Page 1 of 63

NEW YORK

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 63

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 33

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 34

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 34

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 47

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 49

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

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

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

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 52

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 58
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 63

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.” 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 63

Executive Summary 

This report is intended to satisfy reporting requirements under Section 148 of the Title 23, United States Code 

(23 U.S.C. 148) regulated under 23 CFR 924. MAP-21 and the FastAct reinforce the importance of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Emphasis Areas

The New York State Department of Transportation continues to concentrate on the emphasis areas outlined in 

the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The emphasis areas in the plan include intersections, lane 

departures, driver behavior, vulnerable users, speed and older and younger drivers. The plan also emphasizes 

emergency response, data and automated/connected vehicles as cross cutting issues that affect all crash 

types. Site specific projects at high accident locations and systemic improvement projects to decrease lane 

departure crashes and improve pedestrian safety are being implemented to meet crash goals.

The first ever statewide New York Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) was released in June 2016 and 

provides funds to improve pedestrian safety in urban areas. The PSAP adds pedestrian locations to the state's 

annual regional work program; implements pedestrian improvements systemically at approximately 2,400 

signalized intersections and 1,350 uncontrolled crosswalks and provides for pedestrian improvements on 5 

pedestrian corridors. The PSAP also includes statewide pedestrian education and enforcement initiatives.

The New York State Department of Transportation contracted with VHB to develop a new safety system called 

CLEAR (Crash Location Engineering and Analysis Repository). The CLEAR system will replace the existing 

legacy systems that are used to manage and analyze crash data. The systems to be replaced include: Safety 

Information Management Systems (SIMS), Accident Location Information System (ALIS) and the Post 

Implementation Evaluation System (PIES).

HSIP Fund Administration

NYSDOT is using a hybrid approach to manage the Highway Safety Improvement Program funds. 

Approximately half of the funds are provided to the NYSDOT regions according to a formula that includes 

crashes, population and center line miles. The remaining half of the funds are administered centrally by the 

NYSDOT Main Office and the Safety and System Optimization (SSO) team. These funds are primarily used to 

fund a statewide call for projects program as well as the statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP). 

Since FFY13 the statewide call for projects program has funded 113 state and local projects for a total of 

approximately $276M in HSIP funds. In 2018, the local call for PSAP projects funded 38 local projects for a 

total of approximately $40M in HSIP funds. The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes approximately $110M 

in HSIP funds to improve pedestrian safety at locations in New York State outside of New York City.

All Public Roads

The mandate to address the safety of all public roads has broadened the scope of work of the Department of 

Transportation and our partners, requiring a greater focus on emphasis areas in order to meet crash goals. 

The following initiatives support the "all public roads" mandate.

Projects on locally owned and state-owned roads are eligible for the call for projects programs. Crash data on 

the local system is available through New York's Safety Information Management Systems (SIMS). A local GIS

route system is being developed. The new CLEAR application will enhance the state’s ability to analysis crash 

data on the local system. Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 63

Performance Indicators

The FastAct further integrated performance into the HSIP program. States are required to report five annual 

safety performance targets. The 2019 safety targets for New York State are shown below.

Performance Targets for 2019 (5-year average)

Number of Fatalities 1,072

Fatality Rate 0.86

Number of Serious Injuries 10,987

Serious Injury Rate 8.62

Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2,726
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 63

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. 

Approximately 50% of HSIP funds in NYS are provided to the Regions according to a formula that includes 

crashes, miles and population. The other 50% of the funds are administered by the NYSDOT Main Office for 

the implementation of statewide safety programs.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

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

HSIP administrators are located in the Safety Program Management Bureau within the Office of Traffic Safety 

and Mobility in the Main Office. There are traffic offices in both the Main Office in Albany and in each of the 11 

regional offices throughout New York State. The regional traffic offices are responsible for program delivery.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

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

All public roads in New York State are eligible for HSIP funds including local roads and roads on tribal lands. In 

FFY16 approximately 50% of the available HSIP funds were allocated to the 11 regions in New York state 

based on a formula that included miles, population and crashes. The regions work with the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations to decide which projects to include in the capital program, including state and local 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 63

roads. Fifty percent of the Region 11 allocation was provided to New York City for safety projects on local 

roads owned by New York City. The statewide call for safety projects awarded HSIP funding to 16 local 

projects to be let between FFY16 - FFY20 for a total of about $40.5M in HSIP funding. The pedestrian safety 

action plan also provided $40M in HSIP funding for local municipalities to implement systemic treatments that 

improve safety for pedestrians.

All crashes on public roads, regardless of ownership are included in New York's crash data systems and are 

available for review and analysis. High crash locations on the state system are identified via an annual network 

screening process. Improvements to New York's data systems are underway that will provide similar analysis 

capabilities to identify high crash locations on local roads.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The New York State Department of Transportation formed a Statewide Safety System and Optimization team 

(SSO) with expertise in highway safety and system optimization. The multi disciplinary team is comprised of 

members from various Division and Regional Offices including Safety Programs Management and 

Coordination Bureau, System Optimization Bureau, Local Programs Bureau, Office of Modal Safety and 

Security, Policy and Planning Division, Office of Transportation Maintenance and Office of Design. The SSO 

team is responsible for the following: 

• Providing long term guidance on safety and system optimization to ensure consistency with program 

update strategies;

• Providing clarification and guidance to the 11 NYSDOT regions; 

• Developing technical guidance for safety strategies described in the program update; 

• Developing support materials for NYSDOT Regions in preparing safety program proposals; 

• Reviewing safety program proposals; and

• Monitoring regional programs over the life of the program to ensure safety and optimization goals are 

met.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 63

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA

Other-New York State Department of Health

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

New York State coordinates regularly with external partners on safety initiatives. For example:

• New York's 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan was developed in coordination with local, state, 

federal, tribal and private organizations throughout the state. 

• NYSDOT coordinated with the Governors Traffic Safety Committee, and the MPO's to define the 2018

and 2019 safety targets. 

• Conference calls are regularly held with MPO Directors, an MPO Safety Working Group and a Safety 

Working Group to coordinate and communicate ongoing safety efforts. 

• The core team that developed the statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan included members from 

NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, DOH and the MPOs. 

• The GTSC, FHWA, MPO's, local agencies and law enforcement are participating in the requirements 

definition for the replacement of New York's safety systems. 

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 63

Intersection

Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve 

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 63

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 road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations 

Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 63

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 63

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 63

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

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

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 are always eligible for HSIP. Local roads are typically identified via local authorities or 

municipalities. A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) local call for projects was initiated in 2017. The 

program provided $40M in HSIP for pedestrian improvements on local and county 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

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 63

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

Other-A project review and windshield survey is conducted as required by the SAFETAP program. Qualified 

staff decide upon the safety work to be done before, during and after construction to ensure safety is 

incorporated into maintenance projects. 

Other-Low cost spot improvements are often recommended as a result of a highway safety investigation. 

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 road projects are typically identified via local municipalities or through the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other- Many nominal safety improvements are incorporated into maintenance work 

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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).
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 63

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Crashes involving pedestrians 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Population 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc. 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

No
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 63

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities or through the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Intersection features; speed 

limit etc. 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 63

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 road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Median width 

Horizontal curvature 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 63

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

Other- CARDs are recommended for projects that will put >=40 mm of asphalt and meet the following: 1) there 

is no raised median or TWLTL, 2) the CARD quantity is >=1500'; 3) the posted speed >=45 mph; 4) the AADT 

>=2,000; and 4) the roadway width >=13'. 

Other-High risk factors for roadway departure crashes were identified in a statewide systemic analysis. 

Additional systemic programs will be investigated in the upcoming years to decrease roadway departures.

Other-New York is currently working on a Lane Departure Action Plan. The plan will identify specific 

countermeasures for implementation under specific roadway conditions to decrease the number of lane 

departure 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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

Other-Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) are an approved systemic treatment. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Rural State Highways 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 63

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Other-The State of New York's evaluation of HRRR aligns with 23 USC 148 (a)(1) and defines significant 

safety risks as having 'an accident rate per mile above the average crash rate per mile established for the region' 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 63

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Safe Corridor 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 63

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

Other-Signs needing improvement can be identified during a SAFETAP review or a Highway Safety 

Investigation. Some regions have implemented a replacement program where signs are replaced on a defined 

schedule.

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

Yes
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 63

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 road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other- Locations are identified 

where the percentage of wet road 

accidents is twice the normal 

proportion for the same county and 

facility type. 

Volume Functional classification 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 63

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Locations with >= twice the normal percentage of wet road crashes are identified and friction tested. 

Tested locations which demonstrate one or more low friction test numbers (FN40 of 32) are treated. 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Locations with low friction test numbers (FN40 of 32) require treatment. : 1 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 25 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Other-Pedestrian Countdown Timers 

Other-Pedestrian Improvements identified in the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 63

The percent of HSIP spent on systemic improvements varies from year to year. $110M of HSIP was set-aside 

for the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan in 2017. The plan includes the installation of systemic pedestrian 

treatments at over 3,700 uncontrolled crosswalks and signalized intersections on the state roadway system in 

urban areas outside of NYC. The plan also includes $40M in HSIP funding for systemic pedestrian treatments 

on local and county roads in urban areas outside NYC.

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

The future vision is that Connected Vehicle and Automated Vehicle technology will provide the opportunity to 

dramatically improve safety by decreasing the number and severity of crashes caused by human error and 

environmental factors on New York State roads. While guidance, testing, standards, legislation and best 

practices continue to evolve, it is important for transportation operating agencies to be involved in the national 

issues and take advantage of the technology as it is deployed.

New York State strategies noted in the 2017 SHSP include:

1. Remain involved in national activities that support the development of CAV technologies, standards and 

best practices, including the National Pooled Fund Study Group. 

2. Express support for the pending NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rule Making for V2V communications 

utilizing 5.9 GHz dedicated short range communications for light vehicles. 

3. Urge NHTSA to follow up with a similar Notice of Proposed Rule Making for heavy vehicles. 

4. Support, encourage and participate in the development of a New York State legislative and regulatory 

framework that allows for the testing and deployment of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. 

5. Support the development of national regulations for both light and heavy vehicles. 

6. Continue the networking of existing traffic signals and other roadside systems in a flexible, standardized 

framework. 

7. Improve and standardize GIS mapping and spatial capabilities using the New York State GIS Platforms. 

8. Continue to develop an understanding of the technology and short term and long term implications. 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 63

9. Support the fusion of the latest generation of automobile based sensor systems that provide advanced 

safety features such as automated braking, driver attention detection, forward collision warning, blind 

spot warning, lane departure assistance, etc. with V2V real time communications between vehicles to 

increase the vehicle's situational awareness. 

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

The states Safety Information Management System (SIMS) is used to identify High Accident Locations on the 

state system every year. The regions use the Highway Safety Manual as an additional source of information 

when performing Highway Safety Investigations.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

The vision and mission statements as stated in the 2017 New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan are:

Vision: Roads in New York will be safer to travel for all users.

Mission: New York safety partners will advocate for those who travel by any mode, and deliver data driven 

safety programs to decrease the number of injuries and fatalities that occur on public roads in New York state. 

Together we will work to ensure safety is a top priority in all engineering, education, enforcement and 

emergency medical service activities.

The 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan includes the following emphasis areas and cross cutting issues: 

Intersections, Lane Departures, Vulnerable Users, Age-related (older and younger drivers), Road User 

Behavior, Speed, Emergency response, Improvements to Data and Automated and Connected Vehicles

Intersections

From 2011-2015, 46 percent of fatalities and serious injuries in New York State were intersection-related. New 

York will take a multifaceted approach to solving intersection-related issues that considers the intersection 

design, accommodates users from all modes, and implements improvements both systemically and at 

intersections with a crash history. Examples of strategies include developing an Intersection Safety Action 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 63

Plan, implementing intersection treatments systemically, improving the enforcement of traffic laws at 

intersections and supporting the use of technology and traffic incident management to improve safety at 

intersections.

Travel Lane Departures

Lane departure fatalities and serious injuries made up almost one-fourth of the total fatalities and serious 

injuries in New York (24 percent) between 2011-2015. To address the wide array of contributing factors to lane 

departure crashes, New York will take an approach that considers both site-specific and systemic 

countermeasures, as well as opportunities for education and enforcement. Strategies include the development 

of a Lane Departure Action Plan, and the implementation of systemic improvements that decrease the number 

and severity of lane departure crashes.

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators

Engineering Instruction EI-13-021 lays out the framework and criteria for installing centerline rumble-strips on 

eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at least .75" of asphalt and meets the 

geometric/operating criteria is required to install CARDS as part of the project. Because of the low cost and 

proven effectiveness of centerline rumble strips, this new policy is an important tool in reducing both head-on 

and run-off road crashes. As of March 2018, approximately 4,148 miles of CARDS have been installed.

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP)

The SKARP program incorporates safety considerations into pavement maintenance activities. SKARP 

identifies sections of pavement experiencing an unusually high proportion of wet road accidents; friction tests 

them and schedules treatment for sections experiencing both high wet road accidents and low friction 

numbers. The frictional quality of NYSDOT owned pavements has improved since the program’s inception. A 

summary of PIL testing from 1996 through 2014 shows a decline in the number of sites requiring treatment, 

from 91 sites in 1996 to 5 sites in 2017.

Vulnerable Users

Vulnerable users include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and those who work on the roadway. New York 

will consider infrastructure improvements, as well as opportunities to enhance education, enforcement, 

emergency response, and data processes in its approach to reduce fatalities and serious injuries of vulnerable 

users of the roadway network. In June of 2016, NYSDOT announced its first ever statewide Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan. The plan includes Engineering, Education and Enforcement measures to improve pedestrian 

safety. Engineering improvements include the implementation of systemic countermeasures at thousands of 

signalized intersections and mid-block crosswalks in urban areas between 2016 and 2021.

Pedestrian locations were also added to NYSDOT's annual regional work program where the NYSDOT regions 

study 20% of the identified Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) each year to determine what improvements 

can be made to improve pedestrian safety.

Safer Corridors for Pedestrians:

In 2012 NYSDOT developed a process to evaluate corridors to improve pedestrian safety. To maximize 

effectiveness, the process emphasizes coordination among the Department and other local, state and federal 

partners. Solutions involve not only engineering measures, but also enforcement campaigns and educational 

efforts. The PSAP also includes pedestrian improvements at the following 5 pedestrian corridors:

1) Erie Boulevard, City Syracuse and Town DeWitt, Onondaga county

2) US 62 Niagara Falls Boulevard, Town of Amherst, Town of Tonawanda, Erie county
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 63

3) US 11, Village of Malone, Franklin county

4) Route 59/45, Spring Valley, Rockland county

5) Route 25A, Town of Huntington, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk county

Complete Streets

On a statewide basis, the New York State Department of Transportation continues to apply Complete Street 

provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes.

Pedestrian/Bicycle Unit

The Pedestrian Bicycle Unit has been working to develop a strategic planning dialogue with the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Coordinators in 11 Regions. The Unit provides coordination and staff support for the pedestrian safety 

initiatives and is managing an over-haul of the NY bicycle map. The project will integrate the existing bicycle 

network information in a single data layer and engage stakeholders in defining specific data and system 

requirements that will enable a more flexible and efficient management of bicycle travel options. The Unit also 

provides coordination/facilitation and technical/management support for the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan and 

the Empire State Trail statewide project.

Empire State Trail

Under a Governor Cuomo initiative NYSDOT is partnering with the Hudson River Valley Greenway to progress 

the Empire State Trail. The trail when completed in 2020 will be the largest statewide multi-use trail in the 

nation, The state will develop 350 miles of new trail to create a 750 mile trail spanning form the New York 

Harbor to the Canadian Border and from Lake Erie along the Erie Can to Albany. The trail will involve work by 

6 NYSDOT Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 and cover over 220 miles of on-road connections . NYSODT will also 

be issuing highway work permits for certain trail crossings throughout the State. 

Pedestrian Countdown Timers

Pedestrian crashes account for about 25% of all fatal crashes in New York and remain an emphasis area in 

New York State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The goal for pedestrian countdown timers is to ensure that 

they are installed at all eligible state-owned signals. As of the end of March 2018, countdown timers have been 

installed at approximately 2,697 (82.3%) of the 3,179 eligible signals.

Age Related

The SHSP identifies young drivers as those that are 20 and younger. Drivers that are 65 and older represent 

the older driver group. From 2011-2015, 7,881 drivers in both age groups were killed or seriously injured in a 

motor vehicle crash. During the 5-year period, 28 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes involved a young 

or older driver. Decreasing the number of age-related fatalities and serious injuries will be achieved through a 

multidisciplinary approach incorporating engineering designs to accommodate users of all ages as well as 

education and enforcement initiatives.

Road User Behavior and Speed

As advancements in vehicle and roadway design continue to improve safety, human behavior continues to be 

the biggest variable in crash risk. Creating a culture of responsible road users is essential to making a 

significant impact in the reduction of crashes, fatalities, and injuries. New York will implement roadway 

improvements that decrease the incidence of distracted and drowsy driving such as flashing beacons, and 

centerline and edge-line rumble strips as well as improvements that influence driver speed such as signing and 

speed feedback devices, roundabouts, complete streets and road diets. Education and Enforcement efforts are 

most important to build awareness and promote safer driving habits.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 63

Emergency Response and Traffic Incident Management

A traffic incident is any non-recurring event (such as a vehicle crash, a vehicle breakdown, work zone, or a 

special event) that causes a reduction in roadway capacity or an abnormal increase in traffic demand that 

disrupts the normal operation of the transportation system. Traffic incidents are an important concern in New 

York State because they can result in a safety issue and are a significant cause of congestion delays. In 

response to this problem, NYSDOT has fostered the development of a Statewide Traffic Incident Management 

(TIM) Program. A TIM Steering Committee was formed to guide the advancement of the statewide TIM 

Program in New York State. This Committee has been meeting regularly for 9 years to foster relationships 

among agencies, determine issues of statewide significance relating to TIM, and to develop training and 

guidelines for the emergency responder community to use in their everyday efforts to keep themselves and the 

public safe. The TIM Steering Committee assisted in the advancement of the Move Over law and also provided 

education on the law to executives and safety stakeholders. The Committee will continue to support similar 

efforts in the future.

Improvements to Data

Status of Crash Data

This report is based on crash data from the Fatality Accident Reporting System (FARS), NYSDOT's Safety 

Information System (SIMS) and NYSDMV's Accident Information System (AIS). Crash records and roadway 

characteristics are analyzed to identify Priority Investigation Locations (PILs). A highway safety investigation is 

conducted at 20% of the state PILs annually. Crash data has traditionally included fatal, injury, property 

damage crashes over $1,000 (reportable PDO) and property damage accidents under $1,000 (non-reportable). 

Additional factors used in developing the Priority Investigation Locations list are traffic volumes, divided or 

undivided and the number of travel lanes. All PIL's studied are on the State System with the exception of some 

New York City locations.

The Department continues to partner with the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV), the Governor’s 

Traffic Safety Committee, State Police and other key stakeholders to mutually re-engineer the accident and 

traffic violation records systems to address safety data information needs. The State continues to use a 

strategic planning approach to improve its various information systems as articulated in the Traffic Safety 

Information Systems Strategic Plan. The status of improvements that directly affect the Safety Information 

Management System (SIMS) are:

Crash Records

The fatal, injury, and electronically submitted Property Damage Only (PDO) crash data is complete through 

12/31/17. The policies surrounding the processing of PDO crashes have changed from year to year. Therefore, 

it is not possible to compare PDO crash data from year to year.

Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS)

New York State continues as an active participating state in the development and further refinement of the 

nationally developed software for electronic collection of ticket and traffic records. Use and Dissemination 

Agreements for use of the software have been signed by more than 492 different police agencies across the 

state in 57 counties. This represents more than one-third of all law enforcement agencies in NYS who have 

committed to using the software. As of March 31, 2018, 492 agencies are transmitting data through the TraCS 

system. The software reduces the workload at NYSDMV decreasing the time it takes to process each crash 

report.

CLEAR (Crash Location Engineering and Analysis Repository)
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 63

A new safety data transfer process that transfers data from NYSDMV to NYSDOT has been designed and is in 

development. The transfer process is phase one of a project to replace NYSDOT's legacy safety data systems 

with a new system called CLEAR. CLEAR will utilize the new safety data warehouse, integrate with the other 

NYSDOT enterprise systems, and enhance NYSDOT’s ability to perform safety planning, analysis and 

evaluation on all public roads. A CLEAR RFP was released in September 2017. A vendor was selected; a 

kickoff meeting was held in February 2018, and the first series of requirements workshops were held in May 

2018.

Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS)

The roads and highways implementation contract was approved in July 2013. The goal of the project is to build 

a statewide linear referencing network with maintenance workflows that are sustainable and integrate NYS 

business systems with the Enterprise Linear Referencing System. This will enhance the ability to perform crash 

analysis on all public roads. This has been moved to production with the Federal Aid Eligible roads built in the 

LRS.

Traffic Counts

Traffic count AADTs are required to develop crash rates for the state and local system. The Department has 

complete traffic volume data for almost 44,000 miles of the approximately 117,000 miles of highway in New 

York. The remaining 73,000 miles are primarily local streets. The Department and counties continue to partner 

in a statewide county traffic count program designed to capture traffic volume data on county owned roads. In 

2017, the Department took 2,438 traffic counts on 2,963.97 miles of non-federal aid roads.

Local Highway Route System

The local roads LRS build was completed and included in its entirety to the FHWA with the June 2018 HPMS 

submission.

Other

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP)

The SAFETAP, based on a Road Safety Audit approach, is designed to ensure that roadside safety 

considerations are incorporated in the Departments Preventive Maintenance single course overlay projects. 

Under SAFETAP, a team of agency experts conduct a project review of Preventive Maintenance Paving 

project sites to decide upon simple, low cost safety improvements to be implemented at the time of 

construction, or soon after construction. Over 9,800 safety recommendations have been made since SFY13/14 

and approximately 59% the recommendations were completed by the end of SFY16-17.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 63

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $153,582,000 $150,540,000 98.02%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$83,802,000 $83,802,000 100%

State and Local Funds $76,390,000 $68,900,000 90.2%

Totals $313,774,000 $303,242,000 96.64%

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

Data Source is NY PSS System.

Obligation amounts include status of actual and approved.

Programmed Funds include status of actual, approved and planned.

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

$29,125,781 

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

$24,056,781 

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

Source: NY PSS System

Funds reported include fund source Code E09 - local government unit with a safety worktype and HSIP on 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 63

locally let projects. 

Programmed includes transactions with a status of planned, actual and approved. Obligated includes 

transactions with a status of actual and approved.

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

$6,325,200 

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

$4,975,200 

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

Source is NY PSS

SubworkType Projects Include: 

Corridor Studies and 

Highway Safety Investigations

Programmed includes actual, planned and approved fund status's.

Obligated includes actual and approved fund status's.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

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

Impediments to obligating HSIP funds include project delays for reasons not limited to safety projects such as 

environmental approvals, right of way/easement issues, community issues, other funding needs, resource 

issues, historic issues, NYS permit issues etc. In addition, the Federal Obligation Limitation that exists on all 

Federal funding also serves as an impediment to obligating safety funds. The following describes some of the 

approaches used to overcome those obstacles for HSIP projects.

Statewide Call for Projects
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 63

The application process for the statewide HSIP call for projects requires an applicant to identify all potential 

barriers to a timely implementation. The barriers are one of the factors taken into consideration during the 

project selection process. Thus, a project with good safety benefits but significant impediments to a timely 

implementation may be denied funding in favor of another safety project with less risk.

Design Services Agreement

Design resources are sometimes limited at the regional level especially for larger projects. The department 

implemented a statewide regional design services agreement that can be used to fund contract services to 

assist with design or other urgent safety project needs. The contract is funded via HSIP dollars specifically set 

aside for that purpose. Design services agreements are also being used for PSAP field assessments and 

design.

Marchiselli

The department will continue to support programs such as the Marchiselli Highway Improvement Program 

which provides funding assistance to local municipalities for approved projects. The Marchiselli program 

requires state and local governments to share in the cost of approved local projects. The projects are typically 

funded in shares of 80% Federal, 15% State and 5% local.

Low Cost Counter Measures

The NYSDOT is encouraging and implementing more low cost and systemic safety counter measures which 

typically have less impediments to a timely implementation and are often easier for local municipalities to 

implement.

Toll Credits

Toll credits have been used for the local match for many HSIP projects. Using toll credits can assist local 

governments that don't have access to funds for the required match.

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

No
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 63

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

See uploaded file 0

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

Project list was uploaded via the General Listings of Project.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 63

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 1,158 1,201 1,171 1,180 1,202 1,041 1,136 1,025 994

Serious Injuries 12,988 12,802 12,012 12,163 11,609 10,874 11,077 11,501 11,124

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.870 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.930 0.810 0.890 0.830 0.803

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.729 9.754 9.405 9.486 8.948 8.412 8.706 9.356 8.990

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

338 347 350 353 382 314 353 351 297

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

2,572 2,656 2,599 2,725 2,696 2,378 2,240 2,407 2,256
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 63

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 63

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 63

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

Data Sources:

2009-2016 Fatalities: FARS

2017 Fatalities: TSSR preliminary

2009-2016 Serious Injuries: TSSR

2017 Serious Injuries: TSSR preliminary

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

Year 2017

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

17.8 115.2 0.01 0.09

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 63

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) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

4.4 18 0 0.01

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

52.4 312.2 0.04 0.25

Rural Minor Arterial 47.4 313 0.04 0.25

Rural Minor Collector 50.2 381.2 0.04 0.3

Rural Major Collector 52.6 418.8 0.04 0.33

Rural Local Road or Street 18.6 140.2 0.02 0.11

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

62.4 599.2 0.05 0.47

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

69.6 524.6 0.05 0.41

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

235.6 2,374.6 0.19 1.88

Urban Minor Arterial 235.6 2,550.6 0.19 2.02

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 96.8 1,061 0.08 1.01

Urban Local Road or Street 55.4 800.8 0.04 0.64
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 63

Year 2017

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 432.4 3,481.8 0.34 2.75

County Highway Agency 206.2 1,650.6 0.16 1.31

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

67.8 623 0.06 0.5

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

268 3,830.2 0.21 3.03

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.6 5 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 1.8

Other Local Agency 0.2 1.8

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 22.8 203.6 0.02 0.16

Local Toll Authority 0.4 18.6 0.02

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation 1.2 9.4 0.01
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 63

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 63

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 63

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 63

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 63

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 63

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 63

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

State

Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Local Park,

Forest or

Reservation

Agency

State Toll

Authority

UNKNOWN

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 63

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

An Unknown category contains 6 Fatalities and 91 Serious Injuries

NYSDOT’s Highway Data Services Bureau continues to build the linear referencing system to cover a greater 

proportion of the road network. The number of fatalities and number of serious injuries for the functional class 

“Urban Local Road or Street” increased substantially in 2017 because more miles of those roads have been 

built in the linear referencing system.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1072.1 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 63

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by 

using a linear trend line which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by 

FHWA. The 5 year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) was used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2019 forecast was generated using the 

FORECAST function in Excel. 3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by 

reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The targets are consistent with the 

goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Number of Serious Injuries 10987.0 

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by 

using a linear trend line which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by 

FHWA. The 5 year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) was used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2019 forecast was generated using the 

FORECAST function in Excel. 3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by 

reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The targets are consistent with the 

goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Fatality Rate 0.858 

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by 

using a linear trend line which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by 

FHWA. The 5 year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) was used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2019 forecast was generated using the 

FORECAST function in Excel. 3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by 

reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The targets are consistent with the 

goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Serious Injury Rate 8.620 

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by 

using a linear trend line which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by 

FHWA. The 5 year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) was used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2019 forecast was generated using the 

FORECAST function in Excel. 3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by 

reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The targets are consistent with the 

goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2726.0 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 63

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by 

using a linear trend line which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by 

FHWA. The 5 year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) was used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2019 forecast was generated using the 

FORECAST function in Excel. 3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by 

reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The targets are consistent with the 

goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

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

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

targets. 

NYSDOT communicates regularly with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the Governors Traffic 

Safety Committee during the target setting process. NYSDOT produces a fact sheet for the MPOs that 

identifies the targets and describes the process used to set them.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sourc

e

VMT rural 

collectors 

and rural 

local (in 

millions)

18,264 18,268 18,168 18,094 18,058 17,795 17,469 17,293 11,101 HPM

S 

The 

method to 

estimate 

local VMT 

changed 

for rural 

roads in 

2016 

making 

2014 vs 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 63

2016 

rates not 

comparab

le.

Fatalities 214 208 244 256 252 250 173 197 158 FAR

S 

Fatalities/10

0M VMT

1.1717

04

1.1386

03

1.3430

21

1.4148

34

1.3955

03

1.4048

89

0.9903

26

1.1391

89

1.4232

95

5 year 

average

1.0136

32

1.2927

33

1.3393

7 

1.3097

14

1.2689

48

1.2706

41

Rule does 

not apply 

since the 

rate for 

2016 

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 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

212 197 209 232 201 211 196

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

1,091 973 1,043 1,130 1,036 1,090 1,095

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 63

For purposes of this calculation, the terms "Annual rate, year XXXX" ( or AR, year XXXX") means the following

F + SI for drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age and older, year XXXX/Pop. of drivers and pedestrians 65 

years of age and older, year XXXX

1. Calculate Rate for 2016

Calculate the following to two decimal places, then round to the nearest tenth:

AR 2016 + AR 2015 + AR 2014 + AR 2013 + AR 2012

2. Calculate Rate for 2014:

Calculate the following to two decimal places, then round to the nearest tenth:

AR 2014 + AR 2013 + AR 2012 + AR 2011 + AR 2010

3. Compare Rates for 2016 to Rate for 2014

If the rate for 2016 (under step #1) exceeds the rate for 2014 (under step #2), the Special Rule applies.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 63

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

The fatality rate in New York has been below 1.0 per 100M VMT since 2007. The number of fatalities and the 

fatality rate have continued on a downward trend in New York at a time when many states are experiencing an 

increase. The number of serious injuries and the serious injury rates have been on a downward trend although 

the annual numbers were up in 2015 and 2016.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Policy change 

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 63

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 333.2 2,628 0.22 1.66 0 0 0

Intersections 418.2 5,577.2 0.26 3.52 0 0 0

Pedestrians 295.2 1,845.2 0.19 1.18 0 0 0

Bicyclists 41.8 615.6 0.03 0.4 0 0 0

Older Drivers 93.2 658.2 0 0 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 153.4 1,137.4 0.1 0.72 0 0 0
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 63

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 63

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

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

No

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 63

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

NYSDOT has a Post Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) that provides information such as crash 

modificaiton factors and before and after crash statistics on safety projects. Reports can be run at the project 

level or for specific countermeasures to see before and after the crash modification factors. Regions review the 

information on a regular basis.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 63

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)

Question is 

optional

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

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

No
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 63

Compliance Assessment

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

 06/13/2017 

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 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 99.8 31.4 99.5

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 99.8 98.7

Access Control (22) 100 100
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 63

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

99.1 84.3 24.9 16.8

AADT Year (80) 99.1 84.3

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

40.4 40.4

AADT Year (80) 40.4 40.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 63

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 80.4 59.7

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 80.4 59.7

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

99.89 98.17 47.60 47.60 96.44 92.67 84.03 90.70 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

NYSDOT currently has counts and year of count on approximately 4,456 out of 5,433 ramps. The plan to count the remaining ramps in the next two rounds of three-year traffic counting contracts starting in 2019.

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

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form several fields - see comments No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual several fields - see comments No see comments No see comments No

Crash Database several fields - see comments No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary several fields - see comments No see comments No see comments No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The Suspected Serious injury definition includes two injury types (crush injuries and paralysis) that do not exist on the Police Accident Report. Including those injuries in the definition requires that they be added to the Police Accident 

Report paper form as well as to the electronics TraCS form and the Accident Information SYstem (AIS). There are 3 fields in the Police Accident Report that are used to identify whether an injury is a serious injury of type A. The fields are 

Location of Most Serious Complaint, Type of Physical Complaint and Victims Physical and Emotional status. Because of the process involved and the IT resources needed to add the additional injury types, it will be problematic for New 

York to fully comply with the MMUCC 4th Edition definition of "suspected serious injury (A)" by April 15, 2019. The state is currently investigating methods that will make it easier to upgrade and change the NY crash application as 

requirements change. For example, New York is currently working on a project to replace the Safety Information Management Systems (SIMS), the Accident Locations Information System (ALIS) and the Post Implementation Evaluation 

System (PIES). DMV is preparing to create and RFP to replace the AIS (Accident Information System).

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

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

Yes
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 63

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

The HSIP program goals and outcomes are assessed regularly:

The state produces a report quarterly that reports the progress on statewide and regional goals and outcomes.

$150M in HSIP funds were obligated in SFY 17/18 (Source: NY PSS System)

341 Highway Safety Investigation were completed in SFY 16/17.

50 HSIP projects were let in FFY17.

CARDS were installed at 68% of the eligible segments as of the end of 2017.

Countdown timers were installed at 82% of the eligible intersections as of the end of 2017.

Approximately 280 safety improvements were completed as a result of the SAFETAP program in SFY 16/17.

HSIP projects completed in 2015 and entered into the Post Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) showed a 19% reduction in fatal and serious injuries.
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 63

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Project Implementation:

HSIP-HRRR 2006 through 3-31-18.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 63 of 63

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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