New York

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: NY
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 4

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 6

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 29

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 29

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 32

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 33

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 33

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 44

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................46

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 47

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 51

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 52

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 55

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 57
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

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 FastAct reinforces 

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, 

including non-State Department of Transportation's core program to proactively identify and 

correct high accident locations and progress safety projects that facilitate the goal of the 

program.

Emphasis Areas

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

areas outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) including pedestrian safety, 

improving safety at highway intersections, decreasing the number of crashes resulting from 

lane departures and enhancing safety in work zones. Site specific projects at high accident 

locations as well as low cost safety measures implemented widely across the network such as 

Center Line Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) and Pedestrian Countdown Timers are being 

implemented to meet crash goals.

HSIP Fund Administration

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

was essentially doubled in size under MAP-21. In FFY15, approximately half of the funds were 

provided to the NYSDOT regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The 

remaining half was administrated centrally by the Statewide Safety and System Optimization 

Team (SSO) who oversee a statewide solicitation for regionally significant safety projects. The 

statewide solicitation 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 statewide program funded 10 local and 27 state projects 

for a total of approximately $83M. The FFY15-17 Statewide program is funding 14 local projects 

and 25 state projects for a total of about $82M for the 3 federal fiscal years. The FFY16-20 

program, funded 38 projects; both local and state for a total of approximately $112.3M in HSIP 

funds.

All Public Roads
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 key "priority 

result" or "emphasis" areas in order to utilize our fiscal and staff resources to greatest effect.

The following initiatives support the "all public roads" mandate.

• Locally owned and state owned projects compete equally for funds in the statewide 

solicitation program.

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

Management Systems (SIMS).

• A local GIS route system is in progress with plans for a 2017 completion.

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

Management System (SIMS) and a new Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS) will 

provide functionality that allows safety problem identification and countermeasures analysis to 

be done on the local system in a similar way as the state system.

• Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads.

Performance Indicators

The FastAct integrates performance into the HSIP program. The number of fatalities and serious 

injuries and their associated rates have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 

years as can be seen below. 

Annual - Crash Frequency and 

Rates

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of 

Fatalities 1,454 1,332 1,238 1,158 1,201 1,171 1,180 1,202 1,039 1,090

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

13,174 13,280 13,900 12,988 12,802 12,012 12,163 11,609 10,874 11,309

Fatality Rate 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.80 0.86

Serious Injury 

Rate 9.66 10.01 10 10.16 10.19 9.79 9.92 9.95 8.24 8.89

5yr rolling average - Crash Frequency and 

Rates
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of 

Fatalities 1,220 1,190 1,182 1,159 1,136

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

12,796 12,578 12,315 11,892 11,593

Fatality Rate 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.89

Serious Injury 

Rate 9.65 9.61 9.47 9.21 9.03

Data Sources:

Fatality Data 2006-2014: FARS/HSSP Reports, 2015: AIS/ITSMR Reports (preliminary)

Injury Data 2006-2014: AIS/ITSMR Reports, 2015: SIMS (preliminary)

Fatality and Injury Data for 2015 is preliminary throughout the report

Programmed and Obligated Funds (question 17)

Programmed and obligated funds for question #17 were derived from NYSDOTs PSS system. 

Programmed funds included those where the status was actual, approved or planned. Obligated 

funds included those where the status was actual or approved.

Crash Statistics by Functional Classification and Ownership (question 25)

The number of crashes by functional classification and ownership are very 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 in GIS. Since the linear referencing 

system is not yet available for the local system the majority of crashes on the local system will 

show up in the "Other" category using this method. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is not 

available by functional classification and ownership. Therefore, rates by functional classification 

and ownership were not provided.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

with the HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Other-- In FFY15, approximately 50% of the HSIP funds were provided to the Regions according to a 

safety planning target formula. Most of the remaining funds were allocated to projects via a competitive 

application process.

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

Safety projects on all public roads in New York State including local roads are eligible to receive HSIP 

funds. In FFY15 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. 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 competitive application component of the HSIP program in New York State awarded 

funding to 16 local projects to be let between FFY 2016 - FFY 20 for a total of about $40.5M in HSIP 

funding. In addition, 100 Capital Projects and/or Safety Capital Projects contained a local roads 

component. Approximately $12.8 million was spent in local funds on safety projects in 2015. Project 

improvements on local projects by type in 2015 are shown below.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Safety Improvement Number of Projects

Pedestrian (non-SRTS) 31

Bicycle 5

Highway Reconstruction/Widening/Overlay/New Construction 7

Intersection & Interchange Improvements 8

Traffic Signal Improvements 15

Pavement Markings/Resurfacing 4

Shared Path Usage 4

Signing 2

Clear Zone/Median barrier 1

Alignment 8

RR Crossings 15

 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Briefly 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 Program 

Management and Coordination, System Optimization, Local Programs, Integrated Modal Services, 

Planning, Design and Transportation Maintenance. 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

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

goals are met.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other-New York State Department of Health

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

the last reporting period.

Other-There have been no changes to the HSIP administration process since the last reporting period.

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

would like to elaborate.

NYSDOT is continuing to use a hybrid approach to manage the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) which has essentially doubled in size under MAP-21 and FastAct. Approximately half of the funds 

have been provided to the NYSDOT Regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The 

remaining half is being administered centrally through competitive initiatives managed by the Statewide 

Safety and System Optimization Team. The competitive projects are selected via a statewide application 

process. The statewide solicitations support safety specific projects that direct safety funds where they 

are most needed by targeting locations, corridors, or areas demonstrating an advantageous benefit-cost 

ratio to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. Funding has been awarded based on an evaluation of 

these projects to maximize investment in the most cost-effective safety projects. Successful proposals 

are consistent with the strategies and emphasis areas identified in the NYS Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Intersection Safe Corridor Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways Skid Hazard

Crash Data Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety

Right Angle Crash Segments
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Volume Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Other-Priority Investigation Locations (PILS) are identified where the crash rate is greater than the 

average for a similar road type. An annual work program is developed to investigate a percentage of the 

PILS and recommend safety counter measures.

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
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Volume Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations

Volume Median width

Horizontal curvature

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Volume

Population

Functional classification

Roadside features
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-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).

Locations with low friction test 

numbers (FN40 of 32) require 

treatment.

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

Yes

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

No

If 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 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Other- Regional HSIP projects based on recommendation noted above.

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

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

CARDS projects are selected 

regionally based upon priority 

and availablity of funding or via a 

statewide competitive 

application process.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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.

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

Yes

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Many nominal safety items are 

incorporated into maintenance 

activities.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Priority Investigation 

Volume Functional classification
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Locations (PILS)

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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

Yes

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

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

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Volume

Population

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Crashes involving 

pedestrians

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Roadside features

Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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?
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Yes

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

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

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

No

If 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.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

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

15%

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

improvements?

Rumble Strips

Other-Pedestrian Countdown Timers

Other-Signalized intersection improvements

Other-Pedestrian crosswalk improvements

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 15% proportion above includes projects in the statewide solicitation 

program only.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-Risk Factors
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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

last reporting period.

Other-Additional statewide competitive safety program for projects that can be let between FFY16-

FFY20.

Other-Released a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan that will implement systemic countermeasures at 

thousands of locations in urban areas.

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

would like to elaborate. 

Improving highway safety for the traveling public is defined as a key emphasis area in New York State’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan and continues to be a high priority at NYSDOT. Safety objectives defined in 

the plan include improving safety for pedestrians, improving data analysis tools and capabilities, 

improving the design and operation of highway intersections, decreasing fatalities resulting from travel 

lane departures and improving work zone safety.

I. Pedestrian Safety

Each year, pedestrians are involved in over one-quarter of the fatal motor vehicle crashes that occur on 

New York State roadways. NYSDOT continues to look for solutions to improve the safety of all roadway 

users including pedestrians.

Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

In June of 2016, NYSDOT announced it's 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 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.

The first project conducted was on the Hempstead Turnpike on Long Island. After a detailed study, 

improvements included: remarking and widening crosswalks, increasing pedestrian crossing times at 

signals, adding new crosswalks, adding latching pedestrian buttons, adding new signals, signal timing 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

changes, bus stop re-locations and the installation of raised medians. These improvements were done 

in conjunction with an enforcement blitz and education campaign targeting the contributing behaviors 

determined in the crash data review. The department is also working on improvements to the entire 

Sunrise Highway (Route 27) and Route 110 corridors; Route 5/Central Avenue and Hoosick Street (Route 

7) in the Albany Capital District and Route 59 in Rockland County. The improvements and action plans 

are expected to be very similar to what is being done on Route 24 (Hempstead Turnpike).

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. Complete Street design 

must be considered for county and local transportation projects that NYSDOT undertakes or for projects 

that receive federal and state funding and have NYSDOT oversight. Complete streets are designed and 

operated to enable safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders 

of all ages and abilities. An important component of the Complete Streets framework is "Complete 

Streets Checklist" which is used by planners and designers to identify a need for current or future 

pedestrian accommodations in our projects.

II. Improving 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 (PIL’s). 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 (PIL’s) 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 

Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, State Police and other key stakeholders to mutually re-engineer 

the accident and traffic violation records systems to address New York’s data information needs. The 

State continues to use a strategic planning approach to improve its various information systems as 

articulated in the State’s Traffic Safety Information Systems Strategic Plan. The status of improvements 

that directly affect the Department’s Safety Information Management System (SIMS) are:

Crash Records

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

through 12/31/15. 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 & 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 481 different police 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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 April 12, 1016, 481 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)

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’s safety goal are reasonable and accurate; quantitative measurements of the 

effectiveness of the Department’s 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’s, and county and local governments. All the MPO’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 and a new tool for 

accident rate queries should be in production by the end of 2016.

An ALIS data production project coded up to 237,000 intersections into the ALIS system. Fifty-seven out 

of sixty-two counties are complete. 

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.

Requirements and information is being gathered for a new Safety Data Warehouse.

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.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Funding was requested for a new project which will upgrade ALIS; include more SIMS functionality and 

implement the HSM methodology within ALIS. The project will also integrate safety systems with Roads 

and Highways and Agile Assets for both accessing data and providing it to other systems.

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 data for all public roads.

Accessing Crash Data

The Department currently has the ability to access crash data on both the state and the local system 

through the Accident Location Information System. The Department’s GIS based web application allows 

users to 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.

Traffic Counts

Traffic count AADT’s 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. 

The Department took 6,066 traffic counts on over 2878.34 miles of Local Roads. These include a fair 

number of counts collected as part of a one-time project New York State is doing to help us predict 

overall travel on the Local Roads for our FHWA annual report (Vehicle Miles of Travel, or VMT). 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.

After New York State concludes the VMT project, New York State will only be collecting (Ongoing) Local 

Road counts where there is an at-grade railroad crossing, a bridge, or we have created an HPMS sample 

site (barring any special requests). We do receive data from other sources such as Counties and MPOs, 

and some of those data are on Local Roads.

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 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

currently underway to build a local GIS system.

Compatibility of State and Local Crash Data Analysis

The current analysis tools in the Department’s 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’s Office of Traffic Safety and Mobility 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).

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.

III. Highway Intersections

Approximately 36% of the fatalities and 45% of the serious injuries due to motor vehicle crashes 

statewide between 2009 and 2015 occurred at intersections. As can be seen from the graphic 

below, fatal and serious injuries at intersections have been on somewhat of an upward trend over the 

past 7 years. As such, improving safety at intersections continues to be an area of focus for NYSDOT. 

According to NYSDOT’s PSS system there were 13 HSIP intersection reconstruction and signal upgrade 

projects programmed in SFY 15/16. New York is also in the process of developing an Intersection Safety 

Action Plan with the goal of completing the plan in 2016. 

Intersections

Year Fatalities Serious Injuries
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

2009 390 5,534

2010 377 5,287

2011 388 5,303

2012 411 5,290

2013 396 5,169

2014 406 5,692

2015 431 5,515

Source: SIMS where intersection_ind="Y" (SIMS preliminary for 2015, data run 4/19/2016)

IV. Travel Lane Departures

Fatalities and Serious Injuries resulting from lane departure crashes have been on a general downward 

trend over the last 10 years as can be seen from the chart below.

Lane Departures

Year Fatalities Serious Injuries

2006 471 3,185

2007 440 3,308

2008 413 3,148

2009 348 3,127

2010 437 3,133

2011 362 2,905

2012 370 3,039

2013 383 2,808

2014 351 2,545

2015 320 2,512

Despite the downward trend seen above, lane departures still accounted for approximately 25% of all 

fatal and serious injuries due to motor vehicle crashes over the past 7 years and remains an emphasis 

area for the department. NYSDOT continues to implement countermeasures and programs to prevent 

lane departures crashes such as:

• Installing Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) on rural 2 lane roads that meet 

specific criteria

• Advancing shoulder improvements by incorporating the shoulder wedge joint requirement into 

Vendor Placed Paving contracts.

• Identifying and treating sections of pavement experiencing unusually high proportions of wet 

road accidents via the SKARP program

• Implementing site specific projects to correct geometric issues; and

• Identifying roadway characteristics that place roads at a higher risk for lane departure crashes 

with a goal of implementing additional systemic programs to prevent them. NYSDOT 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

participated in a systemic analysis pilot with Cambridge Systematics. The pilot identified undivided rural roads with 2 lanes, 55 mph speed, an AADT between 3000-6000, a shoulder width 

between 1-3’ and a curve radius of 100-300 as having a high risk for lane departure crashes. As a 

result New York will be considering additional systemic counter measures on curves such as true 

wet reflective pavement marking, enhanced chevrons and high friction surface treatments in the 

future.

• Developing a Lane Departure Action Plan with the goal of completing the plan in 2016.

V. Work Zone Safety

In addition to regional and project based quality control and assurance activities, the Main Office 

conducts annual work zone safety inspections in each region to assess the overall quality of work zone 

traffic control statewide. Opportunities for improvement are identified and implemented via new 

policies, guidance, specifications or increased contract enforcement.

Accident data on construction and maintenance work zones are also tracked to help identify any 

accident trends. Work Zone Intrusions have varied over the last 5 years as shown in the table below.

Work Zone Intrusions

Year #

2011 45

2012 51

2013 67

2014 40

2015 77

VI. System-wide Treatments

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators

In 2010 the Department issued EI-10-030 - Rumble Strips - Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators 

(CARDS) - Guidance and Policy. This policy lays out the framework and criteria for installing centerline 

rumble-strips on eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at least 40mm 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 2016, approximately 3,454.3 miles of 

CARDS have been installed.

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 2016, countdown 

timers have been installed at approximately 2,617 (82.5%) of the 3,172 eligible signals. 

VII. Other
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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 Department’s 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.

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 treatment generally involves resurfacing with 11⁄2” top course (or 1⁄2” micro 

surfacing) containing non-polishing aggregates. The integrated approach used by NYSDOT in 

implementing SKARP involves close coordination among the Office of Traffic and Safety which has 

overall program monitoring and evaluation responsibilities, the Technical Services Division, which has 

assumed responsibility for friction testing and materials issues, and the Department’s eleven Regional 

Offices, which have responsibility for undertaking the remedial treatments. 

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 20 sites in 2015. 

Shoulder Wedge Joints

NYSDOT has incorporated the shoulder wedge joint requirement into Vendor Place Paving contracts. 

The installation of shoulder wedge joints in paving applications provides a ramp type pavement edge. 

The wedge reduces sudden loss of vehicle control by the driver due to vertical drop off.

Traffic Control Signals

In addition to the Pedestrian Countdown timers noted above, NYSDOT continues to deploy “2070” 

traffic signal controllers. This allows the Department to adopt the National Transportation 

Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Standards, deploy closed loop systems to monitor/operate 

signals remotely from Transportation Management Centers as well as operate other communication 

technologies (variable message signs, radio, video cameras, etc.) to improve the safety and performance 

of the highway corridor.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Unit

NYSDOT’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Unit has been reorganized within the Office of Traffic Safety’s Safety 

Program and Management Bureau to further align coordination of these alternative modes with the 

Department’s core safety programs and mission. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Unit has been expanded to 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

three FTE. The Unit has been working to develop a strategic planning dialogue with the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Coordinators from NYSDOT’s 11 Regions.

The Unit provides coordination and staff support for the Department’s pedestrian safety initiatives and 

is managing an over-haul of New York’s bicycle map. The bicycle map effort is resourced under 

NYSDOT’s Integrated Regional and Employer Based Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Active 

Demand Management Services in Support of an Active Transportation Demand Management (ATDM) 

Program Services contract for NYSDOT contract, Statewide Task 11, Assignment #3 – Integration of the 

Bicycle Network Information into TDM Outreach tools. 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.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

$22,600,541.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$21,867,541.00

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $48,385,650.00 27 % $46,224,650.00 27 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $15,268.00 0 % $15,268.00 0 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$58,739,105.00 33 % $58,675,105.00 34 %

State and Local Funds $69,205,373.00 39 % $65,505,373.00 38 %

Totals $176,345,396.00 100% $170,420,396.00 100%
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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

$6,634,921.00

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

$2,955,301.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

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 Solicitation Program

The application process for the statewide HSIP solicitation program, which currently accounts for 50% of 

the HSIP program, requires an applicant to identify all potential barriers to a timely 

implementation. The barriers are one of the factors taken into consideration during the 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 
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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.

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.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

No additional information regarding HSIP progress.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See main 

menu question 

#23. Project 

list attached.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 1220 1190 1182 1159 1136

Number of serious injuries 12796 12573 12315 11892 11593

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.89

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.65 9.61 9.47 9.21 9.03

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

34
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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

Year - 2015

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

14.8 94.4

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

2.2 13.6

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

57.4 314.8

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

52.4 332.4

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

54.2 360.6

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

59.2 432.8

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

5.4 55.8

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

62.6 533.2
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

68 520.8

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

259.6 2655.6

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

243.4 2659.2

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

100.2 1197.8

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

40.6 538.2

OTHER OR UNKNOWN 141.6 2245.8
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 463.8 3612.2

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 206.8 1614

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 49.4 424.4

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 274.4 3859.8

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

1.8 6.2

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0.4

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0.4

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0.4 2.4

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 21.6 190.6

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0.6 13.8

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 1.4 6.4

OTHER 141.4 2224.4
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

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

Since 2000 the number of fatal crashes in New York State has been on a general downward trend. The 

number of fatalities dropped from 1,454 in 2006 to 1,139 in 2015. The fatality rate per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased from 1.03 in 2006 to .86 in 2015. New York’s fatality rate per 

100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled has been below the national level every year between 2000 and 

2015.

The number of serious injuries has also been on a downward trend. The number of serious injuries in 

New York decreased from 13,174 in 2006 to 11,309 in 2015*.

* Source: HSSP Reports except 2015 (SIMS Preliminary data run 4/19/2016)

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.68 1.58 1.54 1.5 1.5

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

7.66 7.6 7.54 7.62 7.5

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

9.3 9.14 9.04 9.1 8.98

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

2014 Rolling Average Calculation:

(F+SI) 2014 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2014 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2013 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2013 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2012 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2011 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2011 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2010 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age 

and older/2010 Population Figure)/5 = 8.98

Note: 2015 data is not available 

2012 Rolling Average Calculation:
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

(F+SI) 2012 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2011 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2011 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2010 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2009 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2008 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age 

and older/2008 Population Figure)/5 = 9.04

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Decrease in fatalities and Injuries Numbers and Rates

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

Other-NYSDOT continues to include local roads in the HSIP program; implement projects to decrease 

fatal and serious injuries and implement the strategies outlined in the SHSP.

Other-NYSDOT announced the first ever statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan in June 2016. The plan 

includes low cost systemic improvements at thousands of intersections and mid-block crosswalks.

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

New York State is continuing with the development of the Intersection and Lane Departure Safety Action 

Plans. The Pedestrian Action Plan was completed and released June 2016. It included pedestrian and 

vehicle improvements at signalized intersections and pedestrian improvements at mid block crossings. 

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan will be updated in 2017.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 358 2763 0.28 2.15

Intersections 410 5407 0.32 4.21

Pedestrians 300 2042 0.23 1.53

Bicyclists 45 633 0.03 0.49

Motorcyclists 166 1209 0.13 0.94
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Groups of similar project types
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

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

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP Question is optional

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP This question is optional.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No additional items to report at this time.
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

Optional 

Project 

Evaluation 

Question
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP-HRRR Obligations and Adv Const 2006-

Present 3-31-2016.xls
2016 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system.

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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