been implemented over years, will help to establish the impacts of the improvement on fatalities, serious injuries and property damage crashes. The District will rely on crash records over the past 5 years and 

implemented countermeasures/safety improvement at intersections (from HSIP projects), roadway geometry, traffic control, among other factors to establish the impacts of various HSIP measures and improvements. 

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

No
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 70

COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT 

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

 10/09/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 10 0 10 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 10 0

Route/Street Name (9) 10 0
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 70

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

10 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 10 0 10 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

10 0 10 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

10 0 10 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 10 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 10 0

Functional Class (19) 10 0 10 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 10 0

Access Control (22) 10 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

10 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

10 0 10 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

10 0 10 0

AADT Year (80) 10 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

10 0 10 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

10 0
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 70

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

10 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

10 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

10 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

10 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

10 0

AADT Year (80) 10 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

10 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

10 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

10 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

10 0

Ramp Length (187) 10 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

10 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

10 0

Interchange Type (182) 10 0
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 70

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Ramp AADT (191) 10 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 10 0

Functional Class (19) 10 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

10 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

9.44 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 8.89 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

In the summer of 2017, the District began collecting detailed lane data in support of FHWA's MIRE safety data specification. The data is being collected using the District's linear referencing system (LRS): Roads and Highways Roadway Characteristics Editor. 

Below is a list of MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (FDE) being collected or gathered via GIS, in an effort to meet FHWA requirement:

For Roadway Segment:

 Segment Identifier (12) 

 Route Number (8) 

 Route/street Name (9) 

 Federal Aid/ Route Type (21) 

 Rural/Urban Designation (20) 

 Surface Type (23)** 

 Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10)

 End Point Segment Descriptor (11)

 Segment Length (13) 

 Direction of Inventory (18) 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 70

 Functional Class (19) 

 Median Type (54)** 

 Access Control (22) 

 One/Two-Way Operations (91)** 

 Number of Through Lanes (31)**

 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (79) 

 AADT Year (80) 

 Type of Governmental Ownership (4)

For Intersections:

 Unique Junction Identifier (120) 

 Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122) 

 Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123) 

 Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) 

 Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131) 

 AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting Road] 

 AADT Year (80) [for Each Intersecting Road] 

 Unique Approach Identifier (139)

Interchange Ramp: 

 Unique Interchange Identifier (178) 

 Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197) 

 Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201) 

 Type of Governmental Ownership (4) 

 Ramp Length (187) 

 Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal (195) 

 Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal (199) 

 Interchange Type (182) 

 Ramp AADT (191) 

 Year of Ramp AADT (192) 

 Functional Class (19) 

 Type of Governmental Ownership (4) 
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 70

Other Types:

 Sidewalk Type + L/R (DDOT Type) 

 Sidewalk Width (the generalized width in feet of the sidewalk) 

 Lane Type (DDOT Type) (through lane, bike lane, right turn only, etc) 

 Dividers (includes medians (54), centerline striping type, etc) 

 Street Buffers (protections that do not divide opposing traffic, e.g. continuous painted, curbed protections) 

 Lane Directionality (DDOT Type) (direction of traffic as the centerline geometry ascends)

 Lane Width (DDOT Type) (width in feet of a given travel lane)

 

 

 

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are compliant with the MMUCC 

4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Serious Injury Yes Any injury other than fatal that results in 

one or more of the following:

-Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in

significant loss of blood

-Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)

-Crush injuries

-Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations

-Significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of the body)

-Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

-Paralysis

Yes Apparent Broken Bones

Concussion

Loss of Teeth

Other Major Injury

Severe Laceration

Unconsciousness

Yes

Crash Database Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 70

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Database Data Dictionary Serious Injury Yes Any injury other than fatal that results in 

one or more of the following:

-Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in

significant loss of blood

-Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)

-Crush injuries

-Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations

-Significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of the body)

-Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

-Paralysis

Yes Apparent Broken Bones Concussion Loss 

of Teeth Other Major Injury Severe 

Laceration Unconsciousness

Yes

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

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

No

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

2018

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

Page 69 of 70

OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 District Of Columbia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 70

GLOSSARY

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

rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement project 

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

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

addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the collection and 

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated February 13, 

2013. 

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

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

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

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

Roadway Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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