Pennsylvania

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: PA
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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................5

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................32

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 32

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 37

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................89

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.....................................................................................................................................................116
iv
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Highway Safety and Traffic Operations Division of the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation is pleased to present this year's HSIP Annual Report. This document, submitted 

through the Federal Highway Administration's Online Reporting Tool, covers the period from 

July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, and portions of Federal Fiscal Year 2013.

Pennsylvania continues to see a steady decline in the number of fatalities which occur on the 

Commonwealth's roadways. The five year average of highway fatalities from 2008 to 2012 was 

1,329, which was below the goal of 1,343. This pace of reductions is necessary to meet our goal 

of reducing fatalities and major injuries by half within two decades.

Several developments are underway within Pennsylvania which will increase our safety efforts.

These include the implementation of the Highway Safety Manual and AASHTO's SafetyAnalyst 

software into our project selection and design practices, the distribution and implementation of 

the revised Intersection and Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plans, and site visits to 

our engineering personnel and planning partners to discuss recent changes to the HSIP program 

and how we can all work together to maximize the benefit of each safety dollar spent. We are 

optimistic that these efforts will aid our progress and make the highways of Pennsylvania safer 

for the traveling public.
2013 Pennsylvania 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 MAP-21 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

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

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

The program methodology was updated in February 2009 to include local roads as part of the 

methodology. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding is allocated to planning 

regions based on lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, fatalities and reportable crashes. HSIP fund 

distribution is based on the following formula:

25% (lane miles, % of total) +

25% (vehicle miles traveled, % of total) +
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

25% (highway fatalities, % of total) +

25% (reportable crashes, % of total)

Every even-numbered year, a Statewide High Crash Location List is generated. This list is used 

as a basis to prioritize locations for safety projects and is the first funding priority for HSIP 

monies. State road locations are intially generated using cluster reporting capabilities of 

PennDOT's Crash Data Analysis Retrieval Tool (CDART); local road locations are next added after 

a GIS-based analysis. Both types are subjected to the same criteria. For the 2012 list, the 

criteria was 64 fatal or injury crashes within a 5000 foot section over the past 5 years (2007-

2011). These lists are then distributed to planning organizations and engineering districts for 

review and potential projects.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Engineering Districts, Planning Organizations, Program Center

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

PennDOT Engineering Districts utilize a data-driven analysis process to identify eligible projects 

and collaborate with local Planning Organizations to develop a program of safety infrastructure 

projects. This process was designed to improve highway safety using data-driving project 

development methods and to fulfill the requirements of Section 148 of SAFETEA_LU. Each 

District, in coordination with area planning partners, is required to utilize the following three 

step selection process in programming Section 148 (HSIP) projects:

1. Select projects that contain locations listed on the Statewide High Crash Locations 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

(SHCL) priority ranking. Low cost improvements at these locations can be considered.

2. Deployment of systematic implementation of proven low cost countermeasures.

- OR -

A project location listed in the Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (ISIP) or Roadway 

Departure Safety Implementation Plan (RDIP)

- OR -

A District may program locations identified on the Planning Organization lists. The Planning 

Organization Lists are developed from the same methodology as the Statewide High Crash 

Location Lists but with lower crash thresholds to allow for the identification of 25 locations 

overall in each Planning Organization.

3. Projects not meeting the above criteria may be programmed, but first must be approved by 

the Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration. Such approval requests must include the 

following information:

 1) General Project Information, including scope, costs and estimated completion 

dates.

 2) District strategy for exceeding its fatality goal, with the consideration of this 

project.

 3) Justification and safety benefit of programming a non-SHCL/Systematic project, 

related to fatality goals.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-MAST Team - See Question 8 for description
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-NONE

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

would like to elaborate.

Response: The HSIP Program fully aligns with the 2012 Pennsylvania Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. Within this Plan, Infrastructure Improvements are the third of seven "Safety Focus Areas" 

identified. Key components of this effort are to:

• Reduce Head-On and Cross-Median Crashes

• Improve Intersection Safety

• Reduce Run-Off-Road Crashes

• Reduce the Severity and Frequency of Hit Fixed Object Crashes

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Bicycle Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

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

15

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

would like to elaborate. 

The methodology used to generate our High Crash Location Lists, which are #1 (Statewide list) 

and #3 (Planning Organization lists) on the HSIP priority lists, has been updated for the 2012 

versions. Where the criteria for inclusion on the list was formerly based on fatal and major 

injury crashes, the lists are now based upon all injury crashes including fatalities. This change 

was based on feedback received from the Engineering Districts, who observed that a single 

high-fatality event could cause a location with no other crash history to have a priority ranking 

higher than a location with consistent injury crashes. It is anticipated that the change will 

remove some of the randomness and variability that come from fatal crashes and lead to a 

more efficient and effective use of highway safety funding.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 49773271 74 % 25105075 67 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 0 0 %
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

0 0 % 0 0 %

State and Local Funds 10000000 15 % 10347764 28 %

Other Hazard Elimination 

(Section 152)

7459971 11 % 2101947 6 %

Totals 67233242 100% 37554786 100%

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects? 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

$0.00

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

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

A continuing challenge to potential HSIP fund recipients, as discussed in last year's report, is the 

process has become tougher to ensure that the funds are being properly obligated. The newer 

process has steps built in that verify that potential projects meet the goals outlined in the 

state’s SHSP. There was also a recent change in policy for the utilization of HSIP funds. As time 

progresses, districts and planning agencies will become more familiar with the new policy. We 

are currently planning to visit each of PennDOT's eleven Engineering Districts to meet with 

those personnel and those from regional Planning Organizations in order to discuss HSIP 

program and funding priorities. The first of these visits is scheduled to occur at the end 

of August 2013.
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

An additional impediment is the distribution of funds to the Planning Organizations by formula 

without maintaining a centralized control over the monies. While approval to use HSIP funds 

on a project is retained at a high level, the projects and funding proposals are all generated 

from the Planning Organizations. It is hoped that the planning HSIP meetings will educate 

Planning Organization staff about the intent and priorities of the HSIP program and lead to 

more effective project and funding choices.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Every three years, Pennsylvania produces a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that outlines 

from a very high level which areas need to be focused on in order to reach our highway safety 

goals. The SHSP also provides strategies and action items for each of these focus 

areas. Pennsylvania strives toward meeting its fatality goals by working to increase seat belt 

use, reduce driving under the influence, reduce aggressive driving, and by implementing safety 

infrastructure improvements under the Highway Safety Improvement Program and Low-Cost 

Safety Improvement Program.

The following list identifies Pennsylvania’s highway Safety Focus Areas. An asterisk (*) denotes 

the “Vital Seven” SFA, which are designated as high priorities.

Reducing Impaired (DUI) Driving*

Increasing Seat Belt Usage*

Infrastructure Improvements*

 Reducing Head-On and Cross-Median Crashes

 Improving Intersection Safety

 Reducing Run-Off-Road Crashes

 Reducing the Severity and Frequency of Hit Fixed Object Crashes

Reducing Speeding and Aggressive Driving*

Reducing Distracted Driving*

Mature Driver Safety*

Motorcycle Safety*

Teen Driver Safety (Ages 16-20)

Enhancing Safety on Local Roads

Improving Pedestrian Safety

Improving Traffic Records Data

Commercial Vehicle Safety

Improving Emergency/Incident Response Tiem

 Emergency Medical Services
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

 Emergency Incident Management

Improving Bicycle Safety

Enhancing Safety in Work Zones

Reducing Vehicle-Train Crashes

The “Vital Seven” Safety Focus Areas are selected based on the following criteria:

1) Potential for overall fatality reduction towards goal (with execution of improvements)

2) Number of fatalities (based on historic 5-year average)

3) Cost effectiveness (cost/benefit)

4) Ease of strategy implementation within focus area (proven countermeasures)

5) Resources available (funding, time, partners)
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundi

ng 

Categ

ory

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AA

DT

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Peach St. @ I90 

Interchange

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

4.16 

Miles

4625054

.1

1419736

1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Halls Run 

Curve/US 322

Alignment Horizontal 

and vertical alignment

0.74 

Miles

36187.5

5

4363682 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR15 

Intersect T365

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

3.95 

Miles

2991.24 411526.

72

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

MilfordBushkill #1Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

4.11 

Miles

231928.

9

1662222 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Shelbourne 

Rd Jug SW

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.72 

Miles

40792.5 1600000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Route 145 

Safety Project

Miscellaneous 2.47 

Miles

3087315

.12

1485631

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

Goshen @ 

DarbyPaoliRd

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.3 

Miles

174215.

51

2232577 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

Reducin

g RunOff Road 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Agency leaving 

the road

Crashes

Pinecroft 

Curves

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.77 

Miles

7260.42 450000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Mushroom 

Farm Rd. 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.57 

Miles

262292.

68

1900000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 28/US 322 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0.23 

Miles

6818.45 67222 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 28 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

2.43 

Miles

1049897

.8

3110000 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

Reducin

g HeadOn and 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

s along segment n 148) Agency acrossmedian 

crashes

CrossMedian 

Crashes

PA 88/51 

Brdge/Safety 

Imp

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

1.25 

Miles

1854.21 578361.

18

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Torchlight 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0.48 

Miles

334450.

13

886456 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

US 40: I-70 to 

PA 18

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

1.81 

Miles

271701.

24

610000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

SR 519 / SR 

1055 

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

0.2 370309. 1526111 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Improvin

g 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Intersection traffic signal to 

roundabout

Miles 51 n 148) y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Ginger Hill 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0.31 

Miles

138194.

9

585156 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA475 

Hustontown 

Intrsctn

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify intersection 

corner radius

0.09 

Miles

335338.

56

375000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

N Pensyl 

Hollow Rd 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.49 

Miles

29748.4

1

584774 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

highway 

intersectio

ns

US522 Gem 

Curve

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve 

0.77 

Miles

112245.

24

400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Baltimore 

Pike Signals

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - signal 

coordination

3.89 

Miles

96055.5

6

270000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Allntwn @ 

Trxel&Orvilla

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

2.01 

Miles

2698.17 170000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Roosevelt 

Ave Ext. 

Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.91 

Miles

430560.

49

2277857 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

Reducin

g RunOff Road 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Agency roadway Crashes

PA 519 at PA 

PA 980 and I79

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

2.14 

Miles

21624.4

6

500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Route 232, 

Swamp Road 

Safety 

Improvement

s

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.67 

Miles

408.59 1002000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Kennedy 

Drive / 

County Road

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.05 

Miles

41793.0

8

400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 309 and Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

0.41 37.8 1392000 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Improvin

g 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

St. Johns traffic control - other Miles n 148) y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 183/4016 

(Shaeffers)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.88 

Miles

118075.

82

562450 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 183/4030 

(Plum Creek)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify intersection 

corner radius

0.36 

Miles

399410.

03

730733 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

LehighBroad 

& Richmond

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

4.63 

Miles

88532.8

7

7420525 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

highway 

intersectio

ns

Preloh Hill 

Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.52 

Miles

386036.

91

2597209

.43

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Remove 

Weave 

Condition

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

0.02 

Miles

550264.

83

2142789

.48

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Exit 7 

Improvement

s

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.61 

Miles

158746.

82

510000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 309 Rock 

Fence

Roadside Fencing 1.53 

Miles

98063.2

7

149100 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g 

Severity 

and 

Frequen

cy of Hit 

Fixed 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Object 

Crashes

SR62/257 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0.33 

Miles

231147.

37

1352000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Hardies Road 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.77 

Miles

303188.

44

4099360 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 89 - S 

Curves

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.68 

Miles

1565.83 1713320 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 3013 

Corridor 

Improvement

s

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.96 

Miles

1037776

.65

1664492 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

Allentown 

Blvd-1

Miscellaneous 11.9

3 

Miles

292.54 668103 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

SR 61 CCIP -

Sunbury

Miscellaneous 2.86 

Miles

819.77 410000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Blaktwn 

Rd/Irshtwn 

Rd/208

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1.02 

Miles

16927.4

7

1525000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

234 & 3001 

Improvement

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

2.44 58612.5 370000 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Improvin

g 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

s signs (including post) -

new or updated

Miles 3 n 148) y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 27/North 

St. Connector

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.48 

Miles

336231.

94

6214999 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 268 / SR 

1038 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

0.37 

Miles

393952.

45

4366200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 39 to 

Lebanon Co. 

Line

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

9.13 

Miles

2961111

.39

4167766

.63

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

highway 

intersectio

ns

CCIP Palmyra 

to Cleona

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

8.93 

Miles

1285553

.19

1449490 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 21/Easy 

Street Int.

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.18 

Miles

303890.

52

1186670 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

US 220 

Auction Rd 

Improv

Interchange design 

Interchange design -

other

1.1 

Miles

290868.

73

4628819

.94

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

S Waterford 

Improvement

s

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

0.21 

Miles

180000 830000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

B&C TO 

STOCKPILE

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.52 

Miles

60285.9 1237144 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Curve west of 

West Milton 

Phase I

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

0.71 

Miles

1339.14 988348.

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 183/ 4018 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.35 

Miles

217649.

17

1147400 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

ns

SR 100/309 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.38 

Miles

658.55 452378.

55

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 100-

Claussville Int

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.47 

Miles

1470561

.75

4478657 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 322 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1.84 

Miles

367853.

51

1950964 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Vine and Arch Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

0.98 99787.6 1224980 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Improvin

g 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

St. Signals signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

Miles 8 n 148) y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Intersect

ion 

Safety

222 & Shantz 

& 863 signal

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.23 

Miles

49244.9

2

749606 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 33 Med. 

GR South Sec

Roadside Barrier - other 11.5

1 

Miles

790 931950 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

SR 3002 

Intersection 

Impr

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

1.59 

Miles

34996.6

5

1459131 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

ns

PA 100, 

Corridor 

Safety 

Improvement

s

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or elevation 

change

9.36 

Miles

192.91 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Henry 

Avenue 

Congested 

Corridor

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal

11.4

7 

Miles

196577.

92

1679000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Making 

walking 

and street 

crossing 

easier

Improvin

g 

Pedestri

an 

Safety

3069/McFarla

ndSawMillRun

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

4.84 

Miles

9420.67 10467.6

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Millwood 

Road 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.21 

Miles

462421.

41

540000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

910 Wexford 

Run Left Turn

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.24 

Miles

311.61 619205 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Beaver Run 

Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.26 

Miles

6678.95 90000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Allentown 

Blvd & 

Lincoln 

Highway

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

4.6 

Miles

520.76 4327321

.41

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 118 & 

Idetown Rd.

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.08 

Miles

34797.1

9

420000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Agency of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

Roosevelt 

Blvd. Phase2

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal - install new at 

non-intersection location

21.0

8 

Miles

810909.

05

2847000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Making 

walking 

and street 

crossing 

easier

Improvin

g 

Pedestri

an 

Safety

Olney 

Av:BroadRising Sun

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

1.61 

Miles

335241.

49

850000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

AlleghnyAv:Ri

dgeAramingo

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

7.33 

Miles

529959.

04

890000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Making 

walking 

and street 

crossing 

easier

Improvin

g 

Pedestri

an 

Safety

Erie Av: 

Broad St. - K 

St

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

2.47 

Miles

202248.

4

600000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

ent highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

Harris Pnd Rd 

Inter.

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.38 

Miles

41645.7 276000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 116 and 

Oxford Ave

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.43 

Miles

3911.02 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

US 11 & 

Valley St. 

Intsct

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.63 

Miles

344181.

37

1411111 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

PA 641 & 

Central Blvd.

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.81 

Miles

2319.25 1394333 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 34 & PA 

850 Intersect.

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.14 

Miles

190.46 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Belmont 

Road 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.2 

Miles

81333.6

3

575000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Mountain Rd/ 

Bluebird Ave

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.42 

Miles

398633.

58

1210111 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

Improvin

g 

Intersect
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Agency operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

ion 

Safety

SR 896 Safety 

Project

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

5.75 

Miles

305316.

12

1295000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

ITS Install I79,279 SR 22Advanced technology 

and ITS Dynamic 

message signs

1.64 

Miles

315.36 125000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Increasing 

driver 

safety 

awareness

Reducin

g 

Speeding 

and 

Aggressi

ve 

Driving

County line to 

Laddsburg

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

2.09 

Miles

423030.

72

2244445 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

US11 & 

PA997 

Intersection

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

2.08 

Miles

49368.7

8

207880.

27

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

ns

SR72 & 

Jonestown Rd 

Inter

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.08 

Miles

9340.89 436000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Overlook to 

Old Pike Road

Miscellaneous 2.41 

Miles

1585809

.52

5736851 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

Picnic Area to 

Overlook

Miscellaneous 1.12 

Miles

1221725

.14

6186810

.36

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and 

acrossmedian 

crashes

Reducin

g HeadOn and 

CrossMedian 

Crashes

US 119 / PA 

310 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.69 

Miles

563204.

15

1915334 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

intersectio

ns

Signing, 

Delineation, 

Evaluating 

Superelevatio

n

Roadway Superelevation 

/ cross slope

2.34 

Miles

14744.5

6

405000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

PA26/PA305 

Intrsctn Imp

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.19 

Miles

8295.86 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Water Level 

Rd Int Imp

Roadside Roadside 

grading

0.25 

Miles

182929.

09

214000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

51/Ohio State 

- SR4004

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

8.42 

Miles

294261.

51

323438 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

Reducin

g RunOff Road 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Agency roadway Crashes

US15 PA394 

to PA 234

Roadside Barrier- metal 10.3

5 

Miles

39373.0

8

50000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

NC Tree 

Trimming 

Proj

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

58.7 

Miles

234607.

73

614649 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

PA31 W 

Somrst 

Corridr Imp

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1.4 

Miles

271835.

98

685000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR56/SR4028 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.41 

Miles

23865.3

8

150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

intersectio

ns

Montour 

Street to US 

11

Interchange design 

Acceleration / 

deceleration / merge 

lane

1.12 

Miles

397897.

57

784476 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 1004 

Curve 

Realignment

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

1.36 

Miles

59665.2

3

150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

US 6 Center 

Turn Lane

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1.2 

Miles

32594.9

6

100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 68 Clarion 

Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.48 

Miles

142782.

91

2950545 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

US 30 / Ronks 

Road Intsct

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1.24 

Miles

3835.71 543000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 501 / 

Oregon Pike 

Intersect

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

1.67 

Miles

15021.0

4

100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

United High 

School Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

1.3 

Miles

26871.0

3

377737.

51

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Yellow Crk 

Park Intersect

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.9 

Miles

89170.1

6

225000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

ns

US 322 

Intsect 

Impvts

Non-infrastructure Road 

safety audits

1.19 

Miles

7255.24 75000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 54/642 Int 

Improvement

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

0.81 

Miles

4627.07 100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

148/Walnut5th & 

5th/Jerome

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

2.84 

Miles

1034778

.79

1122250 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Cooks Store Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

0.38 53690.6 474000 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

Improving 

the design 

Improvin

g 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Intersection realignment to align 

offset cross streets

Miles 4 n 148) y 

Agency

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Intersect

ion 

Safety

US22 

Frankstown 

Intrsctns

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align 

offset cross streets

0.64 

Miles

95763 870000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 267 

Shoulder/Edg

eline

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6.05 

Miles

1133.31 1570000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 0739 Shld 

Widen / ELRS

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2.36 

Miles

102531.

28

588000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 73/662 

Corridor 

Safety

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

1.34 

Miles

1090.17 56406.8

1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

SR 248/946 

Intersctn 

Impr

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.14 

Miles

20998.5

6

298000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

PA 145-329-

Chestnut Intr

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

0.6 

Miles

32698.4

1

279000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

Bridgeville Rd 

Shoulders

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

0.84 

Miles

2607.43 75000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 66/948 Int 

Improvement

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

1.39 

Miles

41771.0

6

354230 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Agency of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

SR322 

Walker's 

Approach

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

1.62 

Miles

30318.3

8

350000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 348 

Intersection 

Imp

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.24 

Miles

50928.1

2

423000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

SR 739 Should 

/ Widening

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

1.86 

Miles

1173.46 724000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 29/3003 

Sugar Hollow

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

0.34 

Miles

38871.9

5

45000 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

Improvin

g 

Intersect
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

pecified n 148) Agency operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

ion 

Safety

SR 0307 

Shoulders / 

ELRS

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8.97 

Miles

808054.

65

1025000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 11 

Shoulders / 

ELRS

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3.1 

Miles

105321.

71

749000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 11 

Shoulder / 

ELRS

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2.59 

Miles

1113.53 690000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 11 

Shoulder / 

ELRS

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3.11 

Miles

1298.08 823000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

Basin Street 

Safety Improv

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.3 

Miles

124959.

59

168418 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Agency highway 

intersectio

ns

Safety

422 Resurf419-

Wernrsvile

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

6.09 

Miles

22638.5

4

150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

8 

Signal/Bradd

ock-Linden

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replacem

ent

1.78 

Miles

47140.2

9

1158250 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersectio

ns

Improvin

g 

Intersect

ion 

Safety

LVTS High 

Friction 

Surface

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.97 

Miles

601682.

03

682356 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

378 HTCable 

MedianBarrie

r

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.8 

Miles

81975.4

8

175000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Minimizin

g the 

conseque

nces of 

leaving 

the road

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

2012 HSIP 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

12.5

4 

Miles

209311.

65

687500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes

SR 197: 

Marsh Road 

Curve

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Curverelated warning signs 

and flashers

0.88 

Miles

9760.4 100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Reducin

g RunOff Road 

Crashes
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 1518 1471 1413 1365 1329

Number of serious injuries 4199 4022 3858 3693 3556

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.41 1.37 1.34 1.31 0

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 3.9 3.76 3.65 3.55 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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

Year - 2012

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

57 110 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

106 193 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

176 365 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

60 164 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

136 298 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

30 79 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 68 158 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

35 75 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

217 616 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

141 409 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

69 216 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

9 30 0 0

OTHER 221 834 0 0

RAMP 4 12 0 0

RAMP 4 12 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

1097 2708 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

8 22 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

205 767 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 8 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

18 53 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

86

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

In 2012, there were 124,032 reportable vehicle crashes in Pennsylvania, which accounted for 

1,310 fatalities and 3,455 major injuries. With the exception of one year of fatality increase, 

the five year average of all three categories has been consistently decreasing over the past ten 

years.

The total number of fatalities in 2012 is below the five-year (2007-2011) average of 1,329.

Annual roadway fatalities in Pennsylvania are decreasing at a rate of thirty-three per year, 

according to data from 2003 to 2011.

Major injuries in 2012 were lower than the five-year (2007-2011) average of 3,556.

The total number of reportable crashes in 2012 is the third lowest total since 1951 (when 

123,088 crashes were reported); the two years of better performance were 2009 and 2010.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.71 1.68 1.59 1.56 1.54

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

3.03 2.89 2.77 2.64 2.57

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

4.74 4.57 4.36 4.2 4.11

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

Fatality and Serious Injury (classified as "Major Injury" in Pennsylvania) data for older drivers 

and pedestrians was collected from the state's crash records systems. Population data was 

obtained from the US Census Bureau and the proportion of Older Persons per 1,000 population 

was taken from the FHWA Guidance on this Special Rule. Note that the proportional data was 

not available from FHWA for all years necessary to calculate five year averages for the 2008-

2012 period, and so estimates were made similar to the trends exhibited by the provided data.

Fatality rates were calculated as directed by the FHWA Guidance document:
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

The number of fatalities of older drivers and pedestrians were summed. This total was divided 

by the population that year multiplied by the ratio of older persons per 1,000 people. The 

resulting rate was multiplied by 10,000 to obtain rates between 0 and 10, and thus are 

expressed as fatality rates per 10,000 population.

A similar methodology was used for the Serious Injuries.

The Fatality and Serious Injury Rate is the sum of the two component pieces. There was a 

decrease during the two periods (2005-2009 and 2007-2011) to be compared as directed by the 

Special Rule, though it should be noted there has been a steady decline in the rates otherwise.
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-See Question 31
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

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

Several changes have been made to the HSIP program in the last reporting period. We have 

begun to systematically market the FHWA-sponsored Intersection Safety Implementation Plan 

(ISIP) and Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan (RDIP) to PennDOT's Engineering 

Districts and to Planning Organizations. This is being done in concert with efforts to promote 

the HSIP program and intelligent use of its funding. Other countermeasures being promoted 

include high friction surfaces for wet road and curve crashes. These efforts will 

assist Engineering Districts and Planning Organizations in selecting quality projects and 

countermeasures which will provide the largest return on safety investment.

On the project side, we have increased our scrutiny of projects applying for HSIP funding as the 

number of project grandfathered in begin to dwindle. This will ensure that safety funds are 

being spent wisely.

Finally, we have begun to implement the procedures of the Highway Safety Manual into our 

project planning. While this enhancement is still in its early stages, it is anticipated that the 

Manual will promote a more efficient, data-driven use of safety funding.
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

Younger Driver 

Crashes

54 200 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring drivers are 

licensed and fully 

competent

Unlicensed Driver 

Crashes

8 32 0 0 0 0 0

Sustaining 

proficiency in older 

drivers

Older Driver 

Crashes

135 266 0 0 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

NHTSA Aggressive 

Driving Crashes

160 272 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

Alcohol-Related 

Crashes

449 876 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert Distracted/Drowsy 

Driver Crashes

82 321 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

Unrestrained 

Crashes

511 938 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

airbag effectiveness

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Vehicle/pedestrian 149 326 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Vehicle/bicycle 15 71 0 0 0 0 0

Improving 

motorcycle safety 

and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

Motorcycle 

Crashes

214 580 0 0 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

Truck-related 158 224 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing vehicletrain crashesVehicle/Train 

Crashes

2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

Run-off-road 665 1645 0 0 0 0 0

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

Fixed object 551 1315 0 0 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway 

intersections

Intersection 

Crashes

280 1034 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

Reducing head-on 

and across-median 

crashes

Head on 163 444 0 0 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

Work Zone 

Crashes

21 44 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

96
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

97
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

98
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

99

Groups of similar project types
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

100

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2012

HSIP Subprogram Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

All 1329 3556 0 0 0 0 0

Median Barrier Cross median 40 63 0 0 0 0 0

Local Safety Local Road (Only) 214 820 0 0 0 0 0

Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 15 71 0 0 0 0 0

Intersection Intersection 

Crashes

280 1034 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 665 1645 0 0 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve Curve Driver Error 170 307 0 0 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 149 326 0 0 0 0 0

Shoulder 

Improvement

Run-off-road 665 1645 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

101
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

102
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

103
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

104
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

105

Systemic Treatments
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

106

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic improvement Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Install/Improve Signing All 1329 3556 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Hit Guide 

Rail Crashes

152 259 0 0 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Cross 

Median 

Crashes

40 63 0 0 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Intersection 

Crashes

280 1034 0 0 0 0 0

Pavement/Shoulder Widening Run-offroad665 1645 0 0 0 0 0

Rumble Strips Head on 163 444 0 0 0 0 0

Traffic Control Device 

Rehabilitation

Intersection 

Crashes

280 1034 0 0 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement 

Marking and/or Delineation

All 1329 3556 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

107
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

108
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

109
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

110
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

111

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The five-year average of highway fatalities in Pennsylvania has declined nine out of the last ten 

years, and that of serious injuries has been consistently falling for the last twelve years. In fact, 

the single year fatality total for 2012 (1,286) was the third lowest since we began keeping 

records 80 years ago. While some of these improvements can be attributed to improved 

vehicle crash performance and greater emphasis on highway safety at all levels, a lot of the 

improvement has come from Pennsylvania's systematic, data-driven approach to targeting 

high-improvement-potential locations and utilizing highway safety monies. We are anticipating 

even greater benefits as we move forward with the implementation of Intersection Safety and 

Roadway Departure Safety Plans that have been developed for our state by FHWA.
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

112

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functiona

l Class

Improvemen

t Category

Improvement Type BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s 

Injury

BefOthe

r 

Injur

y

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s 

Injury

AftOthe

r 

Injur

y

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluatio

n Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

64853 - PA 89 

Elgin/Wattsburg

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1 3 13 7 24 0 1 13 14 28 3.56

84077 - SR79 MP 

165 to MP 170

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

0 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 4 6 -0.01

79399 - NC Center 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79870 - Curve 

Signing Flashing 

Device

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

0 0 8 6 14 0 0 1 4 5 -0.74

75038 - Pine and 

Quenshukeny 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 1 17 14 33 4 0 24 17 45 -14.3

80133 - US 220 

"Loon" Safe Proj

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 0 6 2 8 0 0 0 1 1 0.35

80184 - 1007 

Flashing Beacon 

Roadway 

signs and 

Roadway signs and traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

113

w/PA 54 traffic control control - other

80948 -

973/Hoagland Run 

Icing

Miscellaneou

s

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 5 -0.02

47968 - Well Road 

Relocation

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

63707 - Luzern Co 

Group 4-06-GR1

Roadside Barrier- metal 0 4 54 0 58 1 6 63 0 70 -3.91

68137 - SR 309 & 

Church Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

70234 - I-81 NB off 

ramp @ River

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 0 0 16 0 16 0 0 5 2 7 0.77

80076 80077 -

Wrong Way Ramp 

Initiative

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

0 1 3 1 5 0 0 2 1 3 2.29

80519 - Rumble 

strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2 1 43 42 88 1 3 46 27 77 7.72

49045 - Roosevelt 

Ave Ext. Curve

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 1 1 0.03

61314 -

S.MountainRd/US1

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.01
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

114

5 Int Imp

80684 - SR 851 

Safety 

Improvement

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

0 0 9 6 15 0 1 5 0 6 -1.31

84644 - N Beaver St 

Grade Crossng

Railroad 

grade 

crossings

Railroad grade crossings -

other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 -0.05
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

115

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

116

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. 

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.