New Jersey

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: NJ
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 ..................................................................................................................................................5

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................5

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................5

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................55

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

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

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

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................81
iv
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) went into effect on October 1, 2012. It 

continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program. The goal of 

the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, 

including non-State-owned public roads. HSIP originated in 2005 as a component of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which 

expired in 2009. Congress renewed the Federal transportation funding formula established by SAFETEALU 10 times after its expiration date, until replacing the bill with MAP-21 last year.

MAP-21 also continues provisions of SAFETEA-LU that the development of a Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP), a High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) and the Railway-Highway Crossings Program 

(RHXP). In order to obligate HSIP funds, states are required to (1) develop and implement a SHSP; (2) 

produce a program of projects and strategies; (3) evaluate the plan on a regular basis, and (4) submit an 

annual transparency report.

HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that 

focuses on performance.

According to crash record data for the 2012 calendar year that has been collected by the NJDOT’s 

Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety, New Jersey strategic approach continues to make progress in 

achieving the safety aims set by SAFETEA-LU and, now, MAP-21.

Over a five-year period, 2008 through 2012, there has been a steady drop in the number of crashes. In 

2008, there were 303,013 crashes; in 2012, 284,062 – a reduction of 18,951. There were 9,533 fewer 

crashes in 2012 than the 2011 total.

There has also been a steady decline in the number of crash-related injuries during the five-year period –

from a high of 68,502 in 2008 to a low of 63,333 in 2012.

The number of crashes resulting in fatalities has fluctuated. The lowest number of annual fatalities during 

this five-year period was 542, in 2012 and 2010. Fatalities dropped from 2011 to 2012 by 49. 

The progress made by the NJDOT is a result of a broad spectrum of safety programs designed to reduce 

the frequency and severity of crashes and promote the 4Es of highway safety – Engineering (design 

changes that make roads safer); Education (encouraging better driving habits); Enforcement (stopping 

unsafe and illegal driving), and Emergency Medical Services (timely response to and from incidents). 

These initiatives include the:

• Intersection Safety Improvement Program;

• Right Angle Crash Frequency Reduction / Signalization Program;

• Left Turn Crash Reduction Program;

• Roadway Departure / Fixed Object Safety Treatment Program;

• Utility Pole Crash Mitigation Program;
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

• Safe Corridors Program;

• Cross Median Crash Prevention Program;

• Pedestrian Crash Reduction Program;

• Pedestrian Corridor Program;

• Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (State);

• Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (Federal);

• High Risk Rural Routes Program;

• Same Direction Crash Reduction Program, and the

• Local Federal Aid Safety Program.

The ultimate goal of the State of New Jersey is to ensure the safe passage of all roadway users. Moving 

forward, the NJDOT intends to employ a data-driven systemic safety improvement approach that will 

concentrate our resources and focus our energies on high risk roadway features that correlate with 

specific severe crash types.

An analysis conducted for the State’s new Intersection Safety Implementation Plan, now being finalized, 

determined that during the five-year period from 2007 to 2011, 1,504,232 crashes were reported including 

398,705 crashes (or 27 percent) at intersections. Out of the total 14,271 intersections reviewed, 593, or 

approximately the top four percent, had three or more severe crashes over the five-year analysis period 

and comprised 12 percent of the severe intersection crashes. The most problematic intersection type was 

determined to be urban signalized intersections.

The NJDOT’s vision is shared by safety stakeholders, involved State agencies, each of the three regional 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) covering New Jersey, and localities through their respective 

safety advisory committees. 

New Jersey is preparing to revise its Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which has not been updated 

since 2007. The updated SHSP will renew and strengthen the State’s vision to protect the safety of 

roadway users and strive for zero fatalities. The resulting emphasis areas will guide future modifications 

and refocus New Jersey’s HSIP program and sub-programs. In addition, the update to the SHSP will 

contribute a safety perspective and element to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) developed by 

each of the MPOs.

NJTPA

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) is the MPO that serves the 13-county 

northern New Jersey region.

To strengthen its traffic safety efforts, the NJTPA is working to develop targeted network screening 

methodologies aligned with the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for use in future years. The NJTPA also 

encourages the use of road safety audits (RSAs) and considers them a factor in weighing funding 

applications.

In an effort to reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities in the City of Newark (designated as a pedestrian 

focus City), the NJTPA and Newark are preparing to develop a pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan. 

Successful approaches to improving safety often involve a combination of engineering, enforcement and 

education, as well as strategies to improve emergency response time. This study will result in the creation 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

of an action plan to improve safety and reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries throughout 

the City.

DVRPC

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is the MPO that serves four counties in 

central New Jersey.

The DVRPC will consider targeted network screening methodologies for its region once the NJTPA’s 

methodologies are finalized. As mentioned earlier, the NJTPA is working to develop targeted network 

screening methodologies aligned with the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for use in future years.

The DVRPC has incorporated an expanded focus on the outcomes of their RSAs and intersection safety 

projects, including use of HSM methodologies where possible, to move safety projects ideas into 

problems statements and eventually to implementation. 

A collaboration is underway between the DVRPC and the South Jersey Transportation Organization to 

use HSM methodologies to analyze the benefit/cost implications of a safety project in Burlington County 

that is slated for a funding obligation during the 2013 federal fiscal year. There have been 15 accidents at 

the project site (intersection of Route 528 and Old York Road in Chesterfield) between 2007 and 2011. In 

February 2012, a crash involving a truck and a school bus resulted in the death of an 11-year-old girl and 

injuries, some critical, to 15 other students.

The fourth edition of the DVRPC’s Transportation Safety Action Plan, scheduled to be published in 2014, 

will be aligned with the SHSP. The Transportation Safety Action Plan analyzes crash data to identify key 

emphasis areas for the region, following the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. 

The DVRPC, with the assistance of the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization, has also 

employed HSM methodologies to analyze the benefit/cost implications of a safety project in Burlington 

County that is slated for a funding obligation during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Also in support of 

pedestrian safety, the DVRPC has provided pedestrian crash network screenings and interactive webmaps to the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety (NJDHTS) to advance the pedestrian decoy 

training program in Burlington and Camden counties, and a targeted pedestrian safety enforcement 

campaign on US Rt. 130.

Building upon the success of this initial effort, the DVRPC plans to continue this practice to assist member 

counties in both developing data-driven safety projects, and in assisting them in moving those projects to 

implementation. These technical efforts are one of the many safety initiatives in the DVRPC region, 

including the continuing RSA program, annual crash data bulletins (regional), new county-specific 

bulletins, and a local roads safety newsletter. 

The DVRPC is also expanding its data and analysis resources by providing more interactive crash data 

mapping products, a new crash Data-Finder web-resource, and an update of the Congestion 

Management Process in 2014, which will include an enhanced safety analysis component.

SJTPO

The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) is the MPO serving four counties in 

southern New Jersey. 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

In FY11, the SJTPO began using the methodologies introduced within the HSM to assist justifying 

potential safety projects in the region, utilizing benefit-cost analysis as an evaluation tool. This effort 

continues with the hope of utilizing more HSM methodologies in additional stages of the project selection 

process. The crash history and important features of the intersection or roadway are carefully evaluated 

to determine the projected change in crash frequency expected with the employment of selected safety 

countermeasures.

The SJTPO has taken steps to incorporate the HSM into its RSA reports. This effort is expected to 

expand in the upcoming years. 

In the SJTPO region, a Safety Action Plan is under development that analyzes crash data and will 

additionally utilize the methodologies within the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual as it progresses. The 

action plan, along with the national and state emphasis areas, help focus SJTPO strategies for improving 

safety performance, whether through driver education and outreach or physical improvements.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

Local Roadways are eligible for HSIP improvements through application with the respective MPO. All 

Local Roadways in NJ are covered by one of three MPOs – NJTPA, SJTPO, or DVRPC. 

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

Design

Planning
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

NJDOT's Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety, under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital 

Investment Planning and Grant Administration is responsible for crash data compilation, 

analysis and program development. This office has also been responsible for the design of 

improvements on the state highway system. We are working to move to a new delivery 

process whereby the Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety will focus on the the planning 

and program development, but move final design and implementation of improvements to the 

Division of Project Management under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Program 

Management. This will bring safety improvements in line with the delivery of other projects.

NJDOT's Operation and Maintenance Division has been responsible up till now with the 

construction of improvements. While some work will continue, we expect that a larger portion 

will be carried out under the purview of the Capital Program Management Division.

NJDOT's Division of Local Aid, under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Investment, Planning 

and Grant Administration is responsible for coordinating with the MPOs in the selection, 

authorization and oversight of projects implemented on the local road network.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Working on new program delivery process. We are beginning to implement.

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

would like to elaborate.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-High Risk Rural 

Roads
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other-Using ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects projects.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Quick Fix - i.e., minimal 

environmental, ROW and other 

constraints.

1

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 9/18/2005

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Road Safety audits were performed for each Safe Corridor to identify safety improvements

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Quick Fix - minimial 

environmental, ROW and other 

constraints.

1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2008

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Utility poles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other-Locations identified through data driven list and priority locations coordinated with utility 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

companies.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Cost Effectiveness

Problem to address 

established safety problem as 

shown through crash history, 

risk-based (systemic) analysis 

and/or local roadway knowledge

1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2011
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-NJ is a pedestrian focus 

state

Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Single statewide educatitonal pedestrian and driver safety awareness campaign.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

FHWA Ped Focus State 1
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects projects

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Quick fix, minimal 

environmental, ROW and other 

constraints

1

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Consideration of pairs 

of opposing approaches.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects projects.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Quick fix, minimal 

environmental, ROW and other 

constraints.

1

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2007

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Centerline miles Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

24

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects projects.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C 2

Ranking based on net benefit 3

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Other-High Risk Rural Roads

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Cost Effectiveness

Project to address established 

safety problem as shown through 

crash history, risk-based 

(systemic) analysis and/or local 

roadway knowledge.

1

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

0

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

28

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

would like to elaborate. 

No comments.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 22804000 93 % 5430000 85 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 1667000 7 % 940000 15 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds

Totals 24471000 100% 6370000 100%

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

$6,000,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$3,637,000.00

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

$500,000.00

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

$500,000.00
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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.

To date this program has been spot location focused and focused on improvements that could 

be completed within the existing right-of-way and with minimal utility impacts. This has 

resulted in an inability to obligate funds at any significant levels. The authorization process has 

also been modified over the last year or two and has required Safety Programs staff to change 

the way business is done. NJDOT is looking at a multipronged approach to increase obligation 

of safety funds. First, NJDOT is modifying its program and project development process to 

provide more resources to implement safety projects. Second, NJDOT is looking at other 

opportunities to maximize the use of HSIP funds including increasing obligations for local 

projects, the implementation of systemic improvements, and the use of HSIP funds to support 

crash data compilation and analysis.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

We have recently advanced our first systemic safety project to implement FHWA's proven 

countermeasures centerline rumble strips on a 20 mile section of Route 70 in Burlington and 

Ocean Counties. We expect that this project can move from concept to construction 

authorization in a matter of a few months.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Highway 

Safety 

Improvement 

Program 

Planning -

Crash 

Analysis/Rese

arch and 

Safety

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

16 

Numb

ers

16030

00

16030

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 

(Planning)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and 

safety 

managem

ent 

systems

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1: 

Develop 

and/or 

enhance 

methodologi

es and 

establish 

standardizati

on for 

problem 

identification

, 

prioritization 

and 

evaluation

Park Avenue 

(CR 658) & 

4th Street, 

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

1 

Numb

47000

0

56400

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

173

51

35 County 

Highway 

Improving 

the 

design 

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Newark, 

Essex

modernization/replac

ement

ers n 148) Other Agency and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.

Shrewsbury 

Avenue (CR 

13) & W. 

Bergen Place , 

Red Bank, 

Monmouth

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replac

ement

1 

Numb

ers

29000

0

34800

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

0 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the 

design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.

Park Avenue 

(CR 658) at 

High Street 

and 

Glenwood 

Avenue, 

Orange & 

East Orange, 

Essex

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replac

ement

2 

Numb

ers

63000

0

75600

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

107

45

25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the 

design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

McGinley 

Square, 

Jersey City, 

Hudson

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal - install new at 

intersection

5 

Numb

ers

39653

8

47584

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local Road 

or Street

16 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the 

design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.

Little York 

Road (CR 

614), Union & 

Alexandria, 

Hunterdon

Advanced technology 

and ITS Over height 

vehicle detection

3 

Numb

ers

39502

6

47403

1

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

416

0

40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the 

design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.

River Road 

(CR 625), 

Hillsborough, 

Somerset

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

1.3 

Miles

30000

0

36300

0

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

267

2

40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles 

in the 

roadway

NJ Emphasis 

Area 1, 

Strategy 2: 

Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

minimize 

roadway 

departure 

crashes.

Milford-Mt. 

Pleasant 

Road (CR 

519), Millford 

& Holland, 

Hunterdon

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0.4 

Miles

16323

7

19588

4

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles 

in the 

roadway

NJ Emphasis 

Area 1, 

Strategy 2: 

Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize 

roadway 

departure 

crashes.

NJTPA Pilot 

Pedestrian 

Education 

Program

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

1 

Numb

ers

50000

0

50000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A (NonInfrastruct

ure)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Making 

walking 

and street 

crossing 

easier

NJ Emphasis 

Area 7, 

Strategy 1: 

Educate and 

encourage all 

stakeholders 

on 

enforcement 

to reduce 

pedestrian, 

bicycle, rail 

and vehicular 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

conflicts.

Burlington 

County Route 

528 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control Modify 

control - all-way stop 

to roundabout

0.1 

Miles

14510

00

17412

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

523

9

50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the 

design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

NJ Emphasis 

Area 2, 

Strategy 1, 

Action 5: 

Implement 

engineering 

countermeas

ures at 

problem 

locations.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 661 633 602 584 560

Number of serious injuries 1834 1698 1574 1475 1369

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.91 0.87 0.84 0.8 0.76

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 2.54 2.33 2.18 2.02 1.85

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

38
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

3 3 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

17 16 0.02 0.02

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

16 13 0.02 0.02

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

5 4 0.01 0.01

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

11 22 0.01 0.03

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

8 10 0.01 0.01

URBAN PRINCIPAL 48 38 0.06 0.05
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

38 32 0.05 0.04

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

129 259 0.17 0.35

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

84 275 0.11 0.37

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

27 132 0.2 0.18

OTHER 64 252 0.09 0.34

URBAN COLLECTOR -

MAJOR AND MINOR

36 92 0.05 0.12

URBAN COLLECTOR -

MAJOR AND MINOR

36 92 0.05 0.12
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

190 284 0.64 0.95

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

122 363 0.86 2.56

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

60 224 1.13 4.23

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

2 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 5 4 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

48 25 0.35 0.18

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 64 252 0.09 0.34

OTHER 64 252 0.09 0.34
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

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

Nothing more to report.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 1.4 1.3 1.2 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 2.2 2.1 2 0

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

To determine whether the Special Rule applies in New Jersey, we considered older drivers and older 

pedestrians collectively as instructed by the FHWA Guidance. The number of fatalities and serious 

injuries for drivers and pedestrians 65 and older were retrieved from the NJDOT database. That amount 

was then divided by the number of people in the State who are 65 years of age and older compared to 

total state population to determine rate. To maintain consistency with other performance measures, 

New Jersey compared the three time periods of 5 year rolling average rates of fatalities and serious 

injuries. (2007-2011, 2006-2010, 2005-2009). The methodology used was as follows:

Example:

Calculation Rate for 2007-2011:

((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) + (F+SI 2007 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older/2007 Population Figure)) / 5

The Population Figures were provided by the FHWA guidance and are as follows for New Jersey: 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

125 129 131 132 134 135 137

The rates calculated were compared, and it is shown that there has been a steady decrease based on 

the 5 year average. Therefore, the Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule does not apply in New 

Jersey.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Completion of NJDOT HSIP Manual, Increased collaboration with metropolitan planning 

organizations and other organizations, and change in project advancement process.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

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

NJDOT has completed its NJDOT HSIP Program manual, which outlines how it will advance the 

HSIP Program. NJDOT has also made a significant change in how projects will be advanced 

through NJDOT. NJDOT intends to advance more projects and larger HSIP eligible projects 

through its Division of Project Management for implementation. These changes are now just 

taking place.
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring drivers are 

licensed and fully 

competent

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

Ages 65+ 97 193 0.13 0 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Vehicle at 

fault failures 

to obey 

signs/signals, 

following 

too closely, 

improper 

lane change, 

improper 

passing, 

unsafe 

speed

141 266 0.19 0.36 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Reducing impaired 

driving

All 73 226 0.1 0.3 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing driver 

safety awareness

Same as 

Curbing 

Aggressive 

Driving

273 637 0.37 0.86 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Pedestrian, 

pedacyclist, 

railcarvehicle

126 232 0.17 0.31 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Pedalcyclist 

or Bicyclist

15 50 0.02 0.07 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

motorcycle awareness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing safety 

enhancements in 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

vehicles

Reducing vehicle-train 

crashes

Rail-car 

Vehicle or 

Railcar

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

Run-off-road 181 320 0.24 0.43 0 0 0

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway intersections

All crashes at 

intersection 

in the box

133 394 0.18 0.53 0 0 0

Reducing head-on and 

across-median crashes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enhancing emergency 

medical capabilities to 

increase survivability

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving information 

and decision support 

systems

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Reduce Young Driver 

Crashes

Focus on 

ages 16-20

46 117 0.06 0.16 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Groups of similar project types
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-High Risk 

Rural Roads

65 68 0.09 0.09 0 0 0

Intersection 133 394 0.18 0.53 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

46 113 0.06 0.15 0 0 0

Left Turn Crash 20 39 0.03 0.05 0 0 0

Local Safety 229 723 0.03 1 0 0 0

Safe Corridor 25 35 0.03 0.04 0 0 0

Segments 4 1 0 0.01 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety 126 232 0.17 0.31 0 0 0

Right Angle Crash 42 164 0.06 0.22 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Systemic Treatments
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Roadway Departure* - It was instructed by the guidance that “Property Damage = Utility Pole” be used 

as the criteria, but due to how the NJTR-1 is written, and how crash data is collected in New Jersey, a 

more accurate way to capture the Utility Pole crashes are using the four sequence of events involving a 

utility pole for any crash. This accurately pulls the crashes that involved utility poles. 
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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