Page 1 of 42

MASSACHUSETTS

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 42

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 .......................................................................................................................15

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................15

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................17

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................20

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................20

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................30

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................31

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................31

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................32

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................36

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................38
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 42

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 

purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed 

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

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

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

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

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

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

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 42

Executive Summary

A Massachusetts HSIP Task Force was established in 2009 to develop guidelines for HSIP-eligible projects 

and programs. The Task Force consisted of FHWA, MassDOT Highway, MassDOT Planning and MARPA 

(Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. Criteria for HSIP projects were defined. 

The Task Force does not select individual projects but rather determined thresholds for eligibility. 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). This has lead to the majority of projects 

being "hot spots". However, feedback from FHWA, other states and latest research has shown that systemic 

projects have a huge impact on reducing overall fatalities and injuries. As such, in the coming year, MassDOT 

intends to reinvigorate the HSIP Task Force so that the project selection for HSIP can be more fluid and nimble 

and responsive to the needs of SHSP strategies and ensure project readiness and ability of projects to be 

advertised in a timely manner.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 42

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 consisted of FHWA, MassDOT Highway, MassDOT Planning and MARPA 

(Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. It was determined that a n HSIP eligible 

project was defined as 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. The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) calculations were 

changed this past year to reflect the FHWA methodology for crash costs. Rather than the previous system of 

10 points for a fatal crash, 5 points for an injury crash and 1 point for a property damage only crash, the new 

EPDO calculations are based on weighted average costs of crashes. So as not to be chasing fatal crashes 

only, the combined weighting of fatal and injury crashes is 21 times that of a property damage only crash. 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/03/01/dot-2016TopCrashLocationsRpt.pdf. To view the HSIP 

eligible clusters, go to: https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/topcrashlocations/ . However, this changed this past 

year. 

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.

In the coming year, MassDOT intends to reinvigorate the HSIP Task Force so that the project selection for 

HSIP can be more fluid and nimble and responsive to the needs of SHSP strategies. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

Our Safety team is centralized and sits in headquarters. The Safety team is within the Traffic and Safety 

Engineering Section.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 42

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Formula via MPOs

• Other-combination

The HSIP Task Force (soon to be revitalized) created guidelines for HSIP eligible projects. Approximately 27% 

of the HSIP funds are allocated to the MPOs and divided up amongst the region according to a set FHWA / 

MARPA formula. The remaining HSIP funds are spent mostly on hot spot locations (based on HSIP eligible 

sites defined by HSIP guidelines). Relatively few systemic projects are being programmed/advertised because 

of the R-O-W process required in MA which makes it more difficult. However, our network screening process 

will be completed and implemented as part of our new crash analytics program (called IMPACT) and, 

furthermore, this coming year the HSIP Task Force is being revitalized and new processes and eligibility 

guidelines will be developed.

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

Working with the 13 Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) and the 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) that encompass the entire geographic area of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, HSIP funds are 

allocated not only to projects that are eligible within the statewide Highway Safety Improvements Program but 

also to eligible projects programmed by the MPOs, which may include local roads and tribal roads. Because 

most of the project proponents in the Commonwealth are municipalities, these projects are locally initiated, 

driven, and coordinated with MassDOT through the project initiation and development process. There is close 

coordination between our Traffic Safety division staff and RPA staff on the sharing of data and identifying crash 

cluster locations and prioritizing safety improvements to assist local entities and the MPOs in making sound 

safety investment decisions. Approximately 27% of the HSIP funds are allocated to the MPOs for project 

selection.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

The existing 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, 

involves systemic projects and high crash locations as well as programs and strategies based on the SHSP. 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 42

The programs and strategies from the SHSP are developed through the SHSP Emphasis Area teams with 

input from many (both internal and external). It should be noted that the HSIP guidelines ( 

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/HSIP/HSIP%20Criteria%20Updates%2011_15_17.pdf ) 

are currently being updated to reflect an approach more inline with the Highway Safety Manual methodology. 

Furthermore, to have a more nimble process that is more responsive to safety needs, the task force is being 

revitalized and new guidelines will be prepared. This will take place this coming year.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members

• Other-Advocacy groups

• Other-Public Health

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. The SHSP was updated and approved in December 2018 

and involved participation from over 200 participants from more than 25 agencies (including all of those 

external partners mentioned in the response to Question 9) and entities and the strategies identified in the 

SHSP are those that can be used for the HSIP eligible projects. Furthermore, all HSIP-eligible projects require 

Road Safety Audits which ensures coordination with external partners. Project selection has a significant 

amount of external input through the MPO public process. Some specific programs are based 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.

As stated earlier, there is an existing HSIP Task Force that develops the HSIP guidelines and identifies 

eligibility of HSIP projects (but does not select the specific projects). 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 selection of the individual regional HSIP projects is done at the MPO level through the very public MPO 

process involving MassDOT and many external partners. The selection of the statewide HSIP projects is based 

on a data driven process (EPDO) using the strategies identified in the HSIP.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

This will be updated this coming year through the newly revitalized HSIP Task Force.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 42

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Median Barrier

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Other-Data

The programs checked as administered under HSIP were those that had projects associated with them. In 

reality, an strategies included in the SHSP, that are eligible for HSIP funding, are administered under the HSIP 

program at MassDOT. However, this question responded to those that were funded projects in this year's 

program. Technically, our STIP only has two categories: intersections and other safety but we attempted to 

provide more details here.

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:2/3/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-subject to HRRR rule

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-EPDO 

Functional classification 

Other-rural/urban boundary 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• 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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-HRRR eligibility
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 42

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Other-readiness factor of HRRR eligible projects:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-PLaning provided Safety Section witn an "Intersection" set aside

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-EPDO 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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

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 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 42

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-HSIP eligibility criteria and project readiness:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Median width 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-District recommended and initiated

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 42

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:12/31/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-cycle of sign improvements based 

on 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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? 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

of replacements

• Other-secondary roadways are systemwide and done by district

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Other-readiness:2
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 42

Program: Other-Data

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2004

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Data quality need 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Need based on outdated system and changes to roadway file

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-determined need based on changes to outdated systems

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 6

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

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 42

While some would include sign projects in systemic, in MassDOT these were listed as systemwide because all 

interstate and controlled access roadway signing projects are on a cycle so that is more of a systemwide 

approach. The cable barrier and flashing yellow arrow were projects that were more systemically selected. 

MassDOT would strongly like to do significantly more systemic projects (specifically for pedestrian safety and 

curve warning). This will being explored with the newly reinvigorated HSIP Task Force.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

Road Safety Audits are a necessary prerequisite for all HSIP funded infrastructure projects.

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 connected vehicles and ITS technologies as part of the safety solution. 

However, no HSIP funds were spent on the V2I technologies during this Federal Fiscal Year. Previously, 

MassDOT worked with WAZE to install beacons in our tunnel system to aid driver navigation where GPS is 

lost. (Although no Federal funds were used for this). As drivers have become more reliant on their GPS/smart 

phones for directions, there are more crashes occurring in our tunnels where GPS connectivity was lost and 

drivers were confused. The beacon technology is providing for an open platform seamless connection to 

navigation systems and recently Google Maps started using the beacons as well. MassDOT signed on for the 

EDC Use of Crowdsourcing in Operations. There are aspects of this that will help with Safety as well. 

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. This started in 2009 and has been 

increasing in use, where appropriate. New for this year, MassDOT contracted with INRIX and obtained RITIS 

to make use of speed and volume data to be used on our projects and in Planning features. We continue to 

look forward to other technologies that will enhance safety and reduce fatalities and injuries on the public 

roadways. New in this year, MassDOT is working on Every Day Counts (EDC) Use of Crowdsourcing in 

Operations. This involves use of ITS in operations which does impact safety as well. 

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

Yes

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

MassDOT uses both the predictive methodology and the empirical-Bayes method described in the Highway 

Safety Manual to support administrating the HSIP. MassDOT is in the process of updating the network 

screening process to consider the difference between expected and predicted crashes using HSM 

methodologies and Massachusetts-specific safety performance functions.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 42

During RSAs (especially for HSIP projects), MassDOT uses HSM methodologies so expected crash frequency 

can be used for discussion, diagnosis, and countermeasure selection.

MassDOT also uses HSM methodologies to evaluate HSIP projects at the site-, project-, and countermeasure 

level. The empirical-Bayes method is used to estimate the number of crashes expected in the after period had 

no change occurred to compare with what was observed in the after period.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 42

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $25,319,060 $26,649,107 105.25%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$2,484,220 $2,471,701 99.5%

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)

$9,287,656 $9,769,620 105.19%

State and Local Funds $5,411,169 $5,678,050 104.93%

Other funds $0 $653,186 0%

Totals $42,502,105 $45,221,664 106.4%

Information provided by MassDOT FAPRO office

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

safety projects?

1%

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

1%

Only 1 of the 14 HSIP projects were on local roads (accounting for approximately 1% of HSIP funding). While 

we do have a set aside of approximately 30% of all HSIP funds going to the MPOs for project selection, the 

projects selected were on State highway. HSIP eligibility is not based on jurisdiction and any HSIP eligible 

project may be selected and programmed. With the new HSIP Task Force in place and the ability to provide for 

systemic, low cost projects, we anticipate an increase in HSIP projects along local roads.

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

1%
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 42

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

1%

There was one non-infrastructure safety program funded with HSIP this year and that was for a "Crash - Injury 

Data Linkage Project" for $222,222. Furthermore, we have several ongoing projects that were funded in 

previous years. We used to have a higher percentage of HSIP going to non-infrastructure projects but due to 

FAST Act, the use of HSIP on non-infrastructure became much more restricted. We hope that this will change 

and that once again we can program/obligate HSIP funds based on effectiveness which will cover the 4 Es 

(engineering, education, enforcement and emergency response) and better align with strategies identified in 

the SHSP.

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the future. 

There are 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 are struggling to 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.

There are steps we have taken to resolve these issues. With regards to readiness, we actually anticipated the 

need for a HRRR project and started working on one in advance of the notification. In addition, a Project 

Manager from the MassDOT Design Section will be providing assistance to push projects along. With regards 

to the difficulties we face for systemic project, MassDOT Traffic and Safety Engineering has been meeting with 

FHWA ROW Section and MassDOT ROW Section to prepare a white paper and try to resolve ROW issues 

with regards to low cost systemic projects. Furthermore, with the reinvigoration of an HSIP Task Force, the 

hope is that these issues will get resolved more expeditiously.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 42

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

600518 - 

HINGHAMINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT DERBY 

STREET, 

WHITING STREET 

(ROUTE 53) AND 

GARDNER 

STREET

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$805749 $4042738 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Improve 

design and 

engineering 

of bicycle 

facilities on 

and off 

roadways

605740 - 

WORCESTERINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT WINTHROP 

STREET & 

PROVIDENCE 

STREET, VERNON 

STREET & 

GRANITE STREET

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

5 Intersection

s

$412478 $3853940 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance

607337 - 

PEMBROKEINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AND RELATED 

WORK AT 

WASHINGTON 

STREET (ROUTE 

53) AND 

PLEASANT 

STREET

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$410359 $2264709 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance

607435 - 

BARNSTABLEINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ FALMOUTH 

ROAD (ROUTE 28) 

& OSTERVILLEWEST 

BARNSTABLE 

ROAD

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Intersection

s

$916541 $3751728 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Improve 

design and 

engineering 

of bicycle 

facilities on 

and off 

roadways

607917 - AUBURN 

TO WORCESTERGUIDE & TRAFFIC 

SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

11.88 Miles $4791159 $5323510 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

systemwide Older 

Drivers

Develop 

infrastructure 

improvement

s that 

accommodat
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 42

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

ON A SECTION OF 

INTERSTATE 290

e the needs of 

older road 

users

607919 - BOLTON 

TO LOWELLGUIDE & TRAFFIC 

SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

ON A SECTION OF 

INTERSTATE 495

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

18.3 Miles $3957120 $4396800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

systemwide Older 

Drivers

Develop 

infrastructure 

improvement

s that 

accommodat

e the needs of 

older road 

users

608013 - QUINCYINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ SEA STREET & 

QUINCY SHORE 

DRIVE

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$2126697 $2362997 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 30 State Park, 

Forest, or 

Reservation 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance

608188 - 

GARDNERLEOMINSTERSTERLINGINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT 3 LOCATIONS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 3 Locations $1854760 $2585219 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance

608204 - 

ATTLEBORO TO 

NORWOODGUIDE AND 

TRAFFIC SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

ON A SECTION OF 

I-95

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

Signs $6112938 $6792153 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

systemwide Older 

Drivers

Develop 

infrastructure 

improvement

s that 

accommodat

e the needs of 

older road 

users

608295 - DISTRICT 

5- 

IMPLEMENTATIO

N OF FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT VARIOUS 

TRAFFIC 

SIGNALS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

9 Locations $881664 $979626 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 0 both State 

and local

Systemic Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance

608833 - 

NANTUCKETIMPROVEMENTS 

ON MILESTONE 

ROAD

Roadway Roadway - other 4 Intersection

s

$2484220 $2760245 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

intersection 

design and 

maintenance
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 42

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

608893 - NORTON 

- TAUNTON - 

MEDIAN CABLE 

BARRIER 

INSTALLATION 

ON I-495

Roadside Barrier - cable 4 Miles $846694 $940771 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Incorporate 

safety 

elements into 

roadway 

design and 

maintenance

ISA-DPH - 

Statewide - ISA 

with DPH on CrashInjury Data Linkage 

on Mass. 

Roadways

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records 1 improved 

linked crash 

data set

$200000 $222222.2

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Crash data 

for ALL 

roadways

No specific 

site, all 

crash data

Data

607916 - FALL 

RIVER TO 

RANDOLPHGUIDE & TRAFFIC 

SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

ON A SECTION OF 

ROUTE 24

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

36.6 Miles $2002900.

5

$2225445 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

systemwide Older 

Drivers

Develop 

infrastructure 

improvement

s that 

accommodat

e the needs of 

older road 

users
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 42

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 347 374 383 351 354 344 387 347 360

Serious Injuries 3,437 3,577 3,587 3,197 3,031 2,931 2,983 2,575 2,529

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.600 0.650 0.650 0.590 0.580 0.570 0.640 0.550 0.570

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.975 6.169 6.076 5.365 4.977 4.848 4.926 4.109 4.024

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

78 76 99 86 84 93 89 85 78

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

394 419 503 420 470 423 436 405 362
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 42

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 22 of 42

0.5

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 23 of 42

2018 file is not yet closed so data are incomplete and will be updated next year withy the final numbers.

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

While we use FARS as our source, we do have the FARS analyst provide us with updated information for 2018 

that is not yet available on the FARS website. MassDOT now has additional staff time to help in the processing 

of information needed for FARS so that FARS can be updated in a more timely manner.

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

ownership. 

Year 2017

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

3 13.6 0.36 1.63

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.6 2.4

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

4.2 10.8 3.56

Rural Minor Arterial 5.4 20.4 1.3 4.73

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 42

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 2.4 10.4 2.15 9.25

Rural Major Collector 6.4 31.4 1.35 6.65

Rural Local Road or 

Street

7.6 26.8 1.41 4.94

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

53.4 58.8 0.33 0.36

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

12.2 27.8 0.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

96.6 202 0.81 1.79

Urban Minor Arterial 76.2 203.4 0.71 2.12

Urban Minor Collector 1.2

Urban Major Collector 20.4 91 0.57 2.84

Urban Local Road or 

Street

67.6 77 0.84 0.97

Other 0

unknown (not 

geocoded)

0 146.4
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 42

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

149.4 877.4 0.46 2.72

County Highway

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.4 1 0.49 1.22

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 8.4 63.4 0.92 6.98

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

3.8 32.8 15.32 132.05

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0

Local Highway 

Agency

185.4 1,790.6 0.76 7.35

unknown (not 

geocoded)

9.4 175.6

Federal

County

Federal 0 0.6 0 1.25

•

Vehicle mile traveled data are taken from the Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 42

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

2007 but used for other years) and then checked against VMT information provided by the MassDOT 

Planning Office.. 

• 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. 

• 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” 

• A category for Unknown functional classification was added so that no fatal or serious injury crashes

would be excluded from this analysis. These are data points with unknown functional classification 

because the crash could not be located to a point and the FARS analyst was unsure how to code (or 

the statewide crash system did not contain coordinates and therefore was unable to link to roadway 

data). Similarly, there is an unknown category for jurisdiction for those fatalities and serious injuries that

were not able to be located and therefore not able to be linked to the roadway data. 

• Less than 0.1% of the VMTs of Massachusetts roads have no jurisdiction category for the years of 

2011-13 and therefore were not accounted for in the analysis. 

• The category of “City OR Town Highway Agency” was added because Massachusetts does not make a

distinction between these roads. 

• The category for Other State Agency includes crashes from the Department of Conservations, 

Massport, and State Inst. 

• The category for Private includes crashes that occurred on Private roads as well as those that occurred 

on Unaccepted roads. 

• The category of Other Federal Agency (military, institutional, , etc) includes crashes from Federal Park, 

Department of Defense, US Army Corps, Federal Inst., Other Federal, US Army, and US Navy. 

• The category of Other Public Instrumentality includes crashes that occurred on State College/University

property. 

• For 2008 & 2009, there were no VMTs available for Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) Other Freeways and 

Expressways, therefore, crashes in this category were combined with Rural Principal Arterial (RPA)

Other so rates could be calculated. 

• For 2008, there was no VMT value for Urban Major Collector, therefore, crashes in this category used 

the VMT for Urban Collector (combined major + minor) VMT value so rates could be calculated. 

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:347.0

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

Per FHWA guidance, our target setting process began with a trend line projection based on the most 

recent available data. Based on 5 year rolling averages, the number of fatalities in Massachusetts 

over the last 7 years, (2012 – 2018), has been relatively stable fluctuating less than 1 percent 

(between 358.4 and 361.6) with the exception of 2016, when the 5 year average reached 363.8. In 

December 2018, the SHSP was signed by the which includes some proposed legislation that could 

have a marked improvement in highway safety, such as primary seat belt law and hands-free only 

use of electronic devices while driving. The SHSP also contains strategies that include a mix of 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 42

engineering, enforcement, education, awareness and emergency response strategies, as well as data 

enhancements to better track highway safety. These external factors, along with continued 

construction of HSIP and other safety projects and continued education and enforcement programs 

may have an impact on the number of fatalities and serious injuries on the roadways in 

Massachusetts With these considerations and initiatives, we anticipate the 5 year average fatalities 

for 2016-2020 will be 347, a nearly 3% drop from the 2014-2018 5 year rolling average of 358.4. This 

target was developed in coordination with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security – 

Highway Safety Division (EOPSS/HS) (required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT Office of 

Transportation Planning (OTP) working closely with the MPOs, and the Office of Performance 

Management and Innovation (OPMI, which produces an annual performance report called Tracker

that serves the public and State Legislature). Moreover, it should be noted that our overarching goal 

is towards zero deaths and we will continue to work towards that goal by implementing SHSP 

strategies.

Number of Serious Injuries:2689.0

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

FHWA guidance, we began with a trend line and considered external factors and planned 

implementation projects to inform the targets. Based on this, the predicted number of serious injuries 

for 2016-2020 five year rolling average would be 2,689 per year, down from 2,809.8 for 2014-2018 

yearly average and equal to a 4 percent reduction. The external factors, described in the fatalities 

section, also apply to injuries, and will impact the number of serious injuries on our roadways. 

Furthermore, there is also a data issue which may impact reporting levels On January 1, 2019, our 

statewide crash system changed the data attributes to describe the injury severity. The term used to 

be “incapacitating injury” now the term is “suspect serious injury” and there are definitions provided to 

police agencies for a suspected serious injury that would make it easier and more objective to report 

on injury severity. It is unclear how this will impact the trends. As a result, the 4 percent decrease in 

serious injuries was selected as it generally follows the trendline. This target was developed in 

coordination with EOPSS/HSD (required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT OTP working 

closely with the MPOs, and OPMI (which produces an annual performance report called Tracker that 

serves the public and State Legislature). Moreover, it should be noted that our overarching goal is 

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

Fatality Rate:0.560

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

The fatality rate is calculated using the 5 year target for fatalities and the projected vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) to obtain the 2016-2020 fatality rate. MassDOT Planning projects a linear 0.3% 

annual increase in VMTs every year. Therefore, the fatality rate from 2014-2018 of 0.58 fatalities per 

100 million vehicle miles traveled will decrease to 0.56 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

in 2016-2020 which reflects a 4% reduction. The long term goal is towards zero deaths, so the long 

term fatality rate target is 0.0 fatalities per 100 million VMTs.

Serious Injury Rate:4.300

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

Page 28 of 42

The serious injury rate is calculated using the 5 year target for serious injuries and the projected 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to obtain the 2016-2020 fatality rate goal. MassDOT Planning projects a 

linear 0.3% annual increase in VMTs every year. Therefore, the serious injury rate from 2014-2018 of 

4.57 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled will drop to 4.30 serious injuries per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled in 2016-2020 which reflects a nearly 6% drop. The long term goal is 

towards zero deaths and injuries, so the long term serious injury rate is 0.0 serious injuries per 100 

million VMTs.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:505.4

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 forecast 

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

data to create a trend line, the predicted number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists for 

the 2016-2020 yearly average see an increase from the 2014-2018 yearly average of 505.4 (this 

target includes bicyclists and pedestrians, and excludes skaters, not reported, train/trolley 

passengers, and other, from the query for statewide data for serious injuries). However, even though 

the fatalities and injuries has been trending upwards, Massachusetts is actively working on strategies 

to ameliorate non-motorist fatality and injuries, while promoting and encouraging walking and cycling. 

In fact, the past two years of closed crash data do indicate the trend may be changing. Therefore, the 

goal is to reverse the trend of increasing fatalities and injuries and move towards zero deaths and 

injuries. To do this, we have set the goal identical to the 2014-2018 5 year rolling average of 505.4. 

The 2018 Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the 2019 Statewide Pedestrian Plan and the 2019 

Statewide Bicycle Plan identify new multi-disciplined and multi-agency strategies to implement to 

eliminate fatalities and serious injuries of people walking and bicycling. There also may be some 

implementation of low-cost systemic projects related to pedestrian safety in an effort to further drive 

down fatalities and serious injuries. Therefore, although our current trend line shows a projected 

increase in non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries, our goal is to reverse the trend and move 

towards zero deaths.

Please note that 2018 data are draft and expected to change. Typically, the statewide crash file closes 

approximately two years later. Presently, 2017 is our most current closed year. However, the safety 

performance targets were based on the preliminary information.

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

safety performance targets. 

There is a performance target working group committee comprised of MassDOT Planning, Office of 

Performance Management and Innovation (OPMI), Traffic and Safety Engineering, MPOs, FHWA and others. 

The committee has met to discuss and review the proposed targets. In addition, MassDOT regularly meets 

with the Highway Safety Division Office to review performance targets so that the targets are aligned in both 

the Highway Safety Plan (submitted to NHTSA) and the HSIP report. Furthermore, the targets are reviewed by 

the Office of Secretary of Transportation and published in MassDOT's Tracker system for the State Legislature 

and the public.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 42

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Fatalities: The target for fatalities was 352 annual fatalities (5 year rolling average) in 2018. The actual number, 

based on the available information was 358.4 annual fatalities. We did not achieve our target on this measure. 

However, we are below the baseline (the most recent actual 5 year rolling average fatality county) of 361 that 

was presented in the 2017 Annual HSIP Report. There are a number of reasons why the number of fatalities 

have not met our targets but are below the baseline. While none are known definitively, it is possible that the 

following could have contributed to the lower than expected drop in fatalities:

• The statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was completed in December 2018, so strategies 

implemented as a result of the SHSP (such as hands free and primary seat belt law legislation and 

systemic infrastructure projects to name a few) will not be reflected in this respective reporting time 

frame. 

• The data on the 2016 fatalities were not finalized when the trends were established for the 2018 5-year 

rolling average. Therefore, it was not known at that time that the number of fatalities would be higher 

than anticipated and would serve as an outlier year. 

Serious Injury: The target was 2,896 annual serious injuries (5 year rolling average) in 2018. The actual 

number based on the available information was 2,809.8 annual serious injuries. We did achieve our target on 

this measure. The drop in the total number of serious injuries met our target, unlike the drop in fatalities. One of 

the differences between the reduction in fatalities and the reduction in serious injuries is due to the 2016 

numbers. While 2016 was an outlier year for fatalities (and was higher than previous and subsequent years), 

that was not the case for serious injuries. Because the targets include 5-year rolling averages, the outlier 2016 

data will continue to have an impact through 2020 on fatalities but not serious injuries. 

Fatality Rate: The target for fatality rate was 0.61 annual fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (5-year 

rolling average) in 2018. The actual rate based on the available information was 0.582 annual fatalities per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled (5 year rolling average). We did achieve our target on this measure. The fatality 

rate is dependent upon fatalities and vehicle miles traveled. Although the total for fatalities did not meet the 

targets, the vehicle miles traveled were higher than anticipated so the rate was lower and the fatality rate met 

the target. 

Serious Injury Rate: The target for serious injury rate was 5.010 annual fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled (5-year rolling average) in 2018. The actual rate based on the available information was 4.577 annual 

serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (5-year rolling average). We did achieve our target on this 

measure. The rate is dependent upon serious injuries and vehicle miles traveled. The serious injuries rate met 

the target and the vehicle miles traveled were higher than anticipated so the rate was lower. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries: The target for Non-Motorist fatalities and 

serious injuries was 540.8 in 2018. The actual number was 505.0. We did achieve our target on this measure. 

Prior to the 2017 Annual HSIP report, we had been experiencing an increase in fatalities and serious injuries of 

non-motorists. Based on that, the target was set for the number to remain the same and not increase. 

Recently, significant focus has been placed on pedestrians and bicyclists. There are several factors that we 

believe have contributed to the decrease in the numbers compared to this target including: 1) implementation 

of statewide safety campaigns; 2)the awareness and enforcement of laws involving bicyclist and pedestrian 

roadway safety; and 3) the continued focus on Complete Streets Program and respective projects and other 

infrastructure related to bicycle and pedestrian safety and amenities. In addition, several cities in 

Massachusetts have signed onto or incorporated the Vision Zero philosophy and implemented changes to 

better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. While these activities may help to explain the drop in nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries, it is critical we stay focused as the number of people walking and 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 42

bicycling will most likely increase which increases the exposure (although this does also increase awareness of 

other transportation modes).

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

The rural fatality rate (including rural collectors and local roadways) for 2011-2015 was 1.75 fatalities per 100 

MVMT (103 fatalities / 5.88637 BVMT). The rural fatality rate (including rural collectors and local roadways) for 

2013-2017 was 1.39 fatalities per 100 MVMT (82 fatalities / 5.90703 BVMT). This indicates a drop and 

therefore, MA is NOT subject to the HRRR Rule.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

69 80 72 59 65 76 48

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

284 319 272 271 281 297 264

The fatal information comes from FARS and the serious injury information comes from the Statewide Crash 

Data System. In both cases it is older drivers who themselves were fatally or seriously injured (this does NOT 

include if an older driver fatally or seriously injured someone else).
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 42

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Question 46 contains evaluations of HSIP-funded projects completed in 2013 and 2014. Three years of before 

and after crash data were used to evaluate each project. Additionally, Empirical Bayes (EB) was used where 

possible to compare the number of crashes observed in the after period to the expected number. Where EB 

was not possible due to lack of SPFs, crash rates were used to estimate the expected number of crashes in 

the after period, producing a naïve before/after estimate. In total, 18 projects were evaluated, with 11 focused 

on intersection and interchange improvements, 5 on roadside improvements, and 2 on roadway improvements.

In total, the 18 projects that were evaluated are estimated to produce an annual benefit of $5.6 million due to 

the reduction in crashes. Over 20 years at a seven percent annual discount rate, the projects are estimated to 

have a total benefit/cost ratio of 1.63:1. Additionally, these projects averaged a reduction of 13.8 fatal and 

injury crashes per year during the three years of observed after data.

While this is not a "measure of effectiveness" , it should be pointed out that MassDOT now tracks trends of the 

emphasis areas by looking at five year averages on the SHSP emphasis areas that are available. We present 

this in a public-facing dashboard. https://apps.impact.dot.state.ma.us/cdp/dashboard-view/24 . In the 

dashboard, there are three tabs. The first tab is for the 5 safety performance targets. The second tab is the 5 

year rolling average fatalities and fatality rates for the emphasis areas. The third tab is for the 5 year rolling 

average for serious injuries and serious injury rates for each of the emphasis areas.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

MassDOT is implementing DDSA into alternative selection for HSIP-funded projects. This effort was piloted on 

numerous projects throughout the state (primarily intersection projects). Additionally, MassDOT is developing 

tools and guidance to incorporate DDSA within and outside of HSIP. The agency is developing a safety 

alternative analysis guide which focuses on state-specific SPFs and crash-costs and also includes a list of 

state-preferred CMFs. MassDOT is also developing and incorporating a state-specific SPICE tool to assist with 

identifying safety-motivated intersection design alternatives.

MassDOT is also automating the network screening process for roadway segments using the EB process. This 

process includes annual calibration of SPFs and developing a state-specific network screening tool which 

interfaces with ESRI roads and highways.
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 42

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure 193 645.6 0.33 1.09

Intersections 88.2 1,111.4 0.15 1.88

Pedestrians 78 323.8 0.13 0.54

Bicyclists 9.4 107 0.02 0.18

Motorcyclists 48 320 0.08 0.54

Work Zones 0.6 61.2 0 0.11

Older Driver Related 66.4 529.6 0.11 0.89

Younger Driver Related 

(15-20)

40.2 411 0.07 0.7

Trucks 34.6 175.6 0.06 0.3
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 42

The fatality rates and serious injury rates are based on the fatalities and serious injuries for each emphasis 

area and the total statewide VMTs.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 42

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 42

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Attleboro - Ramp 

Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Interchange 

design

Interchange 

design - other

10.00 14.00 3.00 4.00 13.00 18.00 -3.28

Yarmouth - Old Town Hosue 

Road/Forest Street 

Intersection Realignment

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

realignment to 

align offset cross 

streets

9.00 9.00 3.00 2.00 12.00 11.00 0.48

West Bridgewater - Route 

106 at Route 28 Intersection 

Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

52.00 73.00 9.00 15.00 61.00 88.00 -1.78

Oak Bluffs - Intersection 

Improvements at 

Edgartown-Vineyard Haven 

Road and Barnes Road

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

4.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 0.33

Freetown - Roundabout at 

County/Chace/Mason Road 

Intersection

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

15.00 16.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 22.00 17.00 5.75

Pittsfield - Route 7 Corridor 

Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

general retiming

95.00 84.00 4.00 1.00 22.00 20.00 121.00 105.00 4.82

Worcester - Belmont Street 

East Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

general retiming

160.00 112.00 3.00 2.00 42.00 23.00 205.00 137.00 2.71

Northborough - Route 20 

Signal Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

general retiming

80.00 61.00 6.00 9.00 86.00 70.00 1.97

Southwick - Route 10/202 

Reconsutrction

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

general retiming

73.00 53.00 13.00 19.00 86.00 72.00 0.22

Lancaster - Route 70 at Old 

Union Turnpike Roundabout

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

24.00 6.00 3.00 11.00 38.00 6.00 11.58
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 42

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Fairhaven - Huttlestone 

Avenue/Route 6 Intersection 

Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

76.00 52.00 1.00 20.00 11.00 97.00 63.00 9.53

Agawam - Reconstruction of 

Route 159 (Main St) from 

Connecticut State Line to 

Route 75

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

69.00 50.00 15.00 13.00 84.00 63.00 0.43

Bedford/Billerica/Chelmsford 

- Route 3 High Tension

Cable System Installation

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.55

Danvers - I-95 Median Cable 

Barrier

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 76.00 81.00 3.00 2.00 27.00 22.00 106.00 105.00 1.25

Taunton/Lakeville - Route 

140 Cable Barrier

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 28.00 82.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 17.00 34.00 50.00 123.00 -0.13

Winchendon - Route 140 

Resurfacing and 

Improvements

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement 

surface - 

miscellaneous

13.00 25.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 10.00 19.00 36.00 -2.39

Westminster - South Street 

Reconstruction

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement 

surface - 

miscellaneous

7.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 9.00 0.18

West Bridgewater - Route 24 

Glare Screen on Tangents

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

278.00 308.00 1.00 2.00 25.00 14.00 134.00 148.00 438.00 472.00 -1.98
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 42

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/31/2018

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2012 To: 2016

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

 2023

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME 

(MIRE NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STAT

E

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY 

SEGMENT

Segment Identifier 

(12)

0.38550843718141

8

0.64420344159608

6

0.0070993914807302

2

0.0003549399000412

5

0.35897435897435

9

0.0052420086998397

4

Route Number (8) 1 1

Route/Street Name 

(9)

0.99472010468495

6

0.99932129575951

2

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

0.99260510339161 0.98783988235793

2

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1

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)

0.99826539462272

3

0.99963236853640

3

Functional Class 

(19)

1 1 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 0.99817409960286

6

0.99876984856411

6

Access Control (22) 0.17700582766543

4

0.99934957510286

6
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 42

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME 

(MIRE NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STAT

E

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

1 1

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

0.99834147380593

7

0.99470469295703 0.970588235294118 0.969168193547768

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

0.96358850291383

3

0.97675437976330

2

0.820486815415821 0.969168193547768

AADT Year (80) 0.96358850291383

3

0.97675437976330

2

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

1

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

1

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

1

Intersection/Junctio

n Geometry (126)

1

Intersection/Junctio

n Traffic Control 

(131)

0.17230085390104

1

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

0.9636

AADT Year (80) 0.9636

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

1

INTERCHANGE/RAM

P

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 42

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME 

(MIRE NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STAT

E

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187) 1 1

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp 

Terminal (199)

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 0.98643714136671

9

0.97399041752224

5

Year of Ramp 

AADT (192)

0.98643714136671

9

0.97399041752224

5

Functional Class 

(19)

1 1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 0.92 0.98 0.89 0.00 0.45 0.45 11.87 11.88 20.67 20.60

*Based on Functional Classification

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 is in relatively good shape. Our largest deficiencies are with the intersections. To overcome that, we assembled an intersection collection tool (using HSIP funds) and two procured two contracts with University of Massachusetts 

students (using HSIP funds) to collect the intersection MIRE FDE. There are approximately 70,000 intersections to be collected and, based on recent performance measures, each intersections takes approximately 12 minutes. We are 

approximately 18% complete with intersections and anticipate completion in less than one year. 

While AADTs are available on nearly 96% of all roadways (State owned and non-state owned), we are looking into a process in place to have some quality control. A committee has been established to perform this review which impacts 

HPMS, Safety and other.

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

No

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

2020
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 42

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 42

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

Highway safety improvement project: means strategies, activities and projects on a public road 

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects: are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule: applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

Performance measure: means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to 

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

Roadway Functional Classification: means the process by which streets and highways are 

grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on 

safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

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

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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