Page 1 of 66

NEW YORK
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 66

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 33

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 33

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 36

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

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 37

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 50

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 52

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 55

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 55

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 60

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 61
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 66

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lists, or data.” 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 66

Executive Summary

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

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

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

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Emphasis Areas

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

the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Site specific projects at high accident locations and systemic 

improvement projects to decrease lane departure crashes and improve pedestrian safety are being implemented 

to meet crash goals. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan was updated in 2017. The emphasis areas in the 

updated plan include intersections, lane departures, driver behavior, vulnerable users, speed and older and 

younger drivers. The plan also emphasizes emergency response, data and automated/connected vehicles as cross 

cutting issues that affect all crash types. The first ever statewide New York Pedestrian Safety Action Plan 

(PSAP) was released in June 2016. The plan adds pedestrian locations to the state's annual regional work 

program; implements pedestrian improvements systemically at approximately 2,400 signalized intersections and 

1,350 uncontrolled crosswalks and provides for pedestrian improvements on 5 pedestrian corridors. The PSAP 

also includes statewide pedestrian education and enforcement initiatives.

HSIP Fund Administration

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

essentially doubled under MAP-21. Approximately half of the funds are provided to the NYSDOT regions 

according to a formula that includes crashes, population and center line miles. The remaining half of the funds 

are administrated centrally by the NYSDOT Main Office and the Safety and System Optimization (SSO) team. 

These funds are primarily used to fund a statewide call for projects program as well as the statewide Pedestrian 

Safety Action Plan (PSAP). The call for projects program funds the most cost effective safety projects and 

directs HSIP funds where they are the most needed regardless of ownership, mode or geographic restriction. In 

FFY13 and FFY14, the call for projects program funded 10 local and 27 state projects for a total of 

approximately $83M. The FFY15-17 call for projects funded 14 local projects and 25 state projects for a total of 

approximately $82M. The FFY16-20 program, funded 38 projects; both local and state for a total of 

approximately $112.3M. The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes approximately $110M in HSIP funds to 

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

All Public Roads

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

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

following initiatives support the "all public roads" mandate.

Locally owned and state owned projects are eligible for the call for projects program.

Crash data on the local system is available through New York's Safety Information Management Systems 

(SIMS).

A local GIS route system is being developed.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 66

Enhancements to the Accident Location Information System (ALIS), the Safety Information Management 

System (SIMS) and a new Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS) will enhance the states ability to 

analysis crash data on the local system.

Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads.

Performance Indicators

The FastAct further integrates performance into the HSIP program. The FastAct requires that states report five 

annual safety performance targets beginning in 2018. The 2018 safety targets for New York State are shown 

below.

Performance Measures for 2018 Target (5 year average)

Number of Fatalities 1,086

Fatality Rate (Fatalities/100M VMT) .87

Number of Serious Injuries 10,854

Serious Injury Rate (Serious Injuries/100M VMT) 8.54

Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2,843
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 66

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Approximately 50% of HSIP funds in NYS are provided to the Regions according to a safety planning target 

formula. The other 50% of the funding are administered by the NYSDOT Main Office for the implementation 

of statewide programs.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

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

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

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

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

delivery.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Formula via Districts/Regions

Other-Periodic call for Safety Projects

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

Approximately 50% of HSIP funds in NYS are provided to the Regions according to a safety planning target 

formula. The other 50% of the funding are administered by the NYSDOT Main Office for the implementation 

of statewide programs.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 66

Safety projects on all public roads in New York State including local roads and roads on tribal lands are eligible 

to receive HSIP funds. In FFY16 approximately 50% of the available HSIP funds were allocated to the 11 

regions in New York state based on a formula that included VMT, population and crashes. The regions work 

with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations to decide which projects to include in the capital program, 

including state and local roads. Fifty percent of the Region 11 allocation was provided to New York City for 

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

funding to 16 local projects to be let between FFY16 - FFY20 for a total of about $40.5M in HSIP funding. The 

pedestrian safety action plan also includes $40M in HSIP funding for local municipalities to implement 

systemic treatments that improve safety for pedestrians.

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

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

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

capabilities to identify local roads.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Operations

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Governors Highway Safety Office

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

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

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

team is responsible for the following: 

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

update strategies;

• Providing clarification and guidance to the 11 NYSDOT regions; 

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

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

• Reviewing safety program proposals; and
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 66

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

met.

 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

Other-New York State Department of Health

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

New York State coordinates regularly with external partners on safety initiatives. For example in 2016:

• NYSDOT led the development of an update to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan in 2016 and 2017. The 

plan was developed in coordination with local, state, federal, tribal and private organizations throughout 

the state.

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

safety targets. The coordination includes several presentations as well as a target setting workshop.

• Monthly conference calls are held with the MPO Directors and the MPO Safety Working Group to 

coordinate and communicate ongoing safety efforts. 

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

NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, DOH and the MPOs.

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

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 66

Yes

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

File Name:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 66

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 66

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations 

Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Intersection 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 66

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 66

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

municipalities.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 66

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

incorporated into maintenance projects.

Other-Low cost spot improvements are often recommended as a result of a highway safety investigation.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 66

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other- Many nominal safety improvements are incorporated into maintenance work

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 66

Other-Crashes involving pedestrians 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Population 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc. 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Right Angle Crash 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 66

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Intersection features; speed 

limit etc. 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 66

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

Median width

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

departure crashes.

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

Yes
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 66

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

No

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

Local projects are usually identified when a municipality informs DOT of a safety issue or through the MPO 

planning. Data that shows a safety issue is required to receive funding however a detailed analysis that identifies 

high accident locations is not.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

Other-CARDS are an approved systemic treatment

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Ranking based on net benefit : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Rural State Highways 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010 

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

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

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

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 66

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Safe Corridor 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 66

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 66

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

schedule.

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

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 66

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Other- Locations are identified 

where the percentage of wet road 

accidents is twice the normal 

proportion for the same county and 

facility type. 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS) 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 66

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

No

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

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

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 20

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Other-Pedestrian Countdown Timers

Other-The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes systemic improvements at thousands of intersections and mid 

block crosswalks. Therefore the percentage of funds that address systemic improvements is expected to increase 

between 2017-2021.

Other-The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes systemic pedestrian improvements at over 3,700 uncontrolled 

crosswalks and signalized intersections at locations outside NYC.

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

Page 25 of 66

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input

Other-Risk Factors

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York State strategies noted in the 2017 SHSP include:

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

best practices, including the National Pooled Fund Study Group.

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

utilizing 5.9 GHz dedicated short range communications for light vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

framework.

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

8. Continue to develop an understanding of the technology and short term and long term implications.

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

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

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

increase the vehicle's situational awareness.

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

Page 26 of 66

Yes

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

The states Safety Information Management system is used to identify High Accident Locations on the state 

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

performing Highway Safety Investigations.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

New York State updated the Strategic Highway Safety Plan in 2016-2017. The vision and mission statements as 

stated in the New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan are:

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

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

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

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

emergency medical service activities.

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

Emphasis Areas

• Intersections

• Lane Departures

• Vulnerable Users

• Age-related (older and younger drivers)

• Road User Behavior

• Speed

Cross Cutting Issues

• Emergency response

• Improvement to Data
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 66

• Automated and Connected Vehicles

Intersections

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

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

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

intersections with a crash history. Examples of strategies include developing an Intersection Safety Action Plan, 

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

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

Travel Lane Departures

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

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

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

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

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

severity of lane departure crashes.

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators

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

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

criteria is required to install CARDS as part of the project. Because of the low cost and proven effectiveness of 

centerline rumble strips, this new policy is an important tool in reducing both head-on and run-off road crashes. 

As of end March 2017, approximately 3,641 miles of CARDS have been installed.

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP)

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

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

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

The frictional quality of NYSDOT owned pavements has improved since the programs inception. A summary 

of PIL testing from 1996 through 2014 shows a decline in the number of sites requiring treatment, from 91 sites 

in 1996 to 18 sites in 2016.

Vulnerable Users

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

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

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

users of the roadway network.

In June of 2016, NYSDOT announced its first ever statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The plan includes 

Engineering, Education and Enforcement measures to improve pedestrian safety. Engineering improvements 

include the implementation of systemic countermeasures at thousands of signalized intersections and mid-block 

crosswalks in urban areas between 2016 and 2021. The plan also includes pedestrian improvements at 5 new 

pedestrian corridors in the state (locations to be determined) as well as adding a pedestrian focus to NYSDOT's 

annual regional work program. The work programs study 20% of the identified Priority Investigation Locations 

(PILs) each year in order to determine what improvements can be made to improve safety.

Safer Corridors for Pedestrians

In 2012 NYSDOT began developing a process to evaluate corridors to improve pedestrian safety. To maximize 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 66

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

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

efforts.

Corridor projects have or are being been conducted on Hempstead Turnpike, Sunrise Highway (Route 27) and 

Route 110 corridors in Long Island; Route 5/Central Avenue and Hoosick Street (Route 7) in the Albany 

Capital District and Route 59 in Rockland County. The PSAP includes projects to implement safety 

improvements at 5 additional corridors by the end of 2021.

Complete Streets

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

provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Unit

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Unit has been reorganized within the Office of Traffic Safety to further align 

coordination of these alternative modes with the core safety programs and mission. The Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Unit has been expanded to three FTE. The Unit has been working to develop a strategic planning dialogue 

with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinators in 11 Regions. The Unit provides coordination and staff support 

for the pedestrian safety initiatives and is managing an over-haul of the NY bicycle map. The project will 

integrate the existing bicycle network information in a single data layer and engage stakeholders in defining 

specific data and system requirements that will enable a more flexible and efficient management of bicycle 

travel options. The Unit also provides coordination/facilitation and technical/management support for the 

Pedestrian Safety Action Plan and the Empire State Trail statewide project.

Pedestrian Countdown Timers

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

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

are installed at ALL eligible state owned signals. As of end March 2017, countdown timers have been installed 

at approximately 2,654 (80.9%) of the 3,172 eligible signals.

Age Related

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

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

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

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

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

education and enforcement initiatives.

Road User Behavior and Speed

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

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

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

that decrease the incidence of distracted and drowsy driving such as flashing beacons, and centerline and edgeline rumblestrips as well as improvements that influence driver speed such as signing and speed feedback 

devices, roundabouts, complete streets and road diets. Education and Enforcement efforts are most important to 

build awareness and promote safer driving habits.

Emergency Response and Traffic Incident Management
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 66

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

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

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

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

to this problem, NYSDOT has fostered the development of a Statewide Traffic Incident Management (TIM) 

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

New York State. This Committee has been meeting regularly for 8 years to foster relationships among agencies, 

determine issues of statewide significance relating to TIM, and to develop training and guidelines for the 

emergency responder community to use as their everyday efforts to keep themselves and the public safe. The 

TIM Steering Committee assisted in the advancement of the Move Over law and also provided education on the 

law to executives and safety stakeholders. The Committee will continue to support similar efforts in the future.

Data Analysis Tools and Capabilities

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

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

characteristics are analyzed to identify Priority Investigation Locations (PILs). A subset of PILS are 

investigated every year for the purpose of identifying safety improvements. Crash data has traditionally 

included fatal, injury, property damage crashes over $1,000 (reportable PDO) and property damage accidents 

under $1,000 (non-reportable). Additional factors used in developing the Priority Investigation Locations list 

are traffic volumes, divided or undivided and the number of travel lanes. All PIL's studied are on the State 

System with the exception of some New York City locations.

Status of Crash Data

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

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

accident and traffic violation records systems to address safety data information needs. The State continues to 

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

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

Management System (SIMS) are:

Crash Records

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

12/31/16. The policies surrounding the processing of PDO crashes have changed from year to year. Therefore, it 

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

Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS)

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

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

Agreements for use of the software have been signed by more than 487 different police agencies across the state 

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

committed to using the software. As of December 3, 2016, 487 agencies are transmitting data through the 

TraCS system. This number will increase steadily as the software is deployed to additional agencies in future 

years. Consistent funding will be vital to achieving this goal. The software will reduce the workload at 

NYSDMV decreasing the time it takes to process each crash report. An upgrade was implemented to the 

"Spider" process which improves the data transmittal and processing between the State Police and all ticket 

and crash data users. In addition, there is an ongoing upgrade to the TraCS software which should help to 

improve data quality and reduce errors.

Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES)
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 66

The Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) allows for actual before and after project evaluations. The 

system allows for: verification that projected accident reductions reported as part of the Department safety goal 

are reasonable and accurate; quantitative measurements of the effectiveness of the our overall capital program 

in improving highway safety (reducing accidents and safety benefit cost ratio); continued development of new 

accident reduction factors for accident countermeasures (shoulder rumble strips, roundabouts, and pavement 

surface treatments); and ensures that the mandated requirements are met. Updated PIES reduction factors were 

published this year.

Accident Location Information System (ALIS)

ALIS is a GIS web based accident location analysis tool that allows for geographic based crash analysis. This 

tool is available to all DOT employees, MPO rsquo;s, and county and local governments. All the MPO rsquo;s 

as well as New York City are using the analysis tool. In 2015 the analysis tool was upgraded to improve 

performance and update the reporting functions to better align with the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

process. New functionality for creating collision diagrams was added in 2015. The application allows users to 

access crash data on both the state and the local system and create Ad-Hoc queries on any public road for any 

time period; review MV104 data and diagrams, and produce a number of different types of reports. There are 

additional statistical filters available to allow the user to generate average frequency or expected percentages 

from a comparison area to assist in identifying "hot spots" for further analysis.

An ALIS data production project coded 343,671 intersections into the ALIS system. All sixty-two counties are 

complete. The data and the maintenance tool for the intersections is now in production. Reports are being 

designed to work with the new data and should be available by the end of the summer of 2017.

ALIS Upgrades: NYSDOT continues to add functionality and update reports to better suit the user needs. A 

collision diagram application within ALIS was released. An accident rate tool has been designed and built and 

waiting on a final LRS to conflate legacy data for use with the new tool. When in production, new crashes will 

automatically be located to the linear referencing system and highway attributes will be captured for any future 

analysis or datasets.

A new Safety Data transfer has been designed and is in development. This will move data from DMV to DOT 

more efficiently and accurately. An RFP will be released in July, 2017 to replace the ALIS/SIMS/PIES 

applications with a new Safety System that will utilize the new Safety Data Warehouse and Integrate with the 

other NYSDOT Enterprise systems.

Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS)

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

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

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

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

LRS.

All Public Roads

FastAct requires that as part of a State's Highway Safety Improvement Program, a State shall have in place a 

safety data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis to 

improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the safety data on 

all public roads, including non-State owned public roads and roads on tribal land. A major element toward 

reaching this goal is the development of local crash rates in order to conduct equitable safety analysis for both 

the state and local systems. In addition, NY needs to address the issue of advancing the capabilities of our 

traffic records system for data collection, analysis, and integration with other sources of safety data. The State 

continues to use a number of methods to evaluate how to reach the goal of developing and maintaining crash 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 66

data for all public roads. The ALIS system does allow users to access crash data on both the state and the local 

system and create Ad-Hoc queries on any public road.

Traffic Counts

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

Department has complete traffic volume data for almost 44,000 miles of the approximately 117,000 miles of 

highway in New York. The remaining 73,000 miles are primarily local streets.

The Department and counties continue to partner in a statewide county traffic count program designed to 

capture traffic volume data on county owned roads. 

Between 2015 and 2016, the Department took 10,207 traffic counts on over 6,944 miles of non federal aid 

roads. These include a fair number of counts collected as part of a one-time project to help predict overall travel 

on the local roads for the FHWA annual HPMS report. New York State is attempting to have a 10% 

representation in each Municipality on the Local Roads System between this project and other counts we collect 

regularly.

Local Highway Route System

At this point in time, the Department does not have a complete and actively maintained Geographic Information 

System (GIS) for local roads. Without a local road based GIS route system, it is difficult to conduct an analysis 

of crash data on the local system with any parity to the state system. A project is currently underway to build a 

local GIS system. 

Compatibility of State and Local Crash Data Analysis

The current analysis tools in the Departments Safety Information Management System (SIMS) need to be 

redesigned to work with a uniform GIS route system covering both state and local highways. The new analysis 

tools will need to be able to handle both local and state traffic volume data and highway characteristic 

information for all highways. Funding is in place to build these tools (SIMS-RIS-ALIS Integration Project). The 

redesigned system will be an interoperable system able to link crash and highway information to perform safety 

problem identification and countermeasure analysis on the local system as is currently being done with the State 

system. 

New Data Projects

The New York State Department of Transportation is currently initiating several new projects designed to 

support our Highway Safety Improvement Program by expanding our analysis capabilities and methods to 

include all public roads in the state and to improve the accuracy and completeness of the safety data used. Much 

of this work is being accomplished through Section 402 grants received from the Governors Traffic Safety 

Committee (GTSC). 

The first project involves modifications to the Departments existing Accident Location Information System 

(ALIS). These changes will integrate the ALIS system with the Departments Enterprise Linear Referencing 

System to provide the necessary traffic volume and highway characteristics needed for the network screening 

analysis that identifies High Accident Locations (HALS). Additional functionality will be added to incorporate 

analysis techniques being developed by Federal Highway Administration to identify systemic opportunities for 

improving safety in addition to the HAL locations being treated.

The second project involves the collection of up to date, accurate, reference marker and intersection locations 

and attributes. This data will be used to support the new crash querying and analysis processes being developed 

for the Accident Location Information System (ALIS).
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 66

The third project is a long term, multi-agency effort to analyze opportunities to create a more complete safety 

dataset that is accessible to all the partner agencies. This project would determine what data could be linked 

between agencies, where redundant datasets or resources could be eliminated, and how access for additional 

users could be created. This project is designed to establish a strategic vision for the Safety related programs in 

New York State.

Other

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP)

The SAFETAP, based on a Road Safety Audit approach, is a Department Program designed to ensure that 

roadside safety considerations are incorporated in the Departments Preventive Maintenance single course 

overlay projects. Under SAFETAP, a team of agency experts conduct a project review of Preventive 

Maintenance Paving project sites for the purpose of deciding upon simple, low cost safety improvements to be 

implemented at the time of construction, or soon after construction. Over 9,800 safety recommendations have 

been made since SFY 12/13 and approximately 5,400 of the recommendations have been completed. 31% of 

the work identified in SFY 15-16 is reported as completed.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 66

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $127,987,565 $109,977,565 85.93%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$79,951,878 $71,740,878 89.73%

State and Local Funds $119,862,062 $114,608,062 95.62%

Totals $327,801,505 $296,326,505 90.4%

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

Obligated Funds include Obligations and Advanced Construction dollars.

Data Source: NY PSS System. Obligation amounts include status of actual and approved. Programmed 

amounts include status of actual, approved and planned.

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

$60,045,451

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects?
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 66

$58,268,451

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

Source: NY PSS System

Funds reported include fund source Code E09 - local government unit

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

$7,628,294

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

$6,278,294

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

The worktypes included in this question included accident investigations, corridor studies and promotion/public 

education.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

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

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

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

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

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

approaches used to overcome those obstacles for HSIP projects.

Statewide Call for Projects

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

barriers to a timely implementation. The barriers are one of the factors taken into consideration during the 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 66

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

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

Design Services Agreement

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

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

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

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

Marchiselli

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

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

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

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

Low Cost Counter Measures

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

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

implement.

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

No
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 66

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

See attachment 0

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

Projects are uploaded in General Listing of Projects file HSIP-HRRR 2006-Present Report.xlsx on 6/13/2017 8:59:42 AM
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 66

Safety Performance

General Highway 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 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 1,238 1,158 1,201 1,171 1,180 1,202 1,041 1,121 1,014

Serious Injuries 12,900 12,988 12,802 12,012 12,163 11,609 10,874 11,077 11,818

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.920 0.870 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.930 0.810 0.881 0.830

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.620 9.730 9.750 9.405 9.486 8.948 8.412 8.703 9.640

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

343 338 347 344 348 376 310 343 354

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

2,697 2,572 2,656 2,599 2,725 2,696 2,378 2,240 2,404
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 66

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

9500

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 39 of 66

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 40 of 66

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

Fatalities Data Source

FARS was used as the data source through 2015. TSSR was used as the data source for 2016 fatalities since it is 

not available in FARS at this time.

Serious Injuries Data Source

AIS and TSSR

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

Year 2016

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 41 of 66

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

15.4 110.4 0.01 0.09

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

3.8 14 0 0.01

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

58.4 323.8 0.05 0.25

Rural Minor Arterial 50.2 320.8 0.04 0.25

Rural Minor Collector 52.4 377.2 0.04 0.3

Rural Major Collector 54.2 429.4 0.04 0.34

Rural Local Road or Street 6.4 51.6 0.01 0.04

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

63.4 575.4 0.05 0.45

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

73 515.8 0.06 0.4

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

255 2,480.8 0.2 1.95

Urban Minor Arterial 245.6 2,680.4 0.19 2.1

Urban Minor Collector 0 0

Urban Major Collector 104.2 1,109.8 0.08 1.04

Urban Local Road or Street 36.6 518.4 0.04 0.41
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 66

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 461.4 3,530.2 0.36 2.77

County Highway Agency 203.6 1,632.6 0.16 1.28

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

50.8 480 0.04 0.38

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

275.4 3,856.8 0.22 3.03

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.6 4.8 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 1.2 0 0

Other Local Agency 0.2 1.8 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 21.8 195.4 0.02 0.15

Local Toll Authority 0.2 18 0 0.02

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation 1.2 6.4 0 0

UNKNOWN 127.8 2,149.6 0.1 1.69
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 66

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 66

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 66

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 66

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 66

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 66

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 66

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 66

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

The number of crashes by functional classification and ownership are general estimates. Functional 

classification and ownership are not available on crash reports therefore a spatial join was used to join the crash 

data to the inventory data using GIS. Since the linear referencing system is not fully available for the local 

system or the non-primary direction, many of the crashes on the local system or in the non-primary direction are 

included in the "Other" category using this method. 

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1086 

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

NYSDOT’s Target Setting Framework 1. Estimate existing trend. A linear trendline is 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 66

used as the forecasting method. It is a clear, straightforward method recommended by

FHWA. 2. The five year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) is 

used as the data point for each year. 3. Adjust forecast for reasonability. The percent 

change was rounded. 4. Adjust forecast based on external and other factors where 

necessary. 

Number of Serious Injuries 10854 

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

NYSDOT’s Target Setting Framework 1. Estimate existing trend. A linear trendline is 

used as the forecasting method. It is a clear, straightforward method recommended by 

FHWA. 2. The five year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) is 

used as the data point for each year. 3. Adjust forecast for reasonability. The percent 

change was rounded and a cap of 6% increase was used between 2015-2018. 4. Adjust 

forecast based on external and other factors where necessary. 

Fatality Rate 0.87 

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

NYSDOT’s Target Setting Framework 1. Estimate existing trend. A linear trendline is 

used as the forecasting method. It is a clear, straightforward method recommended by 

FHWA. 2. The five year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) is 

used as the data point for each year. 3. Adjust forecast for reasonability 4. Adjust 

forecast based on external and other factors where necessary 

Serious Injury Rate 8.54 

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

NYSDOT’s Target Setting Framework 1. Estimate existing trend. A linear trendline is 

used as the forecasting method. It is a clear, straightforward method recommended by 

FHWA. 2. The five year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) is 

used as the data point for each year. 3. Adjust forecast for reasonability 4. Adjust 

forecast based on external and other factors where necessary. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2843 

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

NYSDOT’s Target Setting Framework 1. Estimate existing trend. A linear trendline is 

used as the forecasting method. It is a clear, straightforward method recommended by 

FHWA. 1. The five year moving average (current year plus four preceding years) is 

used as the data point for each year. 2. Adjust forecast for reasonability 3. Adjust 

forecast based on external and other factors where necessary 
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 66

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

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

targets. 

NYSDOT communicated regularly with the SHSO and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations during the 

target setting process via regularly held meetings. The state also hosted a safety performance management 

workshop that was provided by FHWA and attended by the SHSO, Metropolitan Planning Organizations and 

other safety stakeholders.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

New York Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

VMT rural 

collectors and 

rural local (in 

millions)

18,264 18,268 18,168 18,094 18,058 17,795 17,469 17,293
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 66

Fatalities 214 208 244 256 252 250 173 197

Fatalities/100M 

VMT 1.171704 1.138603 1.343021 1.414834 1.395503 1.404889 0.990326 1.139189

5 year average 1.013632 1.292733 1.33937 1.309714 1.268948

The HRRR rule does not apply this year since the rate for 2015 is less than rate for 2013

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

182 212 197 209 232 201 211

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

1,026 1,091 973 1,043 1,130 1,036 1,090
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 66

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

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

following

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

years of age and older, year XXXX

1. Calculate Rate for 2015 

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

AR 2015 + AR 2014 + AR 2013 + AR 2012 + AR 2011

2. Calculate Rate for 2013: 

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

AR 2013 + AR 2012 + AR 2011 + AR 2010 + AR 2009

3. Compare Rates for 2015 to Rate for 2013 

If the rate for 2015 (under step #1) exceeds the rate for 2012 (under step #2), then the Special Rule applies

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 66

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

The 2010 SHSP set goals to reduce motor vehicle fatalities from 1,231 in 2008 to 1,035 in 2014 and to reduce 

the fatal crash rate per 100 million vehicles traveled from .87 in 2008 to .74 in 2014. In 2014, the state reported 

a decrease in both fatalities (1,041) and the rate of fatalities (.81). Although the number of fatalities and the 

fatality rate was short of the goal set in the 2010 SHSP, the 5-year rolling averages show steady downward 

trends. The fatality rate in New York has been below 1.0 per 100M VMT since 2007. Serious injuries decreased 

over 12% between 2008 and 2015 and also show a consistent downward trend.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Policy change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

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

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

Yes

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

The most significant changes in the program in 2016 were the establishment of 2018 targets, the update of the 

SHSP and a renewed focus on pedestrian safety.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 66

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 348.8 2,724.6 0.28 2.14

Intersections 414.8 5,531.6 0.32 4.35

Pedestrians 304.8 1,941 0.24 1.52

Bicyclists 41 634.4 0.03 0.5

Older Drivers 74.6 481.6

Motorcyclists 156.8 1,201.2 0.12 0.94
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 66

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 66

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

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 66

No

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

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

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

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

information on a regular basis.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 66

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Question is 

optional.

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

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

No
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 66

Compliance Assessment

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

 06/13/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 0 0

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 66

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 66

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 70 70

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

70 70

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.55 94.55 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

NYSDOT currently has counts and year of the count on approximately 3,700 of 5,400 ramps. The plan is to count the remaining ramps in the next two rounds of three-year traffic counting contracts starting in 2019. 

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report paper form as well as to the electronic TraCS form and the Accident Information System (AIS). Because of the process involved and the IT resources needed to add the additional injury types, it will be problematic for New York to 

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

requirements change. For example there is an RFP out to replace the Safety Information Management System (SIMS), the Accident Locations Information System (ALIS) and the Post Implementation Evaluation System (PIES). There is 

also an RFI to seek input on the possibility of outsourcing the processing of crash data. 

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

Page 64 of 66

There are 3 fields on the Police Accident Report that are used to identify whether an injury is a serious injury of type A. The fields are Location of Most Serious Complaint, Type of Physical Complaint, and Victims Physical and Emotional 

Status.

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

Yes

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

The states Strategic Highway Safety Plan was updated in 2017. The update included a review of the data as well as the emphasis areas in the 2010 plan. The emphasis areas were re-organized in the 2017 plan to incorporate the states safety 

priorities over the next 5 years.
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 66

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Project Implementation:

HSIP-HRRR 2006-Present Report.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 66

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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