Page 1 of 69

PENNSYLVANIA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 69

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 9

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................30

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................30

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................34

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................43

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................43

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................49

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................51

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................52

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................52

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................52

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................57

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................64
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 69

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.”
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 69

Executive Summary

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is pleased to present this 2019 Annual Report of our progress 

with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. In 2018, 1,190 people lost their lives on Pennsylvania's 

roadways. This was an increase from 2017’s record low of 1,137 fatalities. Some areas where fatal crash 

increases were noticed include drivers over 65, pedestrians, impaired driver crashes, and signalized 

intersection crashes. To reach our ultimate goal of zero deaths on our roads, our journey includes ongoing 

work on both the behavioral side of crash causations as well as continuing to improve our highway 

infrastructure.

Since the last Annual Report, we have maintained our progress on several key initiatives. Pennsylvania is still 

using HSM based network screening to identify locations for safety improvement projects in all 67 counties. To 

increase our evaluation abilities PennDOT worked with Penn State University to develop new Safety 

Performance Functions (SPFs) for suburban/urban collector roads. PennDOT has also completed calibration 

for the AASHTO 2014 HSM supplement for freeways. Currently freeway segments and ramp terminals are 

completed. The calibration for speed change lanes, ramp segments, and ramp terminals will conclude later this 

year. Once the calibrations are completed these new analysis options will be included in PennDOT’s highway 

safety network screening. The ISATe tool is currently under calibration study. The ISATe tool will be fully 

calibrated to Pennsylvania by October 2020 pending the completion of the calibration effort mentioned earlier. 

PennDOT will begin its next round of network screening in 2020. PennDOT currently has spreadsheets and 

maps that plot our highway safety network screening locations based on excess expected yearly crash 

frequencies also referred to as Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI).

The Pennsylvania regionalized SPFs are the main analytical part of the Pennsylvania specific HSM analytical 

tool. Over the last few years PennDOT has provided several Pennsylvania specific HSM trainings. The 

PennDOT HSM classes cover not only the Highway Safety Manual, but also different tools to use and when to 

use them. This class gives practical examples and then allows attendees to use the PennDOT HSM analysis 

tool to perform safety analysis. With the new crash prediction models for urban collectors, freeways and ramps, 

these trainings will need to be updated for future offerings. PennDOT intends to update the existing HSM 

analysis tools with these new SPFs and calibration factors.

PennDOT updated its Publication 638, The District Highway Safety Guidance Manual, to include the FAST Act 

rules for HSIP funding criteria, updates to our crash data reporting tools, and new District safety planning. 

PennDOT now requires a 1.0 benefit cost ratio for spot location projects. PennDOT continues to update 

several other publications to incorporate the concepts of the Highway Safety Manual into our policies and 

practices. PennDOT created and published its new Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis 

Methods Manual or P-SPAMM in May 2018. This relatively new manual is intended for people that attended 

the PennDOT HSM training to use when completing safety analysis. The P-SPAM manual will undergo an 

update over the next two years to incorporate the new suburban/urban SPFs and calibration factors for 

Freeways and Ramps.

Many of our engineering districts completed projects associated with the Intersection Safety Implementation 

and Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plans. In 2016 PennDOT worked with the FHWA to complete 

the Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP). The SMAP assessments and strategies is another tool to use in 

reducing speed related injury crashes. PennDOT took analysis from the Speed Management Action Plan and 

evaluated over 3,500 signalized intersection with approach speeds of 40 an/or 45 mph. These locations were 

studied in detail to provide safety improvement options where the safety data shows potential for safety 

improvements.

PennDOT continues to use the SharePoint application website to ensure better tracking of HSIP funding 

applications from the engineering districts and the regional planning partners. Since the adoption of the HSIP 

Share Point site there have been a few MPO/RPOs that have submitted projects for approval. The HSIP 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 69

SharePoint application program went live in January 2017. PennDOT just went through an update process for 

the HSIP website. These updates will help process new applications for the new PennDOT set aside projects 

that will be submitted August 1st through September 30th. Project will be reviewed from October 1st to 

December 31st. Selected projects will be announced in early 2020.

The HSM is now required for design exceptions, POAs, and (soon) Purpose and Need. This required working 

with PennDOT staff that doesn't traditionally deal with safety analysis issues in depth. 

While a lot of work remains to reach our goal of reducing highway fatalities to zero by 2050, we remain 

encouraged by the progress that has been made in certain areas and the opportunities for the future.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 69

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. 

HSIP projects are identified by using data driven safety analysis which includes crash data, predictive analysis 

methods, or by implementing known systemic safety improvements identified by the Highway Safety & Traffic 

Operations Division. Project locations and systemic project scopes are developed by the Engineering Districts 

and /or the regional planning partners. These project proposals are then sent to PennDOT’s Highway Safety & 

Traffic Operations Division (HSTOD) for a technical review and then to the Center for Program Development 

and Management for funding and fiscal review. Then projects receive final approval from the FHWA Division 

office. Projects are selected for implementation based on the projected safety benefit of the safety 

countermeasures and the allowable funding. Projects are then developed and designed by the Engineering 

Districts. The Engineering Districts let the construction projects (Letting is the day construction project bids are 

received for the project and the lowest bidder is shown), provide construction inspection and oversight. As part 

of the annual HSIP report, HSTOD evaluates projects before and after the project was constructed to 

determine a perceived net benefit based the reduction of fatal, injury, and property damage only crashes. 

PennDOT also tracks the implementation of systemic improvements like rumble strips, High Friction Surface 

treatments, and High Tension Cable Median Barrier. A network analysis of these systemic improvements is 

completed when there is enough data in a given time span. PennDOT has also implemented a minimum BCR 

of 1.0 for spot location safety projects.

PennDOT also has a biennial set aside program. Every odd numbered year PennDOT allows the eleven 

engineering Districts and planning partners apply for HSIP funds to complete safety projects. The projects 

must use a systemic safety approach and include a HSM analysis and benefit cost analysis. Every year $35 

million is set aside and every competitive set aside period covers $70 million HSIP funds. Pennsylvania's local 

municipalities may apply for a project through their MPO/RPO. This set aside program is now a policy in 

PennDOT Publication 638.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Engineering and Planning

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via MPOs
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 69

Details on how the HSIP funds are distributed in Pennsylvania are available in the May 2019 edition of 

PennDOT's Publication 638 chapter 6. Publication 638 is available on PennDOT's website.

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

Local highways (those not owned and maintained by the Commonwealth) make up two-thirds of the 

approximately 120,000 miles of highways in Pennsylvania. These roads are owned by the 2,561 municipalities 

across the state. In 2018 17% of highway fatalities occurred on the local road network. Local highway fatalities 

increased to 202 in 2018 from 182 in the 2017. Local road fatalities have hovered above or below 200/year 

over the past two decades with the highest total of 279 in the year 2007 and the lowest count of 163 in the year 

2002. 

To more accurately determine local roads safety needs, PennDOT was able to create local road cluster lists for 

each municipality. Each list has the street name and how many fatalities and injury crashes occurred on that 

local road within that municipality. Specific locations on local roads could not be provided on the list since 

segmenting local roads has not been completed yet. PennDOT does have plans to collect more traffic data on 

local roads. Soon local roads will be segmented to help pin point crash locations. PennDOT has already 

started to collect more local road traffic volumes to help expand HSM based network screening efforts. Also, 

PennDOT PCIT tool allows the public to see where crashes occurred on a local road through a new map 

feature. These new local cluster lists were provided to LTAP and the PennDOT Engineering districts to 

determine better locations for local safety improvements.

PennDOT is currently working with LTAP and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors 

(PSATS) to conduct technical reviews on local roads which can result in a low-cost safety project. PennDOT 

provides direction for the studies which are conducted by LTAP staff. The studies result in a report that has an 

itemized list of safety countermeasures ready for a construction contract or force account work. Other local 

safety studies have been conducted or they are in process in other parts of the state for future local safety 

projects. LTAP also provides training to municipalities for a variety of subjects including safety.

PennDOT plans to work closely with the FHWA PA Division office over the next year to implement force 

account safety work on local roads.

Locals remain engaged in the enforcement, education and emergency response side of highway safety 

through NHTSA grants. These behavioral safety efforts are detailed in the Pennsylvania HSP report submitted 

to NHTSA every year.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Engineering Districts, Planning Organizations, Program Center

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Design – Designers manage safety projects through the design contract process out to construction 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 69

Districts – Districts implement highway safety projects selected for construction 

Governors Highway Safety Office- In Pennsylvania this falls under PennDOT and combines its behavioral 

efforts with Safety Engineering efforts

Maintenance – Maintenance helps to select projects and then has the task to maintain the projects. In 

Pennsylvania Highway Safety falls under the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations 

Operations – Highway Safety is part of the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations. As we move forward with 

autonomous vehicles and vehicle to infrastructure technologies this group will play a bigger role in safety. 

Planning – Programs funding for safety projects and manages the obligation of safety funds. 

Traffic Engineering/Safety – Lead Division that manages the HSIP program across the state (HSTOD).

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Other-MAST Team - See Question 8 for description

Pennsylvania has a Multi-Agency Safety Team (MAST) which consists of participants from FHWA, NHTSA, 

Liquor Control Board, State Police and the Departments of Health, Education and Drug/Alcohol Programs. 

MAST is a key component in the development, implementation and evaluation of the Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan.

Describe coordination with external partners. 

PennDOT works with Universities (Academia) to produce research into safety programs. Some recent work 

involved the development of urban collector roadway SPFs and research into the effectiveness of adaptive 

traffic signal control. 

FHWA is involved in the HSIP program in all aspects. They provide final approval on HSIP funded projects, 

national guidance for the HSIP funding program, and participate in monthly coordination for all safety related 

topics. 

Gov. Highway Safety Office deals with driver behavior and research aspects of highway safety. This office 

supports the NHTSA grant funded programs. 

Law enforcement & public education partners are involved in many Behavioral safety programs such as 

reducing Impaired driving, increasing seatbelt use, speed enforcement, aggressive driving enforcement, 

reducing districted driving, mature driver safety, motorcycle safety training, young & inexperienced driver 

training, enhancing safety on local roads, and several other topics. 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 69

Local Government Agencies like PSATS and PSABS help provide safety training to municipalities. This is done 

through the Pennsylvania LTAP which uses consultant staff. The LTAP program is administered through a 

contract with PSATS. 

Regional Planning Organizations help to implement HSIP funded projects. 

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

We have updated our Publication 638. One of the major updates was a new HSIP chapter that now requires 

more detailed safety analysis to justify a safety project. The May 2019 edition of Publication 638 is available on 

PennDOT's website under forms and publications.

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

elaborate. 

The HSIP Program fully aligns with the 2017 Pennsylvania Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

PennDOT will update its network screening in all 67 counties in 2020 expanding to urban collector roadways 

and Freeways and Ramps. The network screening is discussed in more detail in other parts of this report. 

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

Pub638_Final_signed.pdf

Guidance for HSIP is in PennDOT's District Highway Safety Guidance Manual (Publication 638) and 

Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis Methods Manual (SPAMM). Publication 638 was 

updated in May 2019 and now includes a new HSIP chapter that describes the planning, implementation and 

evaluation processes.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• HSIP (no subprograms) 

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Safe Corridor

• Shoulder Improvement

• Skid Hazard
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 69

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Older Drivers

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/30/2019

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 Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

Local roads do not have as much detail as state owned roads. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 69

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional, HSIP set Aside, and State 715 Safety Funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 69

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:6/26/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Old Surface Transportation Act requirement no longer required by FAST Act

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-FAST Act Penalty

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Number of crashes

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Pennsylvania's definition of a High Risk Rural Road:

A roadway functionally classified as either a rural major/minor collector or a rural local road, with roadway 

segments having at least 2 crashes per mile or 1 crash per intersection within the most recent five-year time 

period of available crash data.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 69

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:12/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP

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

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Available funding:1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 69

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional, HSIP set Aside, and State 715 Safety Funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2

PennDOT is currently working to reduce crashes at signalized intersections with speed limit approaches of 40 

and/or 45 mph. This is based on action items found in the Speed Management Action plan and evaluations of 

intersection safety projects constructed since 2013.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 69

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-ISIP 

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

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 69

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

We have establish local road high crash locations from ranking each street name by fatal/injury 

crashes. Spreadsheets were completed for every municipality using 5 year crash data.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 69

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2

The May 2019 edition of Publication 638 now requires spot locations to have a minimum BCR of 1.00.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 69

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

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 

Median width 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-median slopes/cross-section 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 69

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

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

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 69

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP funds and State 715 safety funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Exhibit 3-15 from AASHTO’s 2004, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 

• Other-MUTCD Table 2C.05

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 69

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Old Surfaec Transportation Act

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

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). 

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 69

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Program set up by PA Act 229

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Process to identify these locations is in PennDOT Publication 638 Chapter 5

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

We have establish local road high crash locations from ranking each street name by fatal/injury 

crashes. Spreadsheets were completed for every municipality using 5 year crash data.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Maintenace and Highway safety 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 69

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 Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

PennDOT created a lane and shoulder width CMF tool based on HSM methodology for determining the optimal

lane and shoulder widths.

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 69

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Wet road, SVROR and HFO 

Roadside features 

Other-Skid testing 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:6/2/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional allocations, HSIP set aside, and state 715 safety funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 69

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only Other-none Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Program: Other-Older Drivers

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-(FAST) Act Special Rule

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 69

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? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 25

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Rumble Strips

• Wrong way driving treatments

PennDOT just updated our HSIP funding allocations. We removed the required percentages for different 

systemic improvements. PennDOT does several systemic safety improvements every year. The percentage of 

systemic work varies every year.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

• Other-RDIP, ISIP, and other specific countermeasure crash lists that include high tension cable median 

barriers and wrong way crash lists

• Other-Speed Management Action Plan
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 69

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

As a state that has always been at the forefront of innovation and industry, it should come as no surprise that 

Pennsylvania is at the very epicenter of the rise in connected and automated vehicle technology. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) supports the advancement of automation through 

various ways including the deployment of Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) Roadside Units 

(RSUs) at select signalized intersections to enable communications between the vehicles and the 

infrastructure. Currently, there are 54 connected intersections, including 8 in Harrisburg and 24 in Pittsburgh, 

with plans to install an additional 205 by 2021. In 2016, PennDOT formed both the Pennsylvania AV Policy 

Task Force and the Smart Belt Coalition, to ensure Pennsylvania aligns with industry and national best 

practices. The Task Force is made up of a diverse and comprehensive set of stakeholders, including 

representatives from federal, state and local government, law enforcement, technology companies, higher 

education, manufacturers, motorists and trucking groups, and academic research institutions. The Smart Belt 

Coalition is a a first-of-its-kind collaboration between PennDOT, PTC, Ohio DOT, the Ohio Turnpike, and 

Michigan DOT and universities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan with a focus on automated and connected 

vehicle initiatives. 

PennDOT has also been active in national efforts to develop uniform standards and practices for automated 

vehicles. With the pace of automated vehicle innovation accelerating, Transportation Secretary Leslie S. 

Richards challenged PennDOT to take action to sustain Pennsylvania’s leadership in automated vehicle 

research, while simultaneously ensuring that public safety remains the paramount priority as HAVs are tested 

on the roadways. After meeting with numerous stakeholders including more than a dozen automated vehicle 

testers, PennDOT issued Highly Automated Vehicle (HAV) Testing Guidelines on July 24, 2018. Aligning with 

NHTSA direction, the guidelines focus on the human safety driver and training and not the operation of the 

vehicle. 

In Spring 2018, PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and Penn State University have partnered 

to develop PennSTART, a state-of-the-art training and testing facility to address the transportation safety and 

operational needs of Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic Region. PennSTART will address safety training and 

research needs in six key areas: traffic incident management (TIM); connected and automated vehicles; tolling 

and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology; work zones; commercial vehicles; and transit vehicles. 

Connected and automated vehicle technologies will change the transportation decision-making process 

throughout Pennsylvania. To ensure Pennsylvania stays at the forefront, PennDOT is actively working to 

educate key stakeholders and the public about the impact and benefits of this emerging technology. PennDOT 

has arrange for connected and automated vehicle demonstrations to key transportation and Legislative 

officials. Over 200 riders had an opportunity to experience first-hand the capabilities of connected and 

automated vehicles, including Governor Tom Wolf, members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate 

Transportation Committees, PennDOT Secretary Leslie Richards, and various local officials. The 

demonstration allowed participants to develop an understanding of how technological advances are being 

adapted and implemented in this rapidly advancing field here in Pennsylvania. In April 2018 PennDOT 

organized in Pittsburgh its second summit for HAVs. There were 400+ attendees with topics focusing on three 

themes: safety, infrastructure planning, workforce & economic development. The two overarching goals were 

to encourage interchange and collaboration between stakeholders and long-term public acceptance of vehicle 

automation
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 69

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. 

In May 2017 PennDOT published Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis Methods Manual , 

or SPAMM . This new publication is available on PennDOT’s website for anyone to view. The manual is 

intended to be a reference for someone that attended a PennDOT HSM class and is now ready to perform 

safety analysis. The SPAMM covers most of Pennsylvania’s regionalized SPFs. PennDOT, in conjunction with 

Penn State University, completed the development of suburban/urban SPFs. We are also in the process of 

completing calibration of the AASHTO 2014 HSM supplement for Freeways and ramps. These new analysis 

options will be included in a first revision to Publication 638A. The Manual provides clear definitions for 

common HSM terms and then displays every PA regionalized SPF Formula separated by highway facility type 

in easy to use tables. 

In March 2018 PennDOT released its first HSM based County Network Screening Analysis spreadsheets and 

GIS maps. These spreadsheets evaluated segments and intersections located in all 67 counties. There are two 

spreadsheets for each county. One covers intersections and the other covers segments. Each spreadsheet 

has two tabs. One for “Rural” segments or intersections and one for “Urban” segments or intersections. While a 

fair number of counties have a balance of rural and urban segment and intersection locations, some counties 

may only have urban (Philadelphia) and others only have rural (Forest) locations based on demographics. The 

goal was to have about 120 segments and 160 intersections evaluated in each county (Urban & Rural 

combined). Some counties due to their rural nature will be below that number. Other counties due to their vast 

highway network will be above the 120 and 160 number. Currently the County Network Screening Analysis for 

segments and intersections does not include freeways, ramps, ramp terminals and roundabouts since 

Pennsylvania does not have Freeway SPFs or calibration factors for the AASHTO HSM SPFs. In 2020 

PennDOT will expand the network screening to include urban collector roadway segments and intersections 

and the newly calibrated freeways and ramps. At this time, roundabouts will likely be left out of our next 

network screening since we have not had time to assess NCHRP Report 888. We will likely need to calibrate 

the new SPFs to Pennsylvania. The segment and intersection locations have been sorted to show the 

locations’ “Excess” value based on total yearly crash frequency, also known as Potential for Safety 

Improvement (PSI). This value is the “Expected crash frequency value” minus the “Predicted crash frequency 

value”. Any location above zero shows the location has a higher crash frequency than the predicted models for 

a similar roadway facility type. A higher positive PSI value shows a location has more potential for safety 

improvement than a location with a lower value. Any location with a value below zero shows the location has a 

crash frequency below the predicted model. In 2020 we will expand the network screening to assess F&I crash 

frequencies along with PDO crash frequencies. PennDOT will assign a weight to those F&I and PDO excess 

values for a weighted excess value based on costs per crash of the predicted average annual crash 

frequencies.

The Network Screenings do not show what countermeasure(s) should be used for any specific segment or 

intersection location. A more in-depth traffic engineering and safety study is required to determine the crash 

trends and the suitable safety improvements. The Intersection and segment network screening lists and maps 

should be used when evaluating highway locations for safety. These network screenings are not limited to only 

aiding in HSIP and LCSIP project selection. The network screening lists and maps can and are used the same 

way a location’s crash rate is compared to Homogenous crash rates for studies, HOPs, standard design 

projects safety assessments, and other such uses. This is a big step forward in highway safety for 

Pennsylvania. 

PennDOT developed a new ICE policy in 2018. With this development, a tool similar to the national SPICE tool 

was developed for Pennsylvania. The ICE tool utilizes the HSM in other phases of the project development 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 69

process including Design Exceptions, Point of Access studies, and Purpose & Need Statements.

The new HSIP project application process added a new HSM analysis requirement for all spot location 

projects. Systemic projects must reference applicable CMFs for the specific countermeasure. The details of 

this new requirement are in the May 2019 Publication 638 Chapter 6. 

Finally, PennDOT continues to offer a PennDOT specific HSM class. The class is 1 1⁄2 days long. The class is 

taught by national experts from Kittelson Associates. The class teaches both the national and state SPF 

models and provides an entire afternoon of hands on use of PennDOT’s HSM analysis tool. 

PennDOT will continue to encourage and enhance the use of the Highway Safety Manual.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

PennDOT has re-written its HSIP project application policy. There have been several changes. The new 

requirements are in the May 2019 Edition of PennDOT Publication 638 in chapter 6. Some of the major 

changes are:

- A minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.00 for spot specific safety projects

-No more specific percentages for certain systemic safety improvements

-HSM analysis for projects is required when the highway facility type and other safety data make the analysis 

possible 

-The actual HSIP application process in PennDOT's HSIP website is now documented in our Publication 638.

-The policy now allows for MPOs/RPOs to directly submit HSIP project applications.

The May 2019 edition of Publication 638 can be viewed on PennDOT's website under Forms and Publications. 

https://www.penndot.gov/_layouts/pa.penndot.formsandpubs/formsandpubs.aspx
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 69

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

The State fiscal year starts in July and ends in June.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $93,587,106 $69,852,791 74.64%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$5,766,894 $6,090,088 105.6%

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 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 100%

Totals $109,354,000 $85,942,879 78.59%

We track HSIP/HRRR Programmed amounts by federal fiscal year and Obligated amounts by state fiscal year 

(same as question #29). This resulted in an obligation rate of over 100% since the federal/state fiscal years do 

not line up exactly. 

The NTSHA penalty funds and the RHCP funds are reported on in different reports. Those programmed and 

obligated fund numbers can be found in those respective reports. 

We are also unable to provide an answer for "other federal funds" for safety projects due to limitations of query 

tools. 

Pennsylvania sets aside $10 million dollars of state transportation maintenance funds every year for low cost 

safety improvements on state highways.

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

safety projects? 

$221,000
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 69

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

$221,000

The $221,000 is obligated under project 109652 which includes the installation of signage, delineation, and 

pavement markings on various local roads in Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, Indiana, and Jefferson Counties.

$500,000 HSIP funds were obligated in Jan 2018 for the PA LTAP program and display in last year's report. 

Since the funds were not obligated during the last state fiscal year (7/1/18-6/30/19) they will not officially be 

part of this year's funding but they were used by the Pennsylvania LTAP program throughout 2018-19 to 

conduct safety studies on local roads to determine safety improvements. The funds are used to complete 

"PennDOT Directed Technical Assist Reports" which produce an itemized list of contract ready low cost 

countermeasures. These reports and the project items can be used to create the construction contracts or set 

up a force account construction project. The LTAP program also uses this money for training expenses and 

municipal on-demand support activities.

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

$1,239,200

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

$1,239,200

HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects include:

$23,200 for Traffic Incident Management Responder Training

$360,000 to conduct RSA's on District 11 and District 9 safety priority roadways. 

$150,000 for a safety study along the SR 58 corridor in Mercer and Greenville Boroughs along with Jefferson, 

Coolspring and Delaware Townships, Mercer County to identify future safety improvements. 

$556,000 for a safety study on Woodbury Pike (PA 36/PA 164) from the Leamersville Interchange to Pine 

Heights Street in Blair, Freedom, and Taylor Townships and Roaring Spring Borough, Blair County. 

$150,000 for a safety study along the SR 62 corridor in the Cities of Sharon and Hermitage and Jefferson, 

Lackawonnock and French Creek Townships and terminating in Mercer Borough to identify future safety 

improvements.

We also set aside $2 million to start collecting traffic counts for the MIRE effort but that has been postponed 

and will not be programmed or obligated this year.

$500,000 HSIP funds were obligated in Jan 2018 for the PA LTAP program and display in last year's report. 

Since the funds were not obligated during the last state fiscal year (7/1/18-6/30/19) they will not officially be 

part of this year's funding but they were used by the Pennsylvania LTAP program throughout 2018-19 to 

conduct safety studies on local roads to determine safety improvements. The funds are used to complete 

"PennDOT Directed Technical Assist Reports" which produce an itemized list of contract ready low cost 

countermeasures. These reports and the project items can be used to create the construction contracts or set 

up a force account construction project. The LTAP program also uses this money for training expenses and 

municipal on-demand support activities.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 69

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. 

There are a few Engineering Districts that have struggled in the project development of HSIP funded safety 

projects. This results in several projects missing let dates and HSIP funds not being used for those projects in 

the planned years. To overcome these project delivery issues, the Highway Safety Section is working with 

PennDOT's Bureau of Project Delivery to track the milestones of HSIP projects to ensure design project 

managers stay on schedule to deliver good safety improvement projects on time. A District's past project 

delivery track record has become part of a weighted criteria for HSIP set aside project selection. PennDOT 

may also pursue a different HSIP funding allocation based less on regional boundaries and more based on 

competitive safety needs. 

Local projects using HSIP funds are difficult to deliver in Pennsylvania due to legal agreements that need to be 

created for allowing work to be completed on local roads, maintenance responsibility, right to know laws, and 

the lack of an HSIP force account option. Many municipal governments also lack the ability to develop a project 

or construct safety projects. Implementing systemic projects on local levels usually results in very low cost 

projects that are hard to bid and requires adding several municipalities that might cross Engineering District 

boundaries to have a large enough project that contractors will bid on and have a reasonable price. This adds 

to the difficulty in project development. PennDOT is exploring options to better address safety concerns on 

local roads where there are known fatal and serious injuries. Right now PennDOT is pursuing the option of 

using force account to have safety improvements completed on locally owned roads. 

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

PennDOT is now rating location specific projects based on the perceived benefit to cost ratio using a net 

present value calculation and benefit to cost ratio. This has led to more partially funded HSIP projects than in 

previous years. Any new projects submitted for a spot location must now have a BCA completed that show a 

1:1 or better B/C ratio. This will also allow HSIP funds to be used on other projects where partial funding can 

be used to implement safety improvements. We are also updating our HSIP project selection policy through 

our updates to PennDOT Publication 638. The changes will force more predictive analysis when selecting 

projects. At a minimum, CMFs will need to be used to show the expected benefits. 

The Department created network screening for all 67 counties in Pennsylvania. These highway safety priority 

lists will be developed using the Highway Safety Manual's analysis method of Excess Expected Average Crash 

Frequency with Empirical Bayes (EB) adjustments also known as Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI). This 

method will use the calculated Expected crashes for a location and subtract the Predicted crashes for that 

same location to produce a value. All locations will have that calculated difference value ordered highest to 

lowest. Any value above zero shows a potential for safety improvement over the state’s predicted annual 

crashes for that category of roadway or intersection. Locations that have a value below zero will be marked 

with black cells with white text on the final display on the final analysis lists. The Department uses the 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 69

Pennsylvania Regionalized Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) and cluster lists to develop the following 

types of lists:

• Urban Intersections 

• Rural intersections 

• Urban Segments 

• Rural Segments 

The lists previously excluded ramps, ramp terminal locations and freeways. In March 2019 PennDOT 

completed creating SPFs for suburban/urban collector roadways. In addition, calibration factors for freeways, 

speed change lanes, ramps, and ramp terminals are nearly completed. The new network screenings will 

include these highway facility types. The initial network screenings only used SPFs for all crashes. The next 

round of network screening will include fatal and injury crash excess values along with PDO excess values. 

These values will be weighted based on crash costs for the crash severities. Future network screenings will 

include

• Freeway segments 

• Ramps segments 

• Ramp terminals 

• Urban Collector segments and intersections 

The work is being completed with Department staff and consultant support. In some situations, a county may 

not have extensive cluster lists for one of the four categories due to the location’s demographics. An example 

is Philadelphia. We would not expect to have rural classifications for most highways in Philadelphia. Nor would 

we expect to have many urban highways in a rural county like Cameron County. 

The information needed to calculate accurate predicted and expected crash frequencies are in the 

Pennsylvania State University’s Regionalized Safety Performance Functions final report from January 2016 

and the March 2019 Regionalized Urban-suburban Collector Road SPF final reports. Roadway data is 

obtained from PennDOT databases like ITMS, video log, and other readily available PennDOT resources. The 

Department is also using Google Earth for gathering some roadway data like driveway densities. Curve data is 

obtained from PennDOT’s new horizontal curve database developed by J.D. Kronicz. Since traffic volumes are 

necessary for the HSM evaluations, PennDOT has contracts with a consultant to collect traffic volumes for 

several locally and privately owned roads where traffic volume is unknown. 

This detailed network screening is used to help select the best locations for HSIP funded safety projects. In 

total this network screening covers about 20,000 locations. Future screening will greatly increase the number 

of screened locations.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 69

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Lewistown Signal 

Reconstruction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

0.81 Miles $100000 $525000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,449 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 4689

PA 68/Dolby 

Street Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1.79 Miles $5359700 $16990002 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,31

6

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 24890

PA 28/US 322 

Brookville 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.53 Miles $556000 $9107155 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,319 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 26064

Nyes/Dvnshre Hts 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.23 Miles $15000 $5186203.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 10,97

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 47521

Baltimore Pk 

Optimizat(C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

3.89 Miles $200000 $5911000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther19,24

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 48168

Kennedy 

Drive/County 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.05 Miles $1000 $4101750 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,584 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 57706

Milford to 

Matamoras Bet

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

2.88 Miles $1792680 $8297329.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,29

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

57765

SR 183/4016 

(Schaeffers)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1.27 Miles $2419252 $5654255 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 12,74

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 57840

SR61 / 209 

Intersection

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 3.65 Miles $71500 $3397955 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,56

1

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

72466

SR 12 Elizabeth 

Avenue

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or other 1.66 Miles $750000 $11630000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 18,93

9

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

79467

Martins 

RdtoChristians Rd

Roadside Barrier - concrete 2.03 Miles $11631 $1198000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,69

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

82869

PA-283/I-76 

Interchange

Interchange 

design

Improve intersection radius at 

ramp terminus

2.94 Miles $351600 $13652716.8

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 26,46

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 84548
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Blackman St SB 

Ramp

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 0.48 Miles $450000 $7462500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate29,34

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 85008

AlleghnyAv:Ridge

-Aramingo (F)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 7.33 Miles $310000 $9400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,73

2

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 85417

SR 339 from West 

St to Smith Hollow 

Rd

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 3.59 Miles $1548980 $6681177 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 4,271 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

87882

US6 ov Tb 

Charleston Crk

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.54 Miles $1280043 $3521610 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,636 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

87923

222 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.18 Miles $907534 $1284024 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,71

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

89244

Post & Cable 

Guide Rail

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.18 Miles $151385 $4143037.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 10,26

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

90318

PA 272 

Intersection Impvt

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1.78 Miles $306742 $5767443 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,986 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 90490

US222/322 

Interchange Imp

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 5.12 Miles $126109 $13232937.0

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 27,98

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 90491

N Waterford 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.6 Miles $474290 $6253605 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,94

7

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 91394

I-99 17th StGraziervilleRoadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 132.4 Miles $826000 $35880753 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate8,653 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

91533

SR 73/662 

Corridor Safety

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.89 Miles $6433408 $9728328 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,74

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 92921

US220&SR 405 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1.15 Miles $1883186 $5136045 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 9,752 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93016

Philipsburg Add 

Center Ln

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.47 Miles $575672 $12115037 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,12

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

93329

Lock Haven 

Signal 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

0.16 Miles $700000 $1932319 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,44

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93343
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PA 287 to West 

Fourth Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

12.14 Miles $1608896 $56127000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 13,36

7

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 93732

SR 348 

Intersection Imp

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0.24 Miles $80000 $3985500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 10,47

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

94567

17th/Vly 

View/Pleas Vly

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2 Miles $1131 $5290000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 17,95

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94670

SR 739 Should / 

Widening

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

1.86 Miles $515000 $5956500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 880 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

94686

SR 11 Shoulder / 

ELRS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.59 Miles $256183.8

9

$3338000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,190 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

94740

94 & 394 

Intersection Imp

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1.04 Miles $1740000 $2876050 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 8,964 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94894

US422 Safety 

Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

2.27 Miles $82000 $3152682.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,24

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

94936

Mount Hope 

Intrscn Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.51 Miles $1089000 $4384533 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,788 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 96506

Colebrook Road 

Improvemt

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

3.55 Miles $195532 $6486365 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 9,155 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

96783

SR220/SR2027 

Intersection

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

0.76 Miles $5020 $3085760 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,625 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

97972

PA 837/33rd St to 

Smithfield

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

4.65 Miles $9515100 $19853338 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,23

2

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

98085

Atherton Street 

Phase II

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

2.76 Miles $1101606 $19717914 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,95

2

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

98126

US 40:PA 917 to 

Maiden St

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

4.41 Miles $10559.5 $4493600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,014 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

98362
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Tioga US 15 

MCGR3

Roadside Barrier - other 6.55 Miles $928955 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,712 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

99162

PA462 Signal 

Improvements

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

6.52 Miles $91959 $1787166.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,996 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 99506

US6 & PA660 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

0.28 Miles $500000 $3725000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,289 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 101292

Lewistown Safety 

Corridor

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

0.81 Miles $2080000 $4415344 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,449 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 101959

SR 6 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

14.34 Miles $75000 $2035000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 17,56

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

101991

Hamot Rd/Oliver 

Rd Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.22 Miles $300000 $3375000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,369 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 102069

15th Street 

Corridor

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 0.7 Miles $228570 $5297199 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,71

1

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

102155

SR 115 Corridor 

Imp-Effort

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.43 Miles $898827 $4289762 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 10,26

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 102167

Fed Aid Paving 4-

18-FP2

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

3.41 Miles $299432 $1865456 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

10,93

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

102555

SR 54 Corridor 

Safety

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2.44 Miles $357361 $21389862 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 10,76

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 103853

New Falls Rd 

HSIP

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 2.72 Miles $63082 $1800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 12,93

7

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 104365

Hanover Adaptive 

Signals

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6.87 Miles $15015 $3844630.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 11,31

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 104371

Wrong Way Entry 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

14.62 Miles $28315 $873069.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate2,698 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

104372

ISIP Signals 

Project

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0.13 Miles $1338.15 $2139156 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,007 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 104377
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

222 & 100 Ramp 

Pre-emptn

Interchange 

design

Ramp metering 0.36 Miles $34451 $37851 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,09

3

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 104431

209 -Schafer 

School House

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - remove 

existing signal

4.3 Miles $125200 $7183300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 11,55

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 104432

I-176 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 21 Miles $1293944 $3062710 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate10,54

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

104435

33 Median 

Barrier-Northmp

Roadside Barrier - cable 29.07 Miles $56250 $3013487 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 24,19

3

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

104437

US 62/State St 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1.33 Miles $300000 $5984400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,795 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

105775

PA 

98/Sterrettania Rd 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

0.2 Miles $67010 $709000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,717 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 105776

Advance Signal 

for SR 422 and 

2077 Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add 

enhanced advance warning 

(double-up and/or oversize)

0.16 Miles $5800 $38840 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 19,36

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 105962

SR 64/550 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

1.01 Miles $160000 $4439000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 8,037 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106034

Lycoming 

HTMCGR

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.22 Miles $97000 $793500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 13,36

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106186

Bellefonte 

Interchange 

Safety

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 6.17 Miles $784663 $1360663 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 15,28

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 106282

SR 12 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 3.02 Miles $408340 $456781 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 18,26

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106483

2018 Cable 

Median Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.48 Miles $3662773 $2450000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 14,90

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106508

2018 RDIP/ISIP 

Signing and Ped

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new "smart" crosswalk 0.42 Miles $150000 $160000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 591 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 106512
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PA997 & SR2015 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1.68 Miles $20000 $3400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,617 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106709

SR 18 & SR 518 

Intersection 

(Bobby's Corner)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected/permissive)

0.27 Miles $63734 $762146 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,760 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106765

D11 Road Safety 

Audit Open End

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 0 Miles $60000 $260000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Data 106846

Districtwide CGR 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $2451 $695000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106879

Districtwide Long 

Term UBE

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 Miles $378129 $875000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 1,189 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106885

SR 0001 @ SR 

0032 Interchange 

(F)

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.28 Miles $250000 $2600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

27,36

2

45 State 

Highway

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

106989

5th Street Signal 

Improvements (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0.27 Miles $156612 $995372 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,50

1

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

106991

2nd Street Signal 

Improvements (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

0 Miles $1228031 $1703031 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

106992

I-80 HTCMB from 

Susq Rv Br to 

Rest Area

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.89 Miles $300000 $1010000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate15,40

4

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

107265

SR 652 Safety 

Improvement II

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or other 3.07 Miles $782518 $867303 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,556 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

107484

I-80 HTCMB 

Phase 3

Roadside Barrier - cable 3.35 Miles $615000 $855000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate15,90

3

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

108355

I-180, SR 147 , & 

SR 220 Ramps 

Wrong Way Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

0 Miles $245000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

108942

Wrong Way Ramp 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

0.09 Miles $213121 $703751 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

7,186 20 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

109012

Local Road 

Enhancements

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0 Miles $221000 $261000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

0 0 Town or 

Township 

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

109652
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Highway 

Agency

US 6N and SR 98 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

0.17 Miles $245727 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,225 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109857

US Route 22 High 

Friction Surface 

HSIP

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3.11 Miles $1204000 $1150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 4,269 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109871

SR 150 Lock 

Haven Signals

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

1.81 Miles $500000 $3650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,65

4

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

109872

Route 145 Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify left-turn 

lane offset

1.15 Miles $543896 $8225840 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,51

2

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109971

PA 8 and PA 77 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

0.14 Miles $340000 $1475000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,042 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109996

I-86 High Speed 

Ramp to I-90

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2.15 Miles $200000 $240000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate3,723 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109997

PA 36 Corridor 

Safety 

Improvement

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 3.87 Miles $556000 $556000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,945 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety Study Data 110155

Mercer- PA 58 

Safety Study

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 13.78 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 4,518 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety Study Data 110168

Mercer US 62 

Safety Study

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 20.14 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 7,790 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety Study Data 110218

PA 18/SR 4006 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

0.29 Miles $200000 $1200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 2,884 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110234

SR 309 Signal 

Corridor

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

6.76 Miles $345000 $2150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,14

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 110327

LVTS High 

Friction Surface 

Treatments - 2018

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.33 Miles $300000 $300001 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 6,072 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110465

Wrong Way 

Safety

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

0 Miles $250000 $3500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

110469
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-376, Fort Pitt 

Bridge to 

Edgewood

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

14.75 Miles $274732 $32244472 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate10,94

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

110594

Interstate 

Delineation 

Project

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 0 Miles $764822 $290000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110769

10-2 SR 3021 

Corridor 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7.48 Miles $117696 $7117696 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,974 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110783

PA 68 Zelienople 

Curve

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.22 Miles $286999 $1486999 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,307 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

110826

Bayfront Parkway 

at 6th Street 

Intersection Impr.

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1.83 Miles $300000 $3550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,712 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

110836

CMB I-70 Town 

Hill to Tpike 

Ramps

Roadside Barrier - cable 15.01 Miles $2250000 $2650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate7,823 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110863

D9 2019 HSIP 

HFST

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

6.73 Miles $1938734 $2138734 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 3,930 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110865

PA 756 Roadway 

Safety Study

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 4.41 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,376 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data 110866

Horseshoe Pike 

@ Manor Rd.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.98 Miles $435000 $722810 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,958 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110949

Macdade Blvd. 

Corridor

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6.55 Miles $525000 $3440416 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,22

6

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 110951

Castor Ave. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

5.89 Miles $632500 $1377900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,870 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110958

Old Skippack Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.82 Miles $633000 $1499500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 3,891 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110961

Manor Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1.29 Miles $10000 $1830000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,692 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110963

Marshall Rd. 

Safety Improv

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1.71 Miles $435000 $3703817 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,34

4

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 110965
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 69

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Old 

Lincoln/Hulmeville 

Int Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.94 Miles $433000 $736905 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,491 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110966

Bethel Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Miles $579000 $2188500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,029 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 111021

Chichester Ave. 

Safety

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1.86 Miles $330000 $1216366 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,32

5

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

111022

SR 924 / I-80 

Median Barrier

Roadside Barrier - other 3.91 Miles $1131002 $1159020 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 6,698 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111043

University Ave. 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

0.8 Miles $100000 $2761549 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,35

7

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

111062

2018 High Friction 

Surf(Parent)(C)

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

32.7 Miles $2433225 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 8,167 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111063

2019 High Friction 

Surf(C)

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0 Miles $2020376 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111065

Lansdowne Ave. 

Safety Imp

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

3.23 Miles $500000 $3460593 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,61

7

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

111167

Castor Ave:Comly 

to Rhawn

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

4.7 Miles $680000 $2558403 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,870 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 111194

D12 Curve 

Signage 2018

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0 Miles $750000 $1500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111233

SR 191 High 

Friction Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.6 Miles $10000 $499591 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,287 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

112162

Low Cost Safety 

Improvments 6-0

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0 Miles $550000 $6220000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 112524

2019 SHRP 2 

Traff Incdnt Mgmt 

Responder 

Training

Noninfrastructure Training and workforce 

development

0 Miles $23200 $23200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Training Data 113174

This list includes all of the projects that had any HSIP/HRRR funds obligated between 7/1/18 and 6/30/19.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 69

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 1,324 1,286 1,310 1,208 1,195 1,200 1,188 1,137 1,190

Serious Injuries 3,556 3,402 3,455 3,248 3,040 3,030 4,397 4,227 4,504

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.308 1.284 1.316 1.225 1.196 1.189 1.175 1.119 1.165

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.513 3.396 3.471 3.293 3.044 3.002 4.349 4.160 4.411

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

171 160 184 166 187 172 192 175 221

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

413 427 420 406 336 401 549 566 596
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 69

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 69

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 69

The number of serious injuries increased significantly after 2015 due to the change in definition/title from 

"Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant "Suspected Serious Injury". This change also had a significant impact 

on the serious injury rate and non-motorized serious injury performance measures above.

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

49.4 127 0.46 1.18

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

92.2 200 2.24 4.86

Rural Minor Arterial 144.2 334.6 2.23 5.2

Rural Minor Collector 45.2 143.6 2.44 7.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 69

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 Major Collector 100.4 284.4 2.42 6.89

Rural Local Road Or 

Street

122.6 400 2.2 7.23

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

68.4 171 0.45 1.11

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

32.8 97 0.46 1.36

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

224.4 753.4 1.39 4.67

Urban Minor Arterial 130 484.8 1.08 4.03

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 59 243.8 0.78 3.19

Urban Local Road Or 

Street

97.4 553.8 1.22 6.95

Other 0 0 0 0
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 69

Year 2018

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

968.6 2,927.6 1.25 3.77

County Highway 

Agency

7 17.6 0.04 0.11

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

188.2 847.6 1.13 5.1

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

1.6 6.8 0.02 0.04

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 16.2 49.4 0.26 0.79

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania does not classify crash data by "Rural Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways".

Also Urban Collector is not broken down by Major and Minor. Data for all Urban Collectors is reflected in the 

"Urban Major Collector" field.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2008 

peaking in 2017. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

Fatalities/Serious Injuries (Question #39). 2018 saw a slight decrease in licensed drivers for this age group but 

still the 2nd highest number on record. This age group’s highway fatalities increased by 60 in 2018. People age 

65 and older account for 15.6% of Pennsylvania’s population based on US census data. However, fatal 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 69

crashes that involved a driver that was 65 years old or older accounted for 27.7% of total highway fatalities in 

2018.

The number of serious injuries significantly increased after 2015 due to both the change in definition and the 

new title of this injury type. 2016 crash data included the change from "Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant 

"Suspected Serious Injury". Based on this we would expect this trend to continue for the next 2 years. Some 

crashes that had injury severities less than serious (or major) based on the previous crash severity definitions 

are now considered suspected serious injuries.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1171.9

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

In October 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) committed to eliminate 

traffic deaths within 30 years. Pennsylvania’s 2017 SHSP has adopted a goal to support this national 

effort. This ambitious timeline will rely heavily on the implementation of autonomous vehicle 

technology, anticipated between 2025 and 2030. Pennsylvania’s current target is to reduce 2018 

fatalities by one percent per year through 2020. The target shown above (1,171.9) is the five-year 

rolling average for 2016-2020. This goal was established in conjunction with our Federal partners 

based on a combination of reviewing Pennsylvania’s historical data and observations of national 

trends and reduction in fatalities over the next 30 years will not be linear. This is based on actual fatal 

crash data from 2016 to 2018 and estimated fatal crash data in 2019 and 2020 assuming a 1% 

reduction each year.

Number of Serious Injuries:4400.3

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

Pennsylvania’s current target is to reduce 2018 serious injuries by one percent per year through 

2020. The target shown above (4,400.3) is the five-year rolling average for 2016-2020. This goal was 

established in conjunction with our Federal partners based on a combination of reviewing 

Pennsylvania’s historical data and observations of national trends and reduction in serious injuries 

over the next 30 years will not be linear. This goal is affected by the required definition change in 

suspected serious injuries per the FAST Act. PA's first year using the new Suspected Serious injury 

criteria was 2016. In 2020 we will have the first year where all suspected serious injury crash data will 

be under the same definition rule.

Fatality Rate:1.148

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 69

The target shown above (1.148) is calculated using the 2016-2020 five-year rolling average for 

fatalities shown in the first metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle miles 

traveled in 2019 and 2020.

Serious Injury Rate:4.309

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

The target shown above (4.309) is calculated using the 2016-2020 five-year rolling average for 

serious injuries shown in the second metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle 

miles traveled in 2019 and 2020.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:781.7

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

Pennsylvania’s current target is to reduce 2018 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries by one 

percent per year through 2020. The target shown above (781.7) is the five-year rolling average for 

2016-2020. This goal was established in conjunction with our Federal partners based on a 

combination of reviewing Pennsylvania’s historical data and observations of national trends.

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

safety performance targets. 

Every SHSP cycle PennDOT works with dozens of safety partners across Pennsylvania. During this process 

MPOs are involved in setting strategies and action items. During the SHSP the safety partners and PennDOT 

establish targets based on the FHWA 148 regulations. After statewide targets are set, PennDOT contacts the 

MPOs & RPOs about setting the planning partners’ targets and goals. This is accomplished by having many 

different in person, webinar, and conference calls to explain the HSIP program and the federal target 

requirements. After these meetings there is a letter sent to every MPO and RPO that details the State goals 

and how that would break down to each planning partner. The planning partners are then given a chance to 

adopt the statewide goals or develop their own. So far, all the planning partners have adopted the statewide 

goals. It is likely in coming years a few planning partners might start to set their own highway safety targets 

and goals.

The planning partners also work with PennDOT engineering districts to develop safety projects. The MPO/RPO 

can nominate locations for safety improvements and/or take a list the Districts develop and study options to 

improve safety. The projects are then entered into PennDOT’s HSIP application portal and reviewed. Projects 

that meet safety merits are added to MPO/RPOs’ transportation plans. The intention is that these projects will 

drive down the fatal and injury crashes and help the state and its planning partners reach our targets.

The Pennsylvania SHSO is a unit within PennDOT’s Highway Safety Section. So behavioral safety efforts are 

well known to the engineering side of safety. The behavioral side of safety and the engineering side of safety 

work with each other every day. The Highway Safety Section Chief directs the behavioral, crash data, and 

engineering units. The Highway Safety Section Chief ensures all three units are working toward the same 

goals.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 69

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 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. 

Based on the 2014-2018 data, we made significant progress on two of the five targets (Number of Fatalities 

and Fatality Rate). For the three targets that did not make significant progress (Number of Serious Injuries, 

Serious Injury Rate, and Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries), please see question 

34.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

The FHWA determined Pennsylvania must have the special rule applied. See question 41 for further details. 

Question 47 is locked from editing.

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

212 214 226 207 194 216 238

Number of Older Driver

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

262 271 284 252 420 422 472

These numbers reflect the count of drivers and pedestrians ages 65 and over and not all persons involved in 

the crash. 

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2008 

peaking in 2017. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

Fatalities/Serious Injuries. 2018 saw a slight decrease in licensed drivers for this age group but still the 2nd 

highest number on record. 

The number of serious injuries significantly increased after 2015 due to both the change in definition and the 

new title of this injury type. 2016 crash data included the change from "Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant 

"Suspected Serious Injury".
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 69

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Lives saved

• Other-3 FHWA Implementation Plans (ISIP, RDIP, SMAP)

• Other-Implementing proven systemic safety countermeasures

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Pennsylvania estimates based on a basic before and after crash data analysis that 99 fatalities have been 

eliminated on Pennsylvania highways by implementing HSIP safety projects from 2002 through 2015. This also 

resulted in a 2.55:1 benefit/cost ratio for all crashes.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Policy change

• Other-Reduced Fatal and serious injuries

• Other-Projects that result in a BCR over 1.0

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

We updated Publication 638 with new HSIP guidelines. Please refer to previous questions which discuss the 

new chapter 6 in Publication 638.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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)

Lane Departure 634.6 1,708.4 0.63 1.69

Roadway Departure 0 0 0 0

Intersections 270.2 1,244 0.27 1.23
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 69

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)

Pedestrians 168.4 394 0.17 0.39

Bicyclists 18 78 0.02 0.08

Older Drivers 289.2 671.4 0.29 0.66

Motorcyclists 181.2 576.6 0.18 0.57

Work Zones 21.2 50.4 0.02 0.05

Data 0 0 0 0

Impaired Driver 356.6 917.8 0.35 0.91

Seat Belt Usage 396 883.2 0.39 0.87

Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

475.2 1,152.2 0.47 1.14

Distracted Driving 63.6 306.8 0.06 0.3

Young & Inexperienced 

Drivers 

138 681.6 0.14 0.67

Local Roads 199.6 871 0.2 0.86

Commercial Vehicles 174.2 323 0.17 0.32

Vehicle-Train 3.8 2.6 0 0
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 69

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 69

These numbers include all persons in the crash. 

Starting in 2016 the terminology "Suspected Serious Injury" was adopted as per the Federal FAST Act. 

Noticeable differences from previous years appear for this injury severity although the definition did not 

drastically change. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 69

Starting in 2017, the Impaired Driver Crash flag began using drug test results in combination with alcohol and 

drug use suspicion to provide additional accuracy.

The numbers for "Older Drivers" reflect the count of all persons involved in a crash with a driver aged 65 or 

older. These numbers will differ from question #38. Young & Inexperienced Drivers includes drivers 16-20 

years old. Speeding and Aggressive Driving includes numbers from Speeding Related (speeding, driving too 

fast for conditions, or police chase) crashes.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

PennDOT does expect to complete some more countermeasure effectiveness evaluations in 2020. We are 

currently reviewing adaptive traffic signal controls for safety effects. The study will include 300 intersections 

and about 20 full corridors. The study should conclude in March 2020. PennDOT is also investigating all fatal 

and injury pedestrian crashes from 2015 to 2017 to determine the most appropriate safety countermeasures.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 69

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0140-0173 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 3.00 0.98:1

0140-INT Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

3.00 9.00 1.00 13.00 8.00 17.00 17.00 0.68:1

0120-0197 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

5.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 9.00 9.00 -29.76:1

0120-0090 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 88.00 124.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 89.00 110.00 180.00 241.00 -29.75:1

0210-0322 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

9.00 8.00 1.00 12.00 5.00 21.00 14.00 0.02:1

0220-0080 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

7.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 13.00 5.00 42.76:1

0230-0080 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

26.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 21.00 14.00 48.00 28.00 -45.56:1

0230-0220 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 0.52:1

0270-0322 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 -88.70:1

0370-INT Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 2.00 3.00 8.00 10.00 3.00 0.48:1

0320-0015A Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 0.06:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0340-0061 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway - other 6.00 17.00 2.00 1.00 24.00 23.00 32.00 41.00 -1.06:1

0380-1004 Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 2.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 3.00 -0.06:1

0320-0015B Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 0.00:1

0320-0015C Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - cable 73.00 73.00 1.00 51.00 42.00 124.00 116.00 -1.46:1

0840-0074 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 5.00 -0.18:1

0840-0425 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 -0.12:1

0920-2007 Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

4.00 6.00 13.00 6.00 17.00 12.00 0.16:1

1240-GDRL Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 104.00 3.00 5.00 93.00 205.00 19.11:1

0330-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 11.00 16.00 15.00 24.00 -17.35:1

0800-RMBL Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips - center 58.00 88.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 56.00 73.00 118.00 167.00 6.80:1

0800-HFST Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

79.00 43.00 5.00 63.00 52.00 142.00 100.00 0.91:1

0300-HTCB Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 93.00 108.00 1.00 2.00 60.00 66.00 154.00 176.00 -3.43:1

0300-HFST Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

4.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 11.00 14.00 -0.55:1

0900-RDIP Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

222.00 181.00 7.00 5.00 17.00 13.00 294.00 237.00 540.00 436.00 3.53:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0600-HTCB Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA)

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.00 215.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 5.00 84.00 114.00 101.00 336.00 -8.66:1

0600-HFST Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

134.00 96.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 237.00 191.00 379.00 292.00 3.27:1

0900-HFST Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

23.00 16.00 2.00 1.00 21.00 5.00 46.00 22.00 4.36:1

0210-ISIP Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

6.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 13.67:1

0280-RMBL Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

0.00:1

0920-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

10.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 6.00 26.00 18.00 3.79:1

1100-RAMP Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

234.00 246.00 2.00 9.00 11.00 322.00 310.00 567.00 567.00 15.32:1

0120-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

81.00 66.00 1.00 169.00 61.00 250.00 128.00 -0.25:1

0150-INT Urban 

Principal

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 6.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 11.00 9.00 -0.33:1

0220-INT Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 7.00 3.00 2.00 12.00 6.00 19.00 11.00 -0.32:1

0230-INT Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 11.00 21.00 1.00 3.70:1

0420-0307 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or shoulder 6.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 20.00 18.00 27.00 -2.38:1

0530-0378 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Roadside Barrier - cable 21.00 37.00 3.00 2.00 32.00 35.00 56.00 74.00 -0.69:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Freeways and 

Expressways

0820-0696 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

7.00 6.00 10.00 6.00 17.00 12.00 0.29:1

0830-0997 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

35.00 42.00 2.00 6.00 47.00 59.00 84.00 107.00 -50.26:1

0880-0072 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

10.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 17.00 22.00 28.00 36.00 -10.36:1

0870-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 12.00 20.00 1.00 1.00 38.00 35.00 51.00 56.00 0.26:1

0910-INT Rural Major 

Collector

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 0.08:1

0940-0522 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 4.00 8.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 9.00 15.00 -0.86:1

1010-0422 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 5.00 17.00 8.00 6.94:1

1050-INT Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

7.00 8.00 1.00 16.00 12.00 23.00 21.00 1.99:1

1110-0008 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

25.00 18.00 1.00 2.00 48.00 20.00 75.00 39.00 -2.19:1

1120-0051 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

32.00 41.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 8.00 49.00 129.00 87.00 179.00 -6.80:1

0270-BRDG Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

10.00 4.00 1.00 11.00 3.00 22.00 7.00 26.70:1

0530-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

71.00 79.00 2.00 4.00 95.00 135.00 166.00 220.00 -2.18:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1110-WDNG Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

51.00 63.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 62.00 55.00 115.00 119.00 3.99:1

0940-INT Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.14:1

0880-0422 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

177.00 233.00 3.00 1.00 10.00 11.00 318.00 274.00 508.00 519.00 15.79:1

0510-0183 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 3.00 11.00 1.00 2.00 26.00 10.00 32.00 21.00 7.17:1

0870-INT Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

4.00 2.00 1.00 11.00 3.00 16.00 5.00 0.74:1

0430-0118 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 0.04:1

0820-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

38.00 44.00 34.00 33.00 72.00 77.00 -0.27:1

0870-0741 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 4.00 5.00 1.00 19.00 8.00 24.00 13.00 1.41:1

1050-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

13.00 7.00 14.00 14.00 27.00 21.00 -0.22:1

1110-0008 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

73.00 69.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 139.00 108.00 218.00 183.00 3.11:1

1110-INT Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 73.00 43.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 135.00 76.00 214.00 122.00 17.51:1

0400-HFST Urban

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

21.00 13.00 2.00 2.00 37.00 15.00 60.00 30.00 5.04:1

0210-0099 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 10.00 12.00 1.00 6.00 8.00 16.00 21.00 10.59:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0330-0054 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

9.00 17.00 2.00 1.00 18.00 27.00 29.00 45.00 -1.26:1

0530-0100 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

22.00 11.00 1.00 2.00 34.00 28.00 57.00 41.00 0.16:1

0640-INT Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

33.00 29.00 2.00 41.00 51.00 76.00 80.00 0.14:1

1200-RMBL Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

41.00 48.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 8.00 68.00 76.00 115.00 137.00 -28.93:1

0320-0015 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 15.00 23.00 3.00 2.00 9.00 13.00 29.00 36.00 6.00:1

0320-0015 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 4.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.00 15.00 7.00 2.16:1

1120-0051 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

25.00 50.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 40.00 30.00 70.00 84.00 4.78:1

0810-0015 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

41.00 37.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 21.00 43.00 65.00 84.00 360.15:1

1110-INT Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

41.00 67.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 131.00 132.00 177.00 207.00 16.53:1

1040-0422 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

10.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 8.00 26.00 15.00 7.40:1

0920-3013 Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

9.00 7.00 1.00 27.00 7.00 37.00 14.00 0.80:1

0870-0222 Urban 

Principal

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

4.00 5.00 9.00 3.00 13.00 8.00 -0.17:1

0140-0208 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

14.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 31.00 27.00 46.00 42.00 -5.56:1

0850-INT Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

49.00 38.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 66.00 66.00 119.00 109.00 1.00:1

0140-SGNL Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

35.00 38.00 2.00 59.00 37.00 94.00 77.00 -1.30:1
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 69

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

1110-2040 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway - other 11.00 7.00 1.00 28.00 11.00 40.00 18.00 32.26:1

0290-INT Rural Local 

Road or Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

10.00 11.00 1.00 3.00 11.00 12.00 22.00 26.00 -1.05:1

0850-3019 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

6.00 23.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 18.00 24.00 42.00 -0.17:1

0650-0001 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new at 

intersection

186.00 226.00 23.00 31.00 35.00 35.00 1626.00 1698.00 1870.00 1990.00 -16.50:1

0650-0001 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

104.00 138.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 16.00 599.00 616.00 715.00 774.00 -3.08:1

Crash Costs are based on the FHWA report FHWA-SA-17-071 table 34 (page 63).

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate. 

PennDOT completes projects on many high risk rural roadways. Pennsylvania has a vast network of rural roadways and has completed many safety projects on these roads which vary from systemic treatments to spot location 

enhancements.
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 69

Compliance Assessment

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

 02/17/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

Pennsylvania plans on starting our next SHSP update process in late 2020 to have a completed document by the end of 2021.

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

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 95 100 75

Route Number (8) 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 1

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 95 100 75

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 95 100 75

Segment Length 

(13)

100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100

Access Control (22) 100
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 69

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

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 5

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 10

AADT Year (80) 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

8

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

98

AADT Year (80) 98

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100

Ramp Length (187) 100
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 69

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 95

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

95

Functional Class 

(19)

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 0.00 75.50 0.00 90.00 0.00 66.67 66.78 100.00 85.00

*Based on Functional Classification

These percentages are reflected by Function Class and not Jurisdiction. 

Segment Identifier - We have defined segments for 100% of Liquid Fuels local roads. We are working QA/QC on all 67 counties; as a county QA/QC is complete, we are segmenting non-liquid fuels roads. As of August 2019, nine 

counties are complete through segmentation, including all of District 9-0, five counties are in QA/QC process.

Urban Rural designation - This is collected for every state road segment. Local roads determine urban/rural based on the municipality code. 

Intersection/ Junction Traffic Control - PennDOT's Traffic Signal Asset Management System (TSAMS) currently stores all signalized intersections in PA including the city of Philadelphia. 

AADT/AADT Year - This is collected for 100% of the state roads. We have collected approximately 10% of this information for local roads. 

Ramp AADT (191) – The majority of PA ramps are categorized as 8,000 routes (100% ADT collected). The remaining are 9,000 routes (approx 55% complete).

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.

PennDOT is using HSIP set-aside funds and consultant support to help meet the requirement including the collection of traffic volumes at approximately 4,000 local-state road intersections.

PennDOT is also progressing towards a linear referencing system for local roads. PennDOT’s local road network is complete for all 77,718 miles of liquid fuel payment eligible roads and has been linked to our oracle database. We are 

continuing to work on integrating the local roads that are ineligible for liquid fuel payments. We have 67 counties integrated within the database and are in process of QA/QC for the entire state.

PennDOT plans on completing this by September 2026. Since this mandate requires a large spectrum of different PennDOT bureaus/divisions and IT services, there is not a lead group established to implement this federal requirement. 

To just collect local roadway traffic volumes will cost at least $18 million. This does not include a recollection of traffic data which would add to the cost. Expanding the traffic counts on local roads is currently being funded with $2 million of 
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 69

HSIP funds in FFY 20 and again in FFY 21. The additional cost for data integration and necessary IT upgrades to handle this FAST Act requirement are much higher. These costs could be around $50 million or higher. We are currently 

trying to find a way to fund this mandate over the next 7 years.

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

No

The last HSIP program assessment was completed in 2017. PennDOT provides yearly updates to the Pennsylvania FHWA Division office about areas identified for improvements. In addition PennDOT meets with the FHWA Pennsylvania 

division office monthly to discuss HSIP issues.

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2022
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 69

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Pub638_Final_signed.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:

Highway Safety Improvement Program PAR Final Report (MC) (26 July 2017) (Signed).pdf
2019 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 69

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.