Massachusetts

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: MA
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

2. Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................... 9

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................... 9

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 11

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 17

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 17

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 30

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................31

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 33

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 37

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 38

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 42
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

2. 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. 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists of four sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing HSIP projects, progress in achieving safety performance targets, and 

assessment of the effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

3. How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds administered in the State? 

Other-The STIP provided for approximately $33 million in 2015 HSIP funds ($29.8M Federal funds). 

$18.9M administered in HQ and $14.2M was allocated to the regions (by MARPA formula) through MPO 

project selection process.

4. Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

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.

5. Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program 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
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

6. Briefly 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, 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.

7. Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other-FHWA

Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members

8. Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Other-none known

9. Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

None
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Program Methodology

10. Select the programs that are administered under HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Bicycle Safety

Crash Data Pedestrian Safety Left Turn Crash

11. Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-cross median fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Other-Road Safety audit

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-RSA

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

often these improvements are 

tied with larger components of a 

project

2

11. Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-CRASH SEVERITY 

WEIGHTING

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

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-MPO

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

PROJECT READINESS 1

11. Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Population

Other-percent commuting by 

biking

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-proportion of non-motorist crashes, EMS non-motorist crashes, percent commuting by bike

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

Yes

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-participating communities based on data driven process

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 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

project readiness 1

11. Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal crashes only

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Other-HSM Methodology using 

SPF

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-This is for crash data inprovement so covers all crashes statewide

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

Yes

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Need based on CDIP, MIRE FDE and HSM

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

Data needs 1

11. Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes Population
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

only

Other-ratio of ped crashes to all 

crashes by town

Other-commuting by walking 

(journey to work census data)

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-EMS data on pedestrians, ratio of pedestrian crashes to all crashes, commuting rates of 

pedestrians by towns

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

Yes

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-based on priority of towns selected by above criteria

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding 2

project readiness 1

11. Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-Systemic approach for all 

State signals with left turn lanes 

and protected-permissive 

phasing to install FYA

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Probability of specific crash types

Other-using systemic approach for all eligible state signals

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-SHSP emphasis area strategy
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

working on all state signals where 

the flashing yellow arrow can be 

added easily (no new mast arms, 

no R-O-W, etc)

1

12. What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

34%

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-bicycle and pedestrian safety

13. What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-Systemic 

14. Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Other-None have changed. We had used RSAs and systemic approaches in the past and continue to do 

so. WE are still testing HSM methodologies 

15. Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which 

you would like to elaborate. 

Nothing
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

16. Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

21 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

28 %

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

0 %

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

7 %

Massachusetts uses a placeholder on our STIP entitled "Various Safety Strategies To Be Determined 

Based on SHSP updates" in which we draw down as needed and can be shorter term in nature. Many of 

these strategies can and are for projects / programs that are non-infrastructure, that are on locally 

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

HSIP (Section 148) $29,778,810.00 39 % $23,360,095.99 33 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$34,000,000.00 45 % $34,231,682.28 49 %

State and Local Funds $11,808,754.00 16 % $12,639,362.78 18 %

Totals $75,587,564.00 100% $70,231,141.05 100%
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

owned roads or for low cost systemic processes. This is why there is a discrepancy in what was 

programmed vs. what was obligated. For the response to the question, "Various Safety Strategies To Be 

Determined Based on SHSP updates" does not count as being programmed specifically for noninfrastructure, local or low cost systemic processes.

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

reporting period?

0 %

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

period?

0 %

21. Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

We have a difficult time with low cost systemic projects because we are now required to include surveys 

to verify no work is being done outside the public way. Requiring survey for low cost systemic projects 

removes the low cost part. We are working with FHWA (and are piloting it for some 2016 projects) to 

come up with a process that allows work to continue for elements that are clearly within the right of 

way, removing elements that are clearly outside the right of way and obtaining survey for the elements 

in questions.

22. Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundi

ng 

Categ

ory

Function

al 

Classifica

tion

AAD

T

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

HSI002S(782)X, 

District 1 & 2 -

Traffic Signal 

Re

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

52 

Numb

ers

575300 575300 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSI002S(783)X, 

District 3 -

Traffic Signal 

Retrof

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

59 

Numb

ers

536540 536540 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSI002S(784)X, 

District 4 -

Traffic Signal 

Retrof

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

88 

Numb

ers

1125240 1125240 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSI002S(785)X, Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

71 

Numb

726650 726650 HSIP 

(Sectio

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

District 5 & 6 -

Traffic Signal 

Re

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

ers n 148) y 

Agency

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSI002S(799)X, 

Statewide -

SHSP Support 

for Traff

Work Zone 0 

Numb

ers

8637.31 8637.31 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Work 

Zones

Ensure 

work 

zones 

and 

other 

traffic 

incident 

set-u

HSI002S(799)X, 

Statewide -

SHSP Support 

for Traff

Work Zone 0 

Numb

ers

91362.6

9

91362.69 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Work 

Zones

Ensure 

work 

zones 

and 

other 

traffic 

incident 

set-u

HSI002S(809), 

Statewide -

City of Boston 

for Cras

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numb

ers

77408 77408 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 Other 

Local 

Agency

Data Identify 

data 

needs 

and 

improve 

data for 

use in 

SH

HSI/STP002S(816)X, 

608025. 

Brockton -

Roadway Rec

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

- realignment to align 

offset cross streets

2 

Numb

ers

561747.

6

4089090.

1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

245

66

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

intersect

ion desi

HSI/CM/STP002S(808)X -

Intersection 

Improvement

s 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.165 

Miles

375561.

26

630419.7

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

850

0

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HISP/STP/TE002S(863)X -

Millbury / 

Sutton 

Median 

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

2.742 

Miles

3111408

.3

6402688.

19

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

442

00

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

roadway 

design

HSI/STP002S(796)X, 

Sturbridge -

Work along a 

Sect

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road diet, 

roadway 

reconfiguration)

1.6 

Miles

1199551

.66

3345280.

81

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

roadway 

design

HSIP -

002S(875)X -

Statewide -

Technical 

services t

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

18 

Numb

ers

388888.

89

388888.8

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Provide 

training 

and 

technica

l 

assistan

ce to 

impro

HSIP002S(876)X -Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

1 

Numb

555555.

56

555555.5

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

varies 0 0 City of 

Municip

Data Identify 

data 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Contract to 

furnish 

engineering,

planning ers n 148) al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

needs 

and 

improve 

data for 

use in 

SH

HSIP002S(838)X, 

Lenox -

Intersection 

Improvement

s

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing left-turn lane

1 

Numb

ers

501067.

5

501067.5 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

167

00

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

CM/HSI/STP/

TAP002S(837) -

Medway -

Related Work 

a

Roadway Roadway -

other

1.501 

Miles

3272815

.54

1556599

3.61

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

213

00

30 Town or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

roadway 

design

HSIP002S(849) -

STATEWIDEIMPLEMENTA

TION OF FYA,

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

24 

Numb

ers

1209592

.5

1209592.

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSIP0002S(855), 

DISTRICT 4-

DISTRICT 6-

IMPLEMENT

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

11 

Numb

ers

350056.

88

350056.8

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

HSIP002S(874)X, 

Statewide 

Conversion of 

Interstat

Miscellaneous 0 

Numb

ers

2573260 350056.8

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Data Identify 

data 

needs 

and 

improve 

data for 

use in 

SH

STP/TAP/CM/

HSI002S(818), 

BARNSTABLEINTERSECTIO

N

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

3 

Numb

ers

599229.

36

7742540.

85

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

155

42

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSIP/STP002S(842)X, 

TAUNTONRECONSTRUC

TION ON CO

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.262 

Miles

1527321

.16

4497292.

47

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

223

00

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

CM/HSIP/STP

/TAP002S(848)X, 

LAWRENCEINTERSECTIO

N

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

- realignment to 

increase cross street 

offset

1 

Numb

ers

454156.

22

1225919.

17

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

124

45

30 Town or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi

HSIP002S(869)X, 

DISTRICT 4, 6 -

HIGH 

FRICTION SUR

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

3 

Numb

ers

2528535

.7

2528535.

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

roadway 

design

HSIP002S(879)X, 

Statewide -

Marketing 

and Adverti

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 

Numb

ers

555555.

56

555555.5

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Educate 

the 

public 

on 

pedestri

an 

safety

CM/HSI/STP002S(826)X, 

SALEMRECONSTRUC

TION ON CA

Roadway Roadway -

other

1.339 

Miles

1840925

.34

1218703

7.72

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

197

76

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

roadway 

design

CM/HSI/STP002S(829)X, 

HADLEYSIGNAL & 

INTERSECTI

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

1 

Numb

ers

1209295

.2

4523577.

01

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

250

00

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Incorpor

ate 

safety 

element

s into 

intersect

ion desi
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010

(5-yr avg)

2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

Number of fatalities 382.8 371.8 361.6 359 361.8

Number of serious injuries 5050.4 4833.6 4710.6 4548.2 4397.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.65

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.22 8.84 8.59 8.24 7.9

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

18
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

FARS data and injury data are not yet finalized for 2015. Therefore, 2014 is the most recent year.
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

25. To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure data by functional classification and ownership.

Year - 2014

Function 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

2.8 19.2 0.28 2.05

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

4.4 2.99

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

5 13.6 1.46 3.93

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

6 26.2 1.38 5.85

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

3.4 10.4 2.79 8.67

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

6.6 45.8 1.41 9.44

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

6 32.4 1.05 5.6

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

47 241 0.3 1.54

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

23.4 120.4 0.41 2.09

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

94.2 1036.6 0.84 9.2

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

96.2 1003.6 1.05 10.98
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

25.2 293.8 0.32 3.8

OTHER 8.4

URBAN COLLECTOR 

(COMBINED MAJOR + 

MINOR)

33.2 328 1.13 11.22
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

23
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 141.8 923.8

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0.4 1.4

OTHER STATE AGENCY 6.8 69.4

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 2.8 33.2

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0.4 4.8

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0.6

CITY OR TOWN HIGHWAY AGENCY 192.4 2126.6
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

FARS data and injury data are not yet finalized for 2015. Therefore, 2014 is the most recent year.
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

26. Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to 

elaborate.

None

Application of Special Rules

27. Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians 65 

years of age and older.

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010

(5-yr avg)

2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.65

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.79 0.76 0.75 0.73 0.72

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

source of fatalities (sample 2014 below): Person Type 1,5 and Injury Severity = 4 and state = 25 and age 

65+

source of serious injuries: Data Sources: MA Hospital Inpatient Discharge and MA Outpatient 

Observation Stay Databases, MA Center for Health Information and Analysis

source of population: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guideolder.cfm

Process = By year, add fatalities and injuries of Age 65+ drivers and pedestrians and divide by the 

population. Take five year rolling average
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

28. Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

29. What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-We are moving towards evaluation to measure effectiveness of specific projects. We already 

have a qualitative measure of effectiveness for our Bicycle - pedestrian Safety Program that was 

prepared through the Department of Public Health.

30. What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

None

31. Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

Based on Fast Act, we are no longer allowed to use HSIP funds for non-infrastructure programs so our 

successful Bicycle-Pedestrian Safety Program could not continue in the same manner it has for the 

previous two years (which included the awareness and enforcement components).
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

SHSP Emphasis Areas

32. Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

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

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Lane Departure 182.6 705.8 0.33 1.28

Intersections 102.2 1527.6 0.18 2.75

Pedestrians 73.6 681.2 0.13 1.22

Bicyclists 8.4 160.2 0.02 0.29

Older Drivers 42.4 481.2 0.08 0.86

Motorcyclists 44 630.4 0.08 1.13
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Groups of similar project types
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

33. Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

The "median barrier" crashes are actually the cross median crashes on divided roadways with unprotected median .

Systemic Treatments

34. Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

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

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Left Turn Crash 5 167.4 0.01 0.3

Bicycle Safety 8.4 160.2 0.02 0.29

Median Barrier 3.4 17.4 0.01 0.03

Pedestrian Safety 73.6 681.2 0.13 1.22

Intersection 102.2 1527.6 0.18 2.75

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target 

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)

Other1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other3

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-bicycle and pedestrian 

safety

82 841.4 0.15 1.51

Cable Median Barriers 3.2 17.2 0.01 0.03

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

0.6 44.2 0.08
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

The add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal is the systemic program of installing flashing yellow arrow at State-owned signals
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

35. Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

Starting next year (due to the lag in crash data), we will be able to start evaluating the effectiveness of 

the first few HSIP projects by comparing pre- and post-construction crashes (not just looking at crash 

modification factors). We are also in the process of testing evaluations using HSM methodologies.
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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.