Page 1 of 60

MASSACHUSETTS
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 60

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 16

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 19

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 23

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 23

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 37

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 40

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 42

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 42

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 44

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 53

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 55
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 60

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of 

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 60

Executive Summary 

In 2009, under Safetea-LU, Massachusetts began obligating funds from the 

HSIP funding category, only after an HSIP Task Force was developed and HSIP 

guidelines were implemented. Through MAP-21 and now, through FAST Act, 

this program continues. HSIP projects and programs were, and continue to be, 

identified through our Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and consist of a 

combination of high crash locations, systemic projects and programs identified 

through the various emphasis areas of the SHSP. The program funds projects 

on all public roadways, not just State Highways, and it uses a data driven 

process to identify and select the projects and programs. The HSIP is a much 

needed program to bring down our fatalities and injuries in order to achieve 

our Towards Zero Death goal. This report summarizes the HSIP management 

and structure in Massachusetts as well as describing the selected HSIP 

programs and projects. New for this year, our report includes an evaluation of 

our HSIP program.
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 60

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. 

A Massachusetts HSIP Task Force was established in 2009 to develop guidelines for HSIP-eligible projects and programs. The Task Force consists of 

FHWA, MassDOT Highway, MassDOT Planning and MARPA (Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. An HSIP eligible 

project is one that contains a hot spot crash location (a cluster in which the total number of “equivalent property damage only” crashes in the 

cluster is within the top 5% of all clusters in a specific region), systemic fixes or any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent 

with the data-driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a 

highway safety problem. In the past, HSIP projects included infrastructure fixes, enhanced enforcement, awareness campaigns, data or other 

types. However, with FAST Act, only infrastructure fixes, enhanced enforcement in work zones and data improvements are allowed. More details 

can be found at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/HSIP/HSIP%20Criteria%20Updates.pdf. To see the 

HSIP eligible clusters, go to: http://services.massdot.state.ma.us/maptemplate/TopCrashLocations/. 

MassDOT Federal Aid Programming and Reimbursement Office and MassDOT Planning allocate the funds into various categories for the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), including Statewide HSIP funds and HSIP funds for each of the regions. HSIP projects are then 

selected based on the HSIP guidelines, the MPO processes, priority and readiness (regardless of roadway jurisdiction). Once an HSIP project has 

been identified on the STIP, an early requirement is a Road Safety Audit which helps to guide the recommended improvements.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic Engineering and Safety

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

There are no dedicated staff for the HSIP. This is just one of the many tasks done by the Safety Section within 

Traffic Engineering and Safety. However, there is assistance from staff within Planning, Operations, Project 

Management, District Offices and MPOs.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-combination 

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

Page 6 of 60

MassDOT Federal Aid Programming and Reimbursement Office and MassDOT Planning allocate the funds into various categories for the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), including Statewide HSIP funds and HSIP funds for each of the regions. HSIP projects are then 

selected based on the HSIP guidelines, the MPO processes, priority and readiness (regardless of roadway jurisdiction). Once an HSIP project has 

been identified on the STIP, an early requirement is a Road Safety Audit which helps to guide the recommended improvements.

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

The HSIP project selection criteria were based on locations being identified as top crash locations (based on 

the number and severity of crashes) regardless of road ownership. Additionally, programs were established to 

reduce injuries and fatalities based on several key focus areas based on our Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 

regardless of roadway jurisdiction. There is an ongoing Bicycle - Pedestrian safety program that works at the 

community level to address enforcement, education, awareness and infrastructure and in most cases, these 

areas are focused on locally owned roads. There were HSIP projects that addressed the specific needs of 

locally owned roadways based on the data showing that a high percentage of the fatality and injury lane 

departure crashes occurred on locally owned roadways. Finally, other eligible projects / programs were 

selected based on HSIP-eligible criteria such as statewide improvements to data or assistance with SHSP. 

These programs impact safety on all roadways regardless of roadway jurisdiction. This resulted in over $7 

million HSIP dollar spent on local roads projects.

 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Other-Please note that while the Governors Highway Safety Office is a partner with the HSIP, the agency is not 

internal to MassDOT

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The HSIP Task Force consists of seven members: 2 FHWA representatives (one from Massachusetts Division Office in 

Planning and one from the Massachusetts Division Office in Safety), 2 representatives from MassDOT Highway Division 

(Chief Engineer and Safety Engineer), one from MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning and two representatives 

from the Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs), the technical arm of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The 

initial role of the Task Force was to establish HSIP guidelines based on input and feedback from others. The continuing 

role of the Task Force is to meet annually or as needed, (“meetings” could be via email or in person) to review and 

update the HSIP guidelines. The HSIP Task Force does not select the individual projects / programs. Program and 

project selection occurs both in MassDOT HQ and at the regional MPO level (MassDOT District and MassDOT Planning sit 

on the MPOs). There is funding set aside for each MPO. The statewide HSIP, administered through MassDOT HQ, 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 60

involves systemic projects and high crash locations as well as programs and strategies based on the SHSP. The programs 

and strategies from the SHSP are developed through the SHSP Emphasis Area teams with input from many (both internal 

and external).

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members

Other-Advocacy groups

Other-Public Health

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

Strategies identified in the SHSP are HSIP eligible so our internal and external partners assist with development 

of the strategies in the SHSP. Furthermore, once programs are identified, our internal and external partners help 

to refine specific projects

Describe coordination with external partners.

All HSIP projects must be based on strategies identified in the SHSP which has been developed with the 

assistance from our internal and external partners. Furthermore, all HSIP-eligible projects require Road Safety 

Audits which ensures coordination with external partners. However, other than those two elements, there is no 

formal structure of external coordination. Rather, external coordination is on an Ad Hoc basis as needed. As an 

example of this is when we were developing the pedestrian/bicyclist safety campaign (a Statewide HSIP 

program), we developed a committee consisting of Governors Highway Safety Office, Public Health, MPOs, 

advocacy groups, local police and community officials, etc. to assist with the specifics and to guide the 

program. 

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?
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 60

Yes

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

File Name:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Roadway Departure

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

HRRR

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

There are many more programs administered under HSIP. However, the boxes checked are those that had 

projects/programs this year (although some were continuation programs). For the previous few years, 

Massachusetts has installed cable median barrier along thirteen divided roadways with traversable medians 

(based on width, grade, crash history, etc). There were no cable barrier projects for this year. Furthermore. 

Massachusetts is actively working on implementation of a dynamic Wrong Way Driving detection system to 

reduce the number of wrong way crashes. This will be implemented next year so more information and details 

will be made available then.

While pedestrian safety and bicycle safety are both major components to our HSIP program (both Emphasis 

Areas in our SHSP), we have not added any new pedestrian or bicyclists safety programs for this year. Our 

programs are continuations from previous years so will not be discussed here. Furthermore, with the increase in 

non-motorists crashes, we have developed new non-motorists programs (which will be reported on in next 

year's HSIP report) including a statewide marketing program to address non-motorist safety and improvements 

to address pedestrian crossings along bus routes since the majority of pedestrian fatalities and injuries occur 

along bus routes. 

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/3/2015 

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

Other-subject to HRRR rule 

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]
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 60

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-EPDO 

Functional classification 

Other-rural/urban boundary 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HRRR eligibility

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).

Other-readiness factor of HRRR eligible projects : 100

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

It should be noted that there are relatively few HRRR eligible roadways. Approximately 12% of the lane miles 

and 2% of the vehicle miles traveled are rural local or collector roadways and approximately 4% of the fatalities 

occur on these roadway. The roadways that are eligible for HRRR funds are only a portion of these 

roadways. Ideally, HRRR funds would be spent on systemic fixes. However, in Massachusetts, we must have 

roadway layouts to prove that all work will occur within the public way. Oftentimes these roadways do not have 

layout plans and there is no survey to verify all work will be conducted within the right of way. Given the tight 

time frame from when we are notified that the HRRR rule applies to us and the time in which the project must 

be advertised, we are limited with the type of work that can place. Therefore, our project selection is based on 

data (crash rates, EPDO, etc) but also based on readiness. The jurisdiction of the project is not a factor in 

project selection. In fact, nearly all of the miles in the HRRR projects for this fiscal year are under local 

jurisdiction.
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 60

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 12/31/2015 

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-EPDO 

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

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-MPO

Other-statewide selection based on ranking and readiness 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 60

Other-PROJECT READINESS : 1

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

All intersection locations selected must meet HSIP eligibility (top 5%) based on EPDO within each MPO. A 

map of the HSIP eligible locations can be found at: 

http://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/maptemplate/topcrashlocations. We recently completed development of SPF for 

3 legged and 4 legged signalized and unsignalized intersections so we will be refining the HSIP eligibility 

within the next year or two. It would be extremely beneficial to be using the systemic approach for intersection 

improvements (this was tried back in 2010 when FHWA advised us on a program for unsignalized intersection 

sign and marking upgrades) but was met with a lot of resistance due to right of way issues. We hope to resolve 

that issue so we can include the systemic approach to improving the safety of intersections.

 

 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 12/31/2013 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Crash rate

Other-crash frequency of this particular crash type

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

Yes
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 60

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-MPO for some projects and readiness for statewide HSIP projects

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

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

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

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

Other-readiness : 1

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

SPFs have been developed for two lane and multi-lane arterials and collectors in rural and urban areas and 

divided and undivided. However, the SPFs were based on the volumes contained in the road inventory file and 

the volumes, at the time the SPFs were developed, needed to be refined. The MassDOT Planning Section and 

MassDOT Traffic Counting Section are working to improve the volume data so that SPFs can be updated and 

used as part of the screening process. This will improve the selection of HSIP projects to better reduce fatalities 

and injuries along the roadways. 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 12/31/2014 

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

Other-Specifically called out in 23 U.S.C.148(a)(6) 

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 

Other-cycle of sign improvements 

based on 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 60

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

Other-cycle of sign upgrades

Other-on secondary roads, it is systemwide per district

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?

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-secondary roadways are systemwide and done by district

Other-interstates and principal arterials are selected by State Sign Engineer based on a cycle of replacements

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

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

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

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

Available funding : 1

Other-readiness : 2

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 0

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

apply.

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

During this Federal Fiscal Year, we do not have any systemic projects that were obligated. We have systemwide projects (such as retroreflective sign upgrades along secondary roadways and guide and traffic sign 

upgrades) but these are not systemic projects. In the past, we have used the systemic approach for cable barrier 

installations (based on certain median widths, grades and roadway volumes), flashing yellow arrow installations 

(based on lane configuration and signal phasing) and stop controlled intersection sign/marking upgrades (based 

on intersection geometry). However, we do not have any systemic projects for this year. We have been trying 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 60

to work with FHWA on a low cost short-term systemic approach but have met resistance regarding right-of-way 

issues. We were informed we cannot implement low cost short-term systemic countermeasures (like signs and 

pavement markings) without verification of all work being done within public layout. If no layout plans are 

available then survey would be required. Requiring survey, rather than certification from the road owner, 

means that the low cost systemic projects will no longer be low cost nor short term in nature. MassDOT had 

drafted a white paper explaining a process that could be used so that these types of systemic projects could be 

implemented. However, this approach was rejected. We are still looking for ways around this issue so that we 

can implement systemic projects in the future because, according to FHWA, "using the systemic approach 

agencies can better meet the requirements for the Highway Safety Improvement Program, identifying highway 

safety improvement projects on the basis of both crash experience and crash potential to reduce fatal and serious 

injury crashes on all public roads."

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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. 

MassDOT definitely considers vehicle to infrastructure technologies with regards to safety. However, no HSIP 

funds were spent on the V2I technologies during this Federal Fiscal Year. It should be noted that MassDOT has 

been working with WAZE to install beacons in our tunnel system. As drivers become more reliant on their 

GPS/smart phones for directions, there are more crashes occurring in our tunnels where GPS connectivity is lost 

and drivers are confused. The beacon technology will provide for an open platform seamless connection to 

navigation systems. While this is V2I technology, the beacons are being installed with no Federal 

dollars. WAZE is also being used as a pilot in our highway operations center as a means to improve incident 

response time. Initial results are proving this to be the case. MassDOT has been implementing smart work 

zone technologies that are designed to provide real time feedback to drivers regarding travel times and 

congestion information, incidents, temporary closures and other information that will enhance the safety of road 

users and workers. We continue to look forward to other technologies that will enhance safety and reduce 

fatalities and injuries on the public roadways.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 60

Yes

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

MassDOT has successfully used the Highway Safety Manual when evaluating design alternatives and design 

exceptions for HSIP projects. HSM methodologies have been used by MassDOT to evaluate HSIP projects and 

programs (conversion of signalized intersection to roundabouts, cable barrier installation, installation of traffic 

signals and traffic signal upgrades). With the assistance from consultants, MassDOT has developed SPFs for 4 

intersection types (3- and 4-legged signalized intersections and 3- and 4-legged stop controlled intersections) as 

well as certain segments types for the various functional classifications. While MassDOT intends to broaden 

the use of the Highway Safety Manual, we are also working with our Traffic Counting Section and the 

MassDOT Planning office to improve the traffic volume data so that network screening can be performed and 

SPFs can more easily be refined.

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?

No
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 60

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $30,888,696 $26,077,237 84.42%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$3,381,466 $7,252,948 214.49%

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)

$53,612,490 $64,886,509 121.03%

State and Local Funds $17,210,918 $19,961,835 115.98%

Totals $105,093,570 $118,178,529 112.45%

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

The above report of obligated funds was based on a run from FHWA’s Fiscal Management Information System 

for activity between 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016 and does not reflect the corrections that were made subsequent 

to the time period. As an example, a project was inadvertently initially obligated as HRRR but should have 

been general HSIP and other projects were inadvertently initially obligated as HSIP but were subsequently 

corrected to HRRR. These modifications were not reflected in the query of 2016 projects with activity during 

2016.

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

30%
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 60

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

33%

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

Projects are selected based on HSIP eligibility and readiness regardless of roadway jurisdiction. Of the 

$36,582,362 Federal HSIP funds programmed on the STIP, $10,002,567 of that was for locally owned roadway 

projects (including all 3 of the High Risk Rural Road projects). It should be noted that $3,438,500 of the 

programed Federal HSIP funds was for a placeholder for SHSP strategies on programs or projects that come up 

and could be allocated on any roadway as needed and was not included in the percentage 

calculation. Therefore, it is the locally programmed projects using Federal HSIP funds ($10,002,567) divided 

by $33,143,862 ($36,582,362 - $3,438,500) which equals 30%. Of the $31,056,509 obligated Federal HSIP 

funds, $10,152,899 were obligated for projects under local jurisdiction.

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

5%

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

2%

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

Typically, MassDOT maintains a line item placeholder on the STIP for "Various safety strategies to be 

determined based on the 2013 SHSP and updates". This line item is typically used for projects/programs that 

are shorter in duration to plan and implement (non-infrastructure, low cost systemic, etc.). The line item 

included $3,438,500 of Federal HSIP funds. It was conservatively estimated that half of the funds in that line 

item would go towards non-infrastructure projects/programs. With the passing of FAST Act, the use of HSIP 

funds for non-infrastructure was much more restrictive and therefore, only a small portion of Federal HSIP 

funds was obligated on non-infrastructure projects. There was $331,687.22 obligated towards a contract 

extension for technical assistance with the HSIP and $153,000 obligated towards privacy screens and work zone 

related safety materials. Therefore, $484,687 out of $31,056,509 (1.6%) was obligated on non-infrastructure 

projects.

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%
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 60

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.

There are two main impediments to obligating HSIP funds. One is project readiness. If a programmed project 

is not able to advertise (for any number of reasons), it is very difficult to just swap in another HSIP project 

because there are limited projects that already designed and ready to advertise. This could be because 

projects are rarely designed unless they are already programmed on the STIP and even then, they are 

designed and reviewed to meet the advertising date. So if a programmed project is not able to advertise, we 

are often left with a hole to try and fill in a replacement project.

The second major impediment to obligating HSIP funds is that we cannot develop low cost-short term 

systemic projects here in Massachusetts. We are not able to have local communities self-certify that project 

work all occurs within the public way. This must only be done with layout plans or survey. Therefore, any 

simple pavement marking and/or signage project (typically the low cost/short term type systemic projects) 

must include a survey which adds time and expense and precludes the short term / low cost projects. 

Based on the above two factors, it sometimes makes it challenging for MassDOT to obligate funds. This is 

especially true in cases in which we have short notice such as for High Risk Rural Roads Projects when we are 

informed 18 months before they must be obligated that we fall within the rule and must obligate a certain 

amount of money. It is too short of a time frame to develop a project (including ROW, environmental 

processes, etc.) so we struggle with what can be done.

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

No
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 60

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

(607246) ERVINGINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS AT 

ROUTE 2 & 2A

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

2 Intersections $59389 $551584.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,863 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(606620) Raynham to 

Bolton-Guide & Traffic 

Sign Replacement on I495

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

50.688 Miles $1828608 $7138686 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

105,810 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Older Drivers Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(608033) Barnstable -

Lighting & Landscaping 

off the at the Mid-Cape 

Highway (Route 6) 

Eastbound Exit Ramp & 

Route 149

Lighting Site lighting -

interchange

1 Interchanges $447643 $459905.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

12,350 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(607755) Weymouth -

Intersection and Signal 

Improvements at 2 

Locations: SR 53 

(Washington Street) at 

Mutton Lane & Pleasant 

Street

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add two-way leftturn lane

2 Intersections $1053342.76 $1101707 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

31,146 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(605385) Springfield -

Signal and Intersection 

Improvements at 

Roosevelt Avenue and 

Island Pond Road, 

Roosevelt Avenue and 

Alden Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

1 Intersections $1491489 $2458045 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,600 30 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(607735) HSI002S(935)X South 

Hadley - Signal and 

Intersection 

Improvements at Route 

202(Granby Road) and 

Route 33(Lyman Street)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add auxiliary 

through lane

1 Intersections $955333.04 $1061481.16 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

36,211 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(608169) HSI002S(922)X Dudley - 

Sign and Pavement 

Marking Installation and 

Upgrades and related 

work on Dresser Hill

Road (Route 31)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

4.1 Miles $458855.89 $50983988 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

2,900 40 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(606207) CM/HSI/TAP002S(926)X Spencer - 

Rehabiliation on Route 

9 (Main Street) from 

High Street to Grove 

Street

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

2 Intersections $957506.94 $3122905 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

20,515 30 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 60

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

(606910) 

HSI/CM/STP/TAP002S(943)X New 

Bedford - Corridor 

Improvements and 

Related Work on 

Coggeshall Street, from 

Purchase Street to 

Mitchell Avenue

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

0.66 Miles $763680 $3847368.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,271 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(608168) HSI002S(948)X Douglas - 

Resurfacing and 

Related Work on 

Webster Street (Route 

16), from T.L. (MM 2.8) 

to Main street (MM 6.9)

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

4.1 Miles $2880378 $3200420.2 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

5,915 45 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(607900) HSI/CM002S(927)X -PittsfieldTraffic signal and 

intersection 

improvements at Center 

street and West 

Housatonic street 

(Route 20). 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify 

intersection corner 

radius

1 Intersections $928971.7 $2372226.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

15,329 30 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(606118) New Bedford -

Reconstruction of Route 

18 (JFK HIGHWAY), 

from Cove street to 

Griffin Court (PHASE II).

Roadway Roadway - other 6 Intersections $298804.5 $9157334.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

29,985 45 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Integrate 

pedestrian safety 

activities with 

other plans. 

(607176) HSI002S(963)X;NHP(NHS)-

002S(963)X;STP(TE)-

002S(963)X;STP002S(963)X 

ShrewsburyNorthboroughWestboroughResurfacing and related 

work on Route 9.

Roadway Roadway - other 6.711 Miles $362192.97 $12404615.7 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

50,494 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(604699) HSI002S(959);CM002S(959);STP002S(959) SterlingIntersection 

improvements at Route 

12 and Chocksett road.

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

1 Intersections $470920.86 $4332104.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

20,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(608170) HSI002S(925)X Sturbridgesign and pavement 

marking installation and 

upgrades,limited 

roadway improvements 

and related work on 

Brookfield road 

(Route148),from I-90 to 

Brookfield T.L.

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

1.94 Miles $673138.13 $747931.25 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

7,723 50 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 60

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

(604864) HSI/CM002S(941)X 

WestboroughIntersection and Signal 

Improvements at Route 

9 and Lyman Street

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add auxiliary 

through lane

1 Intersections $3212764.49 $7681882.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

60,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(607539) HSI002S(961)X Shelburne 

- Intersection 

Improvements at Route 

2 and Colrain/Shelburne 

Road

Roadside Drainage 

improvements

0.383 Miles $1216429.96 $1351588.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,253 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(607495) HSI -002S-

(972)X -District 4 & 5 - 

Retroreflective Sign 

Upgrade on Secondary 

Roads

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

0 Miles $945208 $1050168.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(607409) Lexington -

Reconstruction on 

Massachusetts Avenue, 

from Marrett Road to 

Pleasant Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

general retiming

3 Intersections $2622423.83 $3848030.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,370 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(607753) HSI002S(954)X -Barnstable 

- Intersection and Signal 

Improvements at Route 

28 (Falmouth Road & 

Strawberry Hill Road)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - leftturn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

1 Intersections $879601.47 $977334.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,800 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(608407) Lawrence -

Traffic Signal and ADA 

Improvements on 

Common Street and 

Lowell Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

signal 

coordination

1 Intersections $875340 $2371197 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,280 30 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(607918) HSI002S(974)X District 5 - 

Guide & Traffic Sign 

Replacement & Related 

Work on a Section of 

US Route 6 (Mid-Cape 

Highway)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

33.89 Miles $1784174.4 $2002898 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

56,130 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Older Drivers Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 

(606036) Brockton -

Signal & Intersection 

Improvements at Route 

123 /(Belmont 

Street/Linwood 

Street/Lorraine 

Avenue))

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

realignment to 

align offset cross 

streets

1 Intersections $506895.3 $3468003.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

24,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate safety

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintainence. 

(601630) WeymouthAbington - 

Reconstruction & 

Widening on Route 18 

(Main Street) from 

Highland Place to Route 

139 (4.0 miles) includes 

replacing W-32-013, 

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

4.31 Miles $926325 $56746003 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

39,730 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Incorporate safety 

elements into 

roadway design 

and maintainence. 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 60

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

Route 18 over the Old 

Colony Railroad (MBTA)

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

Please note, any project listed with an ADT of 0 denotes a project with multiple locations ((607495) HSI -002S-(972)X -District 4 & 5 - Retroreflective Sign Upgrade on Secondary Roads). 

Please note, all ADTs for intersections are the major roadway + the minor roadway.

Please note, all speed limits are posted speeds or default speed limits (if none are posted)

Please note, Total costs are the total Federal Participating Construction Costs
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 60

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatalities 434 364 339 345 374 382 350 354 345

Serious Injuries 4,182 3,983 3,392 3,437 3,577 3,587 3,197 3,031 2,867

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.788 0.668 0.618 0.635 0.683 0.683 0.622 0.615 0.602

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.594 7.308 6.188 6.322 6.528 6.412 5.677 5.267 5.003

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

78 94 55 85 81 102 94 88 97

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

331 332 357 394 440 503 420 470 409
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 26 of 60

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

The serious injury data is based on the statewide Crash Database System (CDS). However, the 2015 data are 

not yet finalized. Duplicates have not yet been removed, a small number of reports could still be 

entered. However, the file is mostly complete so it was used. Also, the 2015 fatal data is based on the draft 

FARS data and will be updated when the final closeout is made available.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

We use FARS data. However, because of the significant differences between what is published on the FARS 

website (draft information) vs. the final FARS information, one may not be able to query the FARS website and 

obtain the same results as what we have used from the final FARS dataset (which we obtained from FARS 

unit). 

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

Year 2015

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

2.4 15.2 0.29 1.85

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 60

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 -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 5 0 4.4

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

4.2 13 1.38 4.23

Rural Minor Arterial 6.2 25 1.43 5.79

Rural Minor Collector 3 10.2 2.6 8.8

Rural Major Collector 8 40 1.7 8.68

Rural Local Road or Street 5 29 0.92 5.21

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

45.4 237.6 0.29 1.49

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

23.6 115.8 0.41 2

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

95.4 1,014.2 0.83 8.82

Urban Minor Arterial 99.4 981.8 1.04 10.36

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street 26.8 284 0.34 3.61

Urban Collector (combined 

major + minor)

30.2 320.2 0.98 10.46

Unknown 12.4 172.4 0 0
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 60

Year 2015

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 142 918 0.46 2.95

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.2 1 0.24 1.22

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 8 71 0.9 7.98

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

4 35.4 0.33 2.9

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

0 0.6 0 4.57

Indian Tribe Nation

City OR Town Highway 

Agency

192.6 2,038.6 0.84 8.95

Unknown jurisdiction (not 

geocoded)

15.2 197.6 0 0

Other Federal Agency 

(military, institutional, etc)
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 60

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 60

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 60

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

information.

Vehicle mile traveled data are taken from the Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy Information 

website https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm2.cfm (link shown for 2007 but also used 

2008-2015). This information was used for the VMTs for functional classification. The VMTs for jurisdiction 

were based on information provided by MassDOT Planning and is based on a brand new tool.

• The fatality data for functional classification came from FARS and the fatality data for jurisdiction was obtained 

from the Statewide Crash Database System (CDS). The serious injury data for functional classification and for 

jurisdiction was obtained from CDS.

• Prior to 2010, crash data for Rural Principal Arterial Other Freeways and Expressways were combined with the 

Rural Principal Arterial Other category because there was no distinction being made between these two categories 

in the volume data. For simplicity, numbers are being reported in the Rural Principal Arterial Other for 2007-

2009.

• Although the crash data is separated by urban major and minor collector, the VMTs are not and therefore, the two 

categories were combined.

• Prior to 2009, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and MassHighway Department were separate entities. In 

2009 they were consolidated into MassDOT and the jurisdiction reflects as such “State Highway Agency” 

•

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

elaborate?

No

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 60

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 352.0 

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

FHWA guidance is to start with a trend line then consider external factors and planned 

implementation in order to set targets. Based on the trend line, the predicted number of 

fatalities for 2014-2018 yearly average would be 352.3 per year, down from 361 for 

2011-2015 yearly average. There are certainly external factors, some specific to 

Massachusetts and others that are applicable nation-wide, that will impact the trend 

line (positively and negatively). Examples include: a recent State recreational 

marijuana law (in the process of implementation), a reduction in the prima facie speed 

limit law for thickly settled areas , anticipated changes in other roadway safety laws in 

the near future, increasing trend of distraction by all road users, advent of new vehiclevehicle and vehicle-infrastructure safety-related technology with more common everyday use, and others. Meanwhile, MassDOT has been implementing strategies and 

countermeasures identified in the SHSP. An evaluation of specific HSIP-funded 

projects completed prior to 2013 indicated that fatal and injury crashes have been 

reduced by 36 percent compared to what was to be expected had the safety 

improvements not been implemented. While an evaluation of all HSIP projects is not 

yet possible, this shows that implementation of safety countermeasures does have a 

significant impact on the number of fatalities. As the countermeasures evolve and 

become more efficient, effective and better integrated, the fatalities are expected to 

further decrease. Therefore, the external factors and countermeasure implementation 

will impact the trend line. However, for this first effort at safety performance target 

setting, Massachusetts will stick with the trend line as a prediction of 352.3 annual 

fatalities per year for 2014-2018. Through coordinated processes with our Annual 

Performance Report (Tracker) and the update of our SHSP (to be completed in 2018), 

we anticipate proposing future targets that take external factors into account. 

Moreover, it should be noted that our goal is towards zero deaths and we will continue 

to work towards that goal. 

Number of Serious Injuries 2896.0 

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

FHWA guidance is to start with a trend line then consider external factors and planned 

implementation in order to set targets. Based on the trend line, the predicted number of 

serious injuries for 2014-2018 yearly average would be 2895.9 per year, down from 

3251.8 for 2011-2015 yearly average. There are certainly external factors, some 

specific to Massachusetts and others that are applicable nation-wide, that will impact 

the trend line (positively and negatively). Examples include: a required change in 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 60

reporting and definition of serious injuries on the crash report, a recent State 

recreational marijuana law (in the process of implementation), a reduction in the prima 

facie speed limit law for thickly settled areas, anticipated changes in other roadway 

safety laws in the near future, increasing trend of distraction by all road users, advent 

of new vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure safety-related technology with more 

common every-day use and others. Meanwhile, MassDOT has been implementing 

strategies and countermeasures identified in the SHSP. An evaluation of specific 

HSIP-funded projects completed prior to 2013 indicated that fatal and injury crashes 

have been reduced by 36 percent compared to what was to be expected had the safety 

improvements not been implemented. While an evaluation of all HSIP projects is not 

yet possible, this shows that implementation of safety countermeasures does have a 

significant impact on the number of serious injuries. Therefore, the external factors 

and countermeasure implementation will impact the trend line. However, for this first 

effort at safety performance target setting, Massachusetts will stick with the trend line 

as a prediction of 2895.9 annual serious injuries per year for 2014-2018. Through 

coordinated processes with our Annual Performance Report (Tracker) and the update 

of our SHSP (to be completed in 2018), we anticipate proposing future targets that 

take external factors into account. Moreover, it should be noted that our goal is 

towards zero deaths and we will continue to work towards that goal. 

Fatality Rate 0.610 

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

Similar to the process for simply using the trend line as our target for fatalities in 

Massachusetts, our first target setting for annual fatality rate (fatalities per 100 million 

vehicles miles traveled) for 2014-2018 data, will simply use the trend line although 

that is not our goal. Our goal continues to be towards zero deaths. The predicted 

fatality rate for 2014-2018 yearly average would be 0.611 per year, down from 0.641 

for 2011-2015 yearly average. As mentioned for the previous measures, there are 

external factors and implementation of safety countermeasures that will impact the 

rate change, but for the first target stetting we are simply showing the trend line 

projections. In the coming year we will work to refine this target and coordinate it 

based on related efforts (e.g. our Annual Performance Report and the SHSP update). 

Serious Injury Rate 5.010 

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

Similar to the process for simply using the trend line as our target for serious injuries 

in Massachusetts, our first target setting for annual serious injury rate (serious injuiries 

per 100 million vehicles miles traveled) for 2014-2018 data, will simply use the trend 

line although that is not our goal. Our goal continues to be towards zero deaths. The 

predicted serious injury rate for 2014-2018 yearly average would be 5.01 per year, 

down from 5.78 for 2011-2015 yearly average. AS mentioned for the previous 

measures, there are external factors and implementation of safety countermeasures that 

will impact the rate change but for the first target stetting we are simply showing the 

trend line projections. In the coming year we will work to refine this target and 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 60

coordinate it based on related efforts (e.g. our Annual Performance Report and the 

SHSP update). 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 540.8 

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

As with all the other target setting measures, FHWA’s guidance is to start with a trend 

line then consider external factors and planned implementation in order to set targets. 

If one were to simply use the trend line, the predicted number of fatalities and serious 

injuries for non-motorists for 2014-2018 yearly average would be 618.9 per year, UP 

from 540.8 for 2011-2015 yearly average. As mentioned earlier, there are certainly 

external factors that would impact the trend line (positively and negatively) and 

implementing countermeasures also impacts the projections. MassDOT and other 

agencies and entities are building infrastructure to promote and increase active 

transportation which increases the exposure of the non-motorists. It should be clear 

that the target is towards zero deaths/injuries and not an increase. With 1 in 4 fatalities 

on Massachusetts roadways involving non-motorists and an apparent increase in 

walking and cycling (although non-motorist vehicle miles traveled cannot yet be 

quantified), Massachusetts is upping efforts to stem that trend. Several projects and 

multi-agency programs have been implemented (after the Federal Fiscal Year 

reporting period for this report ended) that will hopefully help to turn the trend. As the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan is developed over the next year and the Pedestrian 

Emphasis Area and Bicyclist Emphasis Area are refined, new multi-disciplined and 

multi-agency strategies will be developed and implemented. There will also be an 

increased effort to attempt to resolve some issues so that systemic projects could be 

implemented which would help to bring down the non-motorist fatalities and serious 

injuries. Therefore, although our current trend line shows a projected increase in nonmotorist fatalities and serious injuries, our goal is to reverse the trend and move 

towards zero deaths by dramatically reducing the numbers. In the coming year we will 

work to refine this target and coordinate it based on related efforts (e.g. our Annual 

Performance Report and the SHSP update). So while the trend line indicates 618.9 

fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists for 2014-2018 yearly average, 

Massachusetts’ short term target is to stem the trend of increasing fatalities and 

injuries and therefore, is using the current 5 year average of 540.8 non-motorist 

serious injuries or fatalities 2014-2018. 

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. 

The Transportation Manager’s Group (TMG) performance measures subcommittee was established in 2016 and is comprised of 

Regional Planning Agency (the technical arm for each MPO) representatives, MassDOT and FHWA to coordinate the establishment of 

state performance measure targets and potential MPO adoption of those targets. The subcommittee meets on a monthly basis to 

discuss progress made on target setting and to obtain input from the RPA staff. The subcommittee has discussed and reviewed the 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 60

establishment of MassDOT’s safety performance measures and will continue to work with the MPOs on the adoption of their targets 

to ensure that the regional targets are complimentary to the Commonwealth’s measures. In December 2016, FHWA brought in a 

consultant to facilitate a statewide discuss on safety performance target setting with MassDOT, Executive Office of Public Safety and 

Security (the SHSO Massachusetts), MPOs and others. In that meeting, Massachusetts was praised for the collaborative work 

between MassDOT and the SHSO (our agencies regularly meet to discuss and coordinate trend line data and targets) and between 

MassDOT and the MPOs. This collaboration will continue.

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? 

Yes

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

MassDOT received a memo from FHWA on January 13, 2017 stating that Massachusetts is subject to the High 

Risk Rural Road Rule because 2011-2015 has a higher rural fatality rate than 2009-2013 and therefore 

Massachusetts must obligate $2,273,676 in Federal Fiscal Year 2018. Ideally, these funds would be spent on 

lower cost systemic projects. However, as previously explained in response to other questions in this report, 

Massachusetts has a difficult time developing systemic projects because of right-of-way issues. Therefore, our 

HRRR projects are mostly restricted to spot improvements. HRRR eligible roads were screened for EPDO and 

Milestone Road in Nantucket was identified as a viable HRRR project for 2018. Shortly thereafter, a road 

safety audit was performed and countermeasures identified. The proposed safety enhancements include 

pavement markings and signs along Milestone Road and the adjoining bike path as well as upgrading three 

intersections. Design is under way. 

It should be noted that Massachusetts was subject to the HRRR Rule in the previous year as well. For Federal 

Fiscal Year 2017, rural collector roadways in three communities will get signage and marking upgrades as well 

as other safety enhancements to minimize the road departures along these roadways (totally approximately $1.1 

million). Additionally, approximately $350,000 will be used to upgrade a crash geocoding and analytics tools 

that will help to better identify crashes along rural roads (well all roads) and to simplify the crash analytics 

process so HRRR projects could be better identified and police departments and others can use to analyze crash 

data (particularly helpful in more rural areas). An additional $900,000 will be spent on design contracts to 

advance several HRRR eligible projects.

Massachusetts was also subject to the HRRR Rule for Federal Fiscal Year 2016 and the projects are described 

in this report. 

 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 60

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

46 56 70 81 73 60 65

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

243 283 284 319 271 271 276

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 60

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-combination 

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

MassDOT utilizes most of these measures for evaluations in varying contexts. For site-level evaluations, 

effectiveness is measured using the change in fatalities and serious injuries (along with the change in total 

crashes, fatal plus injury crashes, and target crashes). For project-level evaluations, both changes in fatal and 

serious injury crashes and benefit/cost ratios are used. Benefit/cost ratios are used on countermeasure-level 

evaluations, as these provide the most useful information for future consideration of the countermeasure.

When possible, these evaluations are done using the empirical Bayes before-after methodology, ideally with a 

comparison group. This method accounts for regression-to-the-mean and changes in traffic volume between 

the before and after period. If the data requirements for EB are prohibitive, naïve before-after analyses are 

used, adjusted for traffic volume or using a comparison group if possible. Both provide the ability to compare 

the crashes observed in the after period with the amount expected. This measure can be used to both 

estimate a Crash Modification Factor for use in the Commonwealth and calculate benefits for a the calculation 

of a benefit-cost ratio.

We have not yet considered the effectiveness on lives saved of certain HSIP program-level projects, such as 

crash data improvements, marketing campaigns, SHSP assistance, etc.

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

level evaluations.

MassDOT has evaluated, using Empirical-Bayes Before-After methodology, nearly all HSIP funded projects 

completed prior to 2013. Summing the results of these evaluations indicates that these projects have resulted 

in the prevention of 67 fatal or injury crashes, 36 percent less than would be expected had the projects not 

been implemented. Having observed 122 fatal or injury crashes compared to 189.4 expected for 23 projects 

with an average evaluation period of 3.6 years, this comes to roughly 18.5 fatal or injury crashes per year in 

the evaluation periods for these projects.

MassDOT’s HSIP efforts have predominantly focused on roadway departure crashes and intersection 

safety. Countermeasure evaluations have been performed to analyze the effect of these project types. Below 

is a brief discussion of these results, while more detailed dialogue can be found in Question 44.

MassDOT’s roadway departure efforts have been focused on preventing cross-median crashes, which tend to 

be of high severity. To lower the frequency of these crashes, MassDOT has made an effort to identify divided 

highway segments with open, traversable medians with the potential for cross-median crashes. Median cable 

barrier has been installed at these sites. Roughly 40 miles of roadway have been treated with median cable 

barrier, which, though sounding like a small number, accounts for more than half of the miles of limited-access 

divided highway with open median in the Commonwealth. MassDOT’s countermeasure evaluation of the 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 60

treatment has indicated that cross median crashes have been decreased by 72 percent on these segments. It 

is anticipated that this treatment will result in the prevention of 3 fatal cross-median crashes and 20 

incapacitating injury cross-median crashes over 20 years on these treated segments. 

From a statewide perspective, Massachusetts has seen a steady decline in the total and rate of fatal and 

incapacitating injury roadway departure crashes.

The majority of MassDOT’s HSIP funded projects are related to intersection improvements. For this evaluation 

period, most of these have been sorted into three countermeasure evaluations: conversion from minor stopcontrol to roundabout, conversion from minor stop-control to signalized intersection, and improvements to 

already signalized intersections. Evaluations have shown that these projects have successfully reduced multivehicle crashes, specifically angle crashes. They have also shown reductions in fatal-plus-injury 

crashes. MassDOT has shown that a $1 million investment in signalized intersection improvements can 

prevent 7 fatal, incapacitating, or non-incapacitating injury crashes over 20 years. If $1 million is used to 

convert a minor-stop control intersection to a roundabout, that money should prevent 2 fatal or incapacitating 

injury crashes over 20 years, whereas if a signal is installed it can prevent over 100 overall crashes.

From a statewide perspective, Massachusetts has seen good news regarding fatal and incapacitating injury 

crashes at intersections. The recent trend seen in moving 5-year average of fatal crashes and fatal crash rate 

at intersections has started to decrease, a change from the small yet steady increase seen between 2008 and 

2013. Meanwhile, the trend of incapacitating injury crashes at intersections has continued its steady 

decrease.

Massachusetts has seen steady decreases in roadway departure and intersection fatal or incapacitating injury 

crashes. However, we have recently seen increases in fatal and incapacitating injury crashes involving nonmotorists (pedestrians and cyclists). As a result, while Massachusetts continues to focus on roadway 

departure and intersection crashes, we are increasing our efforts to focus resources on making our roadway 

network safer for all road users including pedestrians and bicyclists. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

HSIP Obligations 

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

As per MassDOT’s Traffic and Safety Engineering 25% Design Submission Guidelines, “If all or a portion of the 

project area is considered HSIP-eligible, the Safety Review shall be replaced with a Road Safety Audit (RSA) for 

the specific area. The Road Safety Audit shall be conducted in accordance with MassDOT Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and shall be conducted prior to developing the 25% Design Plans.” We do track and publish the 

number of RSAs conducted during the year and, this year, 61 RSAs were completed. The requirement for an 

RSA not only helps to guide a project with the most appropriate corrective safety measures but also helps to 

raise awareness of roadway safety. The value of including RSAs in the early phases of a project has been 

realized over and over again to the point where oftentimes designers are conducting RSAs, even when not 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 60

required. Therefore, increasing the number of RSAs has increased awareness of safety and of the data driven 

process.

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 2015

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

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 203.8 696.8 0.36 1.24

Intersections Intersections 97.4 1,280.2 0.17 2.28

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 76.4 336.2 0.14 0.6

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 9.4 112.2 0.02 0.2

Motorcyclists motorcyclist 

involved crashes

48.8 326 0.08 0.58

Older Driver Related crashes involving 

older drivers

71.6 595.2 0.13 1.06

Younger Driver Related

(15-20)

crashes involving 

younger drivers

41.4 516 0.07 0.92

Trucks Truck-related 36.2 197.8 0.06 0.35
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 60 

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

Note that Roadway Departure includes both intersection and non-intersection.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 60

"Trucks" also include buses and for the fatalities the 2007-2010 data comes from FARS and the 2011-2015 

comes from MCMIS.

Work zone data for serious injuries was not compiled due to the quality of the data in this field and is listed as 0

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

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Median Cable Barrier 

Description: 

The Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT) has 

performed a safety evaluation of fourstrand high tension median cable 

barriers installed in previously open 

medians along 21 segments on 9 

sections totaling 33 miles of limitedaccess urban and suburban freeways 

and expressways throughout the state, 

with the intention of developing a 

Crash Modification Factor (CMF) for 

the treatment and performing an 

economic analysis to assess the 

treatment’s viability. 

Target Crash Type: Cross median 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 33 

Years Before: 3.0 

Years After: 3.33 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 

The effect of the median cable barrier 

on cross-median crashes was evaluated 

using an Empirical-Bayes 

Before/After with Comparison group 

methodology. The analysis indicated 

that the treatment results in a 72% 

reduction in cross-median crashes on 

divided freeway non-interchange 

segments. This means the treatment 

has a CMF of 0.28 with a standard 

error of 0.11. It is estimated that over 

the 20-year lifetime of the treatment 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 60

sites the median cable barrier will 

prevent 3 fatal cross-median crashes 

on the treated sites, along with an 

additional 20 cross-median crashes 

resulting in an incapacitating injury.

The reduction in cross-median crashes, 

though somewhat offset by an increase 

in property-damage only (PDO) 

crashes due to reported barrier strikes 

(which are likely previously 

unreported roadway departures), 

results in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.05 

to 1 for the treated sites, given a 20 

year lifespan for the system, meaning 

that for every $1 spent on median cable 

barrier, the department should expect a 

return of $2.05. The increase in PDO

run-off road left crashes leads to 

increased maintenance costs for the 

system as well as decreased societal 

benefits due to the costs of the 

crashes. These results are consistent 

with findings of other states, including 

Nebraska, Washington, and Texas, 

when adjusting for differences in 

construction and maintenance costs 

due to the relatively low mileage 

installed in Massachusetts. 

File Name: Median Cable Barrier.pdf

CounterMeasures: General Signalized Intersection 

Improvements 

Description: 

The Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT) has 

performed a safety evaluation of the 

improvement of 34 signalized 

intersections (21 4-leg and 13 3-leg) 

throughout the Commonwealth. These 

intersection improvements included 

signal equipment and timing 

upgrades, pedestrian, bicycle, and 

ADA improvements, pavement 

resurfacing, and signage and 

pavement marking upgrades. Some 

intersections were also treated with 

adding protected/permitted or 

protected left-turn phasing and the 

addition of 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 60

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 34 

Number of Installations: 34 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3.56 

Years After: 3.09 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 

The empirical-Bayes before-after 

methodology was used to estimate CMFs 

for these intersection improvements. A 

total of 34 urban/suburban arterial 

intersections, including 21 4-leg 

intersections and 13 3-leg intersections, 

were analyzed, with an average of 3.6 

before-years and 3.1 after-years per site. 

Prior to the conversion, there were a total 

of 789 multi-vehicle crashes (191 FI and 

598 property-damage only [PDO]), 301 

angle crashes (94 FI and 207 PDO), and 

353 rear end crashes (78 FI and 275 

PDO). Along with angle and rear end 

crashes, multi-vehicle crashes also 

consisted of sideswipe and head-on 

crashes.

The samples of 3-leg intersections and 4-

leg intersections were initially evaluated 

separately, but the similarity in results led 

to the two samples being combined for an 

overall evaluation. The summary of the 

significant findings, along with their 

standard errors (SE), can be found below 

in Table 1 of the attached memo. Spaces 

marked with X indicate that the finding 

was not statistically significant at the α = 

0.05 level. Note that a crash reduction as 

a result of a treatment is equal to 1 minus 

the CMF multiplied by 100% [% crash 

reduction = 100% x (1-CMF), so if CMF 

= 0.48, a 52% reduction can be expected].

A benefit-cost ratio was also estimated 

for these intersection improvements. 

With the average improvement costing 

roughly $700,000 per intersection, the 

benefit-cost ratio was calculated to be 1.8 

assuming a 20 year lifetime and a 

discount rate of 1%, showing a return of 

$1.80 in benefits from crash reduction for 

every $1 invested. Note that these 

benefits only include safety benefits and 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 60

ignore operational benefits gained from 

these improvements.

File Name: Signal Improvements.pdf

CounterMeasures: Minor Leg Stop Control Intersection 

to Roundabout 

Description: 

The Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT) has 

performed a safety evaluation for 

conversion of 5 four-leg intersections, 

with stop-control on the minor 

approaches, to modern roundabouts. 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 5 

Number of Installations: 5 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 4.2 

Years After: 2.8 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 

The result of the evaluation was a CMF 

of 0.16 (with a standard error of 0.08) for 

multi-vehicle fatal or injury crashes, 

showing an 84% decrease in crashes of 

this type. A CMF of 0.48 (with a standard 

error of 0.10) was estimated for all multivehicle crashes, indicating a 52% 

reduction in multi-vehicle crashes at the 

intersection. It is projected that there will 

be a reduction of 159 fatal or injury 

crashes at these intersections over a 

period of 20 years. 

Because left-turn crashes are a major 

contributor to the crashes at intersections 

and intersections are an emphasis area for 

MassDOT, the effect of roundabouts on 

angle crashes was also evaluated. This 

analysis found a CMF of 0.37 (63% 

reduction) for all angle crashes and 0.07 

(93% reduction) for fatal or injury angle 

crashes. 

An economic evaluation was also 

performed to estimate the benefit/cost 

ratio of the conversion of four-leg minor 

stop control intersections to roundabouts. 

For the five treated sites, it was calculated 

that over a 20-year period the benefit-tocost ratio of the roundabout conversion 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 60

was 3.6 to 1, meaning that for every $1 

spent on roundabout conversions, the 

Department will see a return of $3.60. It 

should be noted that these are only safety 

benefits and do not account for 

operational benefits accrued from the 

conversion, as such, the benefit/cost ratio 

is likely greater than 3.6 to 1.

File Name: TWSC to Roundabouts.pdf

CounterMeasures: Minor Leg Stop Control Intersection 

to Signalized Intersection 

Description: 

The Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT) has 

performed a safety evaluation for the 

conversion of six urban intersections 

from minor approach stop-control to 

traffic signal control (1 three-legged 

and 5 four-legged). These intersection 

improvement projects also included 

pedestrian, bicyclist and ADA 

improvements, pavement resurfacing, 

and, for some, widening and the 

addition of left and/or right turn lanes. 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 6 

Number of Installations: 6 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3.5 

Years After: 3.33 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 

The empirical-Bayes before-after 

methodology was used to estimate CMFs 

for multi-vehicle crashes for the minor 

approach stop-control to traffic signal 

control conversion. Six sites were used 

for the analysis with intersections in 

Worcester, Leominster, Tewksbury, 

Northborough, Yarmouth, and Pittsfield. 

There was an average of 3.8 years per site 

and a total of 130 multi-vehicle crashes 

(68% angle and 26% rear end) in the 

before period and an average of 4 years 

per site and a total of 64 multi-vehicle 

crashes (28% angle and 61% rear end) in 

the after period. There were only 11 

single-vehicle crashes observed for all 

sites throughout the entire study period, 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 60

so no reliable analysis could be 

performed for those crashes. 

Converting from minor approach stopcontrol to signalization is estimated to 

result in a CMF of 0.57 (with a standard 

error [S.E.] of 0.09) in all multi-vehicle 

crashes (meaning multi-vehicle crashes 

are expected to be reduced by 43%), a 

CMF of 0.46 (S.E. = 0.17) for multivehicle fatal and injury crashes, and a 

CMF of 0.64 (S.E. = 0.11) for multivehicle property damage-only crashes. 

CMFs were also estimated for angle 

crashes, resulting in a CMF of 0.24 (S.E. 

= 0.06) for all angle crashes and 0.21 

(S.E. = 0.06) for angle property damageonly crashes. Rear end crashes are 

expected to increase; however, these 

increases were not statistically 

significant. 

An economic evaluation was performed 

to estimate the benefit-to-cost ratio of the 

conversion of minor approach stopcontrol intersections to signalized 

intersections. The average cost of these 

intersection improvements was ~$1 

million in 2016 dollars, with roughly 

10% to 20% coming from the signal 

itself. For the six sites, assuming a 1% 

discount rate, it is estimated that over a 

20-year period the benefit-to-cost ratio is 

1.2 to 1, meaning that for every $1 spent 

for this type of intersection improvement 

MassDOT can expect to see a return of 

$1.20. This economic analysis accounts 

solely for safety benefits, construction 

costs, and power costs (operational 

benefits and signal maintenance were not 

included). Operational benefits are likely 

significant, as traffic analyses performed 

as part of the Functional Design Reports 

for these projects anticipated 

improvements to peak-hour level-ofservice at all of these intersections.

File Name: TWSC to Signal.pdf
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 60

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Worcester - Cambridge St and Southbridge St Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

77.00 52.00 3.00 22.00 11.00 99.00 66.00 1.03

Leominster - Central St and Willard St Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

18.00 10.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 21.00 11.00 2.96

Northampton - Bridge Road and Look 

Memorial Park

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

8.00 11.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 16.00 15.00 3.67

Greenfield - 8 intersections Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

45.00 45.00 3.00 2.00 28.00 19.00 76.00 66.00 0.89

Tewksbury - East St & Livingston St Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

12.00 15.00 5.00 2.00 17.00 17.00 0.34

Barnstable - Meetinghouse Way & US 6 EB 

Ramps

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

6.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.71

Easton - MA 106 & MA 123 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

26.00 25.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 36.00 30.00 1.40

Metheun - MA 213 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 25.00 29.00 10.00 17.00 35.00 46.00 -1.14

Fairhaven - Alden Rd & Bridge St Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

22.00 40.00 7.00 13.00 29.00 53.00 -2.60

Middleboro - I495 Urban Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 17.00 24.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 10.00 25.00 35.00 2.47

Agawam - MA 57 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 15.00 24.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 13.00 30.00 38.00 1.04

West 

Springfield/Holyoke/Easthampton/Northampton 

- I91

Urban Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 135.00 230.00 2.00 1.00 10.00 7.00 45.00 67.00 192.00 305.00 2.34

Pittsfield - North St & Lower Wahconah St Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

11.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 13.00 6.00 1.37

New Bedford/Lakeville/Fairhaven - I 195 & MA140Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 37.00 74.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 23.00 30.00 64.00 109.00 1.84

Lexington - US 2 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 22.00 15.00 14.00 10.00 36.00 25.00 3.50
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 60

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Deerfield/Whately - US 5/MA-10 Interchange 

with I-91

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

11.00 12.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 16.00 15.00 6.12

Sandwich - US 6 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 40.00 55.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 18.00 31.00 63.00 91.00 3.29

Dartmouth - I195 Urban Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 65.00 58.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 46.00 44.00 116.00 108.00 5.49

Bernardston - I91 Urban Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier- metal 6.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 20.00 -1.73

Danvers - MA-128, Interchanges 22 & 23 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration / 

merge lane

177.00 206.00 5.00 5.00 60.00 67.00 242.00 278.00 -0.26

Worcester - I290 Ramps with MA-70 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

39.00 29.00 1.00 3.00 25.00 7.00 68.00 36.00 3.29

West Springfield - Westfield Rd Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

47.00 14.00 4.00 3.00 51.00 17.00 0.91

North Adams Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

67.00 46.00 24.00 6.00 91.00 52.00 4.79

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

The crash data for the projects listed above are provided for 3 before years and 3 after years, meaning all were completed during or before 2012. The functional class indicates the highest classification of the roadways included in the 

project. If multiple countermeasures were included, the improvement category indicates the most important one of a project. The benefit-cost ratios, with the exception of the Danvers project which was done using a naïve analysis, 

were derived from empirical Bayes before-after analyses, which completed for parts of or the whole of most projects. These were performed at the site-, project-, or countermeasure-level across different projects, and focused both on 

total and fatal plus injury crashes as well as specific target crash types.

The benefit-cost ratios listed above show that the majority of projects in the Commonwealth that used HSIP funding provided valuable return on investment.

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

No
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 60

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/30/2013 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2004 To: 2011 

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

 2018 

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

MassDOT has already begun the process of updating the SHSP to produce a formal report and already has a consultant onboard to assist with this process. However, it should be known that every year, MassDOT reviews the crash data for 

the emphasis areas. 

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) 0.2521 0.4795 0.0197 0.0006 0 0

Route Number (8) 1 1

Route/Street Name (9) 0.9999 1

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0.9962 0.9924

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0.9999 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 0.9906 0.9992 0.9369 0.9559

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length (13) 1 1

Direction of Inventory (18) 0.9917 0.9997

Functional Class (19) 1 1 1 1 1 1
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 60

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

Median Type (54) 1 1

Access Control (22) 1 1

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

1 1

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0.9976 0.9945 0.9793 0.994

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0.952 0.9765 0.028 0.0009

AADT Year (80) 0.952 0.9765

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 60

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 Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0.9094 0.7417

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0.9094 0.7417

Functional Class (19) 1 1

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

0.95 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.32 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.80

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

Notes 

1. Unique Segment ID - Many segments have duplicate unique road inventory segment ID's.For State owned roads there are 25,065 duplicate segment ID's and 46 mis

2. Direction of Inventory - Not present in the inventory. Estimates use the Route Direction Field 

3. Type of Government Ownership - Jurisdiction field was used 

4. All calculations based of the Road Inventory Feature Class in the Roads & Highway Geodatabase dated July 21, 2017. 

5. MassDOT is currently working on an Intersection Inventory 

6. Ramps are included in MassDOT's road inventory file, but are missing several FDE's 

7. The quality of MassDOT's FDE attribute values were not validated 

sing values.

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.

MassDOT historically has maintained a statewide, all public roads network as part of their road inventory program. MassDOT is currently developing a MIRE FDE compliant intersection inventory for non-local and local 

paved roads (defined by functional classification). The spatial location of the intersections can be generated from MassDOT’s road inventory network. Additional data collection efforts are required to populate the 

required MIRE FDE attributes. A web base data collection tool is being developed to facilitate the collection of the additional elements. A pilot project will be conducted in the summer of 2017 to better understand the 

level of effort required to populate a statewide intersection inventory. Then the data will be populated with a combination of assistance from interns and local communities.

MassDOT’s road inventory databaes includes ramps. However, not all of the required MIRE FDE attributes are currently available. Like the intersection inventory, MassDOT intends to development web based data 

collection tool to collect the additional MIRE FDE’s.

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. 
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 60

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 Injury Status No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Injury Status No The level of injury severity for a person 

involved in the crash

No Fatal

Non-Fatal injury - Incapacitating

Non-Fatal injury - Non Incapacitating

Non Fatal injury - Possible

Non Fatal Injury - No injury

Non Fatal injury - Unknown

No

Crash Database Injury Status No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary N/A No N/A No N/A No

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

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

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

No

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

2019 

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

The focus in 2018 will be on development of the SHSP. Because the staffing resources are the same, the HSIP program assessment will have to wait until completion of the SHSP update.
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 60

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Median Cable Barrier.pdf

Signal Improvements.pdf

TWSC to Roundabouts.pdf

TWSC to Signal.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 60

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.