Page 1 of 58

NEW JERSEY

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 10

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Program Administration.................................................................................................................................... 10

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 24

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 24

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 27

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 31

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 31

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 42

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 43

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 45

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 46

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 50

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 52
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 58

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.” 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) continues the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads.

The FAST Act requires the development of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) and the Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHXP). The New Jersey SHSP was 

updated in 2015. In order to obligate HSIP funds, states are required to (1) develop, implement and update a 

SHSP; (2) produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems; (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.

The reporting period for the 2018 Annual Safety Report (ASR) is the Calendar Year (CY). Starting in 2017, the 

ASR reporting period has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) to the Calendar Year (CY). The 

NJDOT made this change to be consistent with the reporting period of crashes and to be more precise in the 

reporting of the projects that get authorized during that period.

New Jersey has analyzed roadway safety performance as described in part 30 “General Highway Safety 

Trends in the State for Past Five Years”. Over the five year period, 2013-2017, the New Jersey’s five-year 

rolling average for the fatalities as well as fatality rates dropped approximately 1% and 5% respectively. 

Similarly, for the number of serious injuries and serious injury rates, the five-year rolling average dropped 

approximately 22% and 25% respectively. However, over the same five-year period, the actual number of 

crashes resulting in fatalities and incapacitating injuries in each year has fluctuated. New Jersey’s Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (VMTs) have been increasing on an annual basis over this five year period.

The NJDOT took the lead to establish the five safety performance targets. The targets are reported to satisfy 

federal requirements with the understanding that New Jersey’s safety vision is to achieve zero deaths on all 

public roads. Throughout the process, the NJDOT coordinated with the three MPOs, Division of Highway 

Traffic and Safety (DHTS) and the FHWA, NJ Division. The NJDOT established final targets and received 

concurrence from DHTS as three of the five safety targets are identical and required for both the Highway 

Safety Plan and the HSIP Annual Safety Report.

NJDOT has a broad spectrum of safety programs designed to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes as 

follows:

Intersection Improvement Program;

Crash Reduction Program;

Segment Improvement Program;

Utility Pole Mitigation Program;

Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program;

Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (State);
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 58

Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (Federal);

Local Safety Program; and the

High Risk Rural Roads Program

New Jersey continues to develop highway safety improvement projects on the basis of both crash experience 

and crash potential to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all public roads. New Jersey understands the 

benefits of systemic approach which provides an expanded comprehensive and proactive approach to road 

safety efforts. New Jersey constantly considers ways to expand its use of systemic safety improvements in the 

key safety emphasis areas.

The analysis for implementation of the following systemic treatments that began in 2016 continued in 2017:

• Based on the engineering study, equipping all the approved Mid-Block Crosswalks on the State 

Highway System with either Traffic Control Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or 12” yellow Flashing 

Warning Beacons and/or by upgrading the existing signing and striping. 

• Installation of louvered backplates with yellow retroreflective borders behind all signal heads mounted 

on steel mast arms on the State Highway System. As part of the same project, snow scoops will be 

added to the Signal Head Visors to reduce snow accumulation. 

• Installation of traffic control devices and upgrades at all interchange off ramps on the Interstate 

Highway System and US/State Highway Freeway Sections in order to reduce the occurrence of Wrong 

Way Crashes along the off ramps and the mainline. 

In 2017, the Department initiated a systemic safety review of the New Jersey State Highway System. The 

screening focuses on a review of system wide total crash (all severity) history to determine the types of 

crashes that are overrepresented and the facilities on which these crashes typically occur. This effort supports 

another task that also began in 2017, Systemic Roadway Departure (at Curves) Mitigation. This task identifies 

risks factors and locates curve segments on the State Highway System with potential for systemic treatment 

for roadway/lane departure crashes at curves within New Jersey’s south region, and provides suggested 

solutions to help alleviate roadway/lane departure crashes within this region.

In addition to exploring and developing the above systemic programs, New Jersey continues its effort with High 

Friction Surface Treatment on roadway curves which experience high roadway departure crashes such as 

fixed objects and overturns. The systemic pilot roundabout program to reduce injury crashes at intersections 

has also been a success as more counties are interested in building modern roundabouts. In 2017, New 

Jersey continued this program to provide counties an opportunity to implement additional systemic modern 

roundabouts on local roadways in each county.

New Jersey’s current SHSP reflects NJ’s commitment to a performance based program through the 

identification of data driven investment strategies, which aligns with the annual fatal and serious injury 

reduction goals and incorporates the Towards Zero Death vision. This plan provides direction to focus 

approximately 40 percent of the annual HSIP funding on state highways and 60 percent on county and 

municipal network in line with the current distribution of serious injuries and fatalities. New Jersey recognizes 

the benefits of collaboration in achieving overall safety. To implement SHSP goals, New Jersey’s HSIP 

apportionment of the Local Safety Program (LSP) has increased significantly and, as a result, the LSP has 

grown substantially. Some of the changes in the LSP which contributed towards its success include the 

provision of design services with professional services procurement through the MPOs and participation with 

HSIP funds for concept development phase for local projects. NJDOT continues to provide support to MPOs 

and their subregions through various trainings, presentations, meetings, Local Safety Peer Exchanges, 

assistance with HSM analysis for LSP projects and conducting Road Safety Audits on the local roadways.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 58

The 2017 NJ FHWA Division Unit Performance Plan specified that the Division Office should assess NJDOT’s 

implementation of HSIP and develop recommendations for improvements to the HSIP. The Division Office 

chose to focus on the LSP for this review since the LSP represented the most dramatic expansion of HSIP 

expenditures. The objectives of this review were:

• Determine if New Jersey’s LSP advancement and delivery is aligned with the regulations in 23 CFR 

490 and 23 CFR 924. 

• Identify the effectiveness of New Jersey’s current LSP, in terms of project selection and scoping to 

maximize the safety benefits associated with these infrastructure investments. 

The main question was whether the current local safety program identifies and captures the critical elements 

associated with effectively achieving the goals of the HSIP. The intent of this review was to acknowledge 

noteworthy practices and identify opportunities within the program to optimize the safety benefits of HSIP 

funded local safety projects.

As a result of this review, New Jersey’s Local Safety Program was found to be in general compliance with the 

requirements of 23 CFR Part 924 and New Jersey’s LSP investment commitments support their ability to 

satisfy performance measure requirements in 23 CFR 490. It was noted that there are opportunities in New 

Jersey’s current LSP to improve project selection and scoping. The report recognized New Jersey as a 

national leader with respect to its use of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in the prioritization of HSIP projects 

on Local and State roads. The report also noted New Jersey’s commitment with respect to the percent of HSIP 

annual apportionment for infrastructure expenditures on Local Roads.

New Jersey strives to improve our programs and supports and encourages the use of innovative techniques in 

doing so. In 2017, New Jersey continues its commitment to share information and knowledge with other parties 

of interest.

• In 2016, NJDOT developed and deployed a new user friendly crash data analysis tool called Safety 

Voyager. Safety Voyager is a web based application that allows NJDOT to visualize crash data, ball 

banking reports and traffic counts data in a map based interface. The application is hosted in a web 

based cloud data access. In the first release, the NJDOT had emphasized a basic functionality and 

security. In 2017, two updates were released that enhanced the program’s capabilities and satisfy the 

needs of the various users. This data analysis tool is accessible to all public agencies. 

• An essential step in the ongoing implementation of the HSM in New Jersey is the calibration and 

development of New Jersey-specific safety performance functions (SPF) for different types of facilities. 

NJDOT has begun this effort through a research project. With this information, the NJDOT and other 

New Jersey transportation agencies can use the HSM predictive methods to assess expected facility 

safety performance for New Jersey conditions and facility alternatives. This will improve current safety 

evaluations performed on these critically important facilities as part of planning as well as in project 

development. The use of these methods will ensure the most cost-effective solutions to transportation 

safety needs on these facilities. 

• NJDOT has attended and participated in numerous peer exchanges and webinars to share and obtain 

knowledge to help better our program. In 2017, New Jersey was featured in a national webinar 

presenting on the topic: “Use of SPFs and crash modification factors (CMF) in New Jersey”. 

• In 2017, NJDOT worked on the following EDC initiatives:

o EDC-3 - Data-Driven Safety Analysis: Safety Management, AASHTOWARE - Safety Analyst: 

This tool will be used to proactively determine which sites have the highest potential for safety 

improvement, as opposed to reactive safety assessments done conventionally. 

o EDC-3 - Data-Driven Safety Analysis: Project Development: The purpose of this initiative is to 

develop and deploy new tools, technology and practices to accelerate the adoption of innovation 

in all aspects of highway transportation both on the state and local side. To promote the use of 

substantive safety and data driven safety analysis tools in all local projects, New Jersey has 

decided to conduct 3 Local Agency Peer Exchanges. The first of these Peer Exchanges was 

held in 2017. 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 58

o EDC-4 - Data-Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA): Develop policy for the use of Highway Safety 

Manual Analysis in Design Exception - The HSM provides a science-based, technical approach 

that helps State and local agencies take the guesswork out of safety analysis. HSM brings the 

most significant enhancements to the analysis, decision-making and documentation of the 

quantitative safety effects of a proposed design exception. In 2017, NJDOT began conducting 

meetings with the appropriate SMEs to discuss and share ideas concerning this initiative. 

o EDC-4 - Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP): Workshops focusing on State and 

Local Uncontrolled Locations – The purpose of this initiative is to promote the use of Road 

Diets, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, Pedestrian Refuge Island, Raised Crosswalks and 

Crosswalk Visibility Enhancement. In 2017, NJDOT began planning workshops concerning this 

initiative. The first workshop, Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at 

Uncontrolled Locations, occurred in early 2018. 

NJTPA

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) is the fourth largest MPO region in the nation 

serving the 13 counties of northern New Jersey. NJTPA continues to work with its federal partners, the New 

Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), NJ TRANSIT, member counties and cities and other state and 

local agencies to make travel safer and more reliable for all users of the region's transportation system.

The NJTPA is proactive when it comes to safety, actively engaging in Safety Conscious Planning. Addressing 

safety issues involves a complex interaction with human behavior, technology, engineering, education and 

enforcement, as well as the natural environment. While traditional safety planning is reactive—a problem is 

identified through crash data analysis and then the appropriate engineering, enforcement and/or education 

countermeasures are implemented—Safety Conscious Planning integrates safety into all phases of 

transportation improvement planning and development so that safety is an integral part of all decision-making. 

All of NJTPA’s efforts are aligned with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

FY 2017 marked the 12th year of the Local Safety Program (LSP) and 7th year of the High Risk Rural Roads

Program (HRRRP). Since 2005 the NJTPA has allocated more than $164 million on over 131 projects for 

motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety-related improvements including systemic safety improvements and 

FHWA proven safety countermeasures. Safety improvements include traffic signal modernizations, pedestrian 

countdown signals, curb extensions, refuge islands, road diets, and systemic improvements such as centerline 

rumble strips and high friction surface treatment. A part of NJDOT’s pilot roundabout program, the NJTPA has 

eight roundabouts in the design phase.

The NJTPA recognizes the need to assist member counties and cities in preparing plans, specs & estimates 

(PS&E) for construction authorization of projects in both programs. In FY 2013, the NJTPA launched the Local 

Safety Engineering Assistance Program (LSEAP) and in the five years since the program’s inception has 

provided over $10 million on 40 projects. This program has resulted in high levels of timely, high quality 

documentation submitted for authorization and has improved the state’s ability to successfully address safety 

issues on local roads, where 60% of crashes occur. Since 2015, the NJTPA has also provided funding for 

consultant management and inspection during construction on 11 projects totaling more the $3 million. For 

more information on the location safety program, visit the webpage: http://www.njtpa.org/local-safety.

Another NJTPA initiative, the Street Smart NJ program, is a successful statewide Pedestrian Safety Education 

Campaign initiative that was the first of its kind in New Jersey. This program combines community outreach, 

education and enforcement to raise awareness of pedestrian and motorist laws and change behaviors that 

lead to pedestrian and cyclist crashes and fatalities. Street Smart NJ uses outdoor, transit and online 

advertising, along with grassroots public awareness efforts and law enforcement to publicize the importance of 

pedestrian safety. Street Smart NJ emphasizes educating drivers and pedestrians through mass media, as 

well as targeted enforcement. It complements, but doesn’t replace, other state and local efforts to build safer 

streets and sidewalks, enforce laws and train better roadway users. It was first piloted in 2013 by five New 

Jersey municipalities. The program expanded in 2016 to include several new partner communities —
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 58

Bergenfield, Clinton, Flemington, Highlands Borough, Hillsborough, Lakewood, Metuchen, Morristown, 

Newton, Passaic, Red Bank, Toms River, Washington Township (Warren County) and Woodbridge, and 

Summer 2016 campaigns were held on Long Beach Island, Asbury Park, Barnegat Light, Bay Head, Belmar, 

Bradley Beach, Harvey Cedars, Long Branch, Manasquan, Point Pleasant Beach, and Surf City conducted 

campaigns over the summer, reaching thousands of beach goers. The NJTPA added support for 

Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) and individual communities to run their own campaigns and 

increased the program’s reach to more than 26 partner communities through June 2017. For more information, 

visit the campaign website www.bestreetsmartnj.org.

SJTPO

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

southernmost New Jersey, including Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem Counties. Working with 

Statewide partners to move the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan into action and solidify SJTPO’s 

commitment to advancing the SHSP, annual investment goals were established based on three crash 

categories; Intersection, Pedestrian, and Lane Departure crashes. Most recently, SJTPO documented 

strategies and identified projects to meet the HSIP Investment Goals. SJTPO has committed to several general 

strategies to help achieve these goals.

The HSIP is the primary funding source available to the SJTPO that is solely focused on implementing the 

SHSP; and advancing projects through HSIP has been a major focus for the SJTPO in recent years. Support 

for HSIP among counties and municipalities in the SJTPO region has been low in recent years due to the 

complex nature of the program and the failure of select high profile safety projects to secure HSIP funding. To 

overcome this, SJTPO has put a great deal of effort in recent years to educate jurisdictions about the benefits 

of the program, and to bolster the technical support SJTPO offers to reduce the complexity of the process for 

jurisdictions. Further, SJTPO has worked to develop an initial review process to screen out lesser-developed 

projects early on, reduce the likelihood of well-developed project applications being rejected, and to enhance 

the quality of submissions to NJDOT to improve timeliness of project selection and advancement. SJTPO was 

successful in adding an initial screening step to the application process with NJDOT, to ensure opportunities to 

maximize the safety benefit of candidate projects rather than reject or further postpone projects whose initial 

scopes fall short.

Through these efforts, SJTPO worked with local jurisdictions to put together an aggressive portfolio of projects 

for FY 2018 funding. These projects include a mix of systemic projects, including centerline rumble strips and 

high friction surface treatment at horizontal curves as well as hot spot locations, including roundabouts and 

pedestrian corridor improvements. In addition, SJTPO will resurrect its efforts to move forward with a road diet 

pilot in addition to advancing multiple county roundabout pilots. SJTPO has begun a county-wide bicycle and 

pedestrian safety action plan in Cumberland County, which will identify top pedestrian safety concerns and 

prepare those locations for safety investment. This effort could become an example for other counties in the 

region to follow and a means to focus local attention to investment in bicycle and pedestrian safety. SJTPO 

has been pleased by the positive response from local jurisdictions in participating in the Roundabout Pilot 

Program, with several roundabout locations being discussed for submission in each of SJTPO’s four counties.

While HSIP remains the primary funding source with the sole purpose of reducing fatal and serious injury 

crashes on our roadways, SJTPO envisions that all funds play a role in these critical goals. As such, SJTPO 

will soon begin an effort to incorporate safety elements into all projects that receive funds through SJTPO’s

process. It is the position of SJTPO that our region cannot achieve these important safety goals and get all 

users home safety if all funds are not committed to the task. Through these many efforts, SJTPO has greatly 

expanded the work and success of our Local Safety Program and is excited as further efforts are underway 

that should make a meaningful impact on safety in the coming years.

DVRPC
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 58

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) serves four counties in southern New Jersey: 

Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer. DVRPC did not conduct a formal project application solicitation in 

2017 for the Local Federal HSIP and HRRR Programs, but instead assisted member counties with application 

development and project advancement.

During 2017 DVRPC received two completed applications for the Systemic Pilot Program for Roundabouts, 

one from Burlington County (CR 541 Stokes Road & CR 648 Willow Grove Rd) and another from Camden 

County (705 Sicklerville Rd & 706 Erial Rd); both received NJDOT approval to use HSIP funds for design and 

construction. DVRPC is currently coordinating with Burlington and Camden counties to advance next steps. 

Authorization for preliminary engineering for these roundabouts is anticipated during the 2019 Federal fiscal 

year.

DVRPC assisted Burlington, Camden, and Mercer counties with project application development at four 

locations, improvement types include intersection (roundabout), corridor (road diet), and area (combination of 

intersections and corridors). DVRPC anticipates that each of these locations will result in HSIP applications 

during the 2019 Federal fiscal year.

Ongoing Safety Projects:

• The Mt. Ephraim Avenue Corridor-wide Pedestrian Safety Local Concept Development study is nearing 

completion and is expected that the preliminary engineering phase will begin in Federal fiscal year 

2019. 

• The Mercer County Brunswick Circle Extension Roundabout preliminary engineering project is also 

progressing. It is anticipated that the project will enter final design in Federal fiscal year 2019. 

• The Curve Data gathering and Safety Assessment study designed to identify hazardous curves for 

systemic improvement with HSIP funds kicked-off during Federal fiscal year 2018 and the majority of 

the data collection has been completed. This effort is being led by DVRPC aided by SJTPO. Breakout 

projects resulting from this study are anticipated for advancement in the spring of 2019. This effort has 

been and will continue to be coordinated closely with county, regional, state, and Federal partners to 

ensure HSIP compliance. 

DVRPC continued to coordinate closely with its New Jersey TIP Subcommittee to foster information sharing 

and encourage project development, and staff has engaged DVRPC’s Board and Regional Technical 

Committee to advance MAP-21 safety performance measure compliance.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 58

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Under the most recent federal legislation, the FAST Act, NJ is apportioned approximately $57 million annually 

for HSIP Program. This apportionment is distributed 60% to local roadway and 40% to state roads based on 

fatalities and serious injuries data. The local portion is distributed to the 3 MPOs based on census data. Each 

MPO distributes HSIP funds into the different emphasis areas as described in the SHSP. The funds allocated 

to state roadways also get distributed into these different emphasis areas.

NJDOT develops an annual safety investment strategy for all HSIP funded activities and projects. The annual 

investment strategy demonstrates the linkage between the objectives of the SHSP and the projects we are 

implementing to ensure we are focusing on the most effective safety improvements.

HSIP implementation steps for hot spot locations:

• Planning: Verify the identified location with any of the existing Safety Management System (SMS) lists

• Problem Identification: Identify the safety concerns

• Problem Screening Process: Develop the data needed for consideration of the project by the Capital 

Programming Screening Committee (CPSC) and the Capital Program Committee (CPC).

• Concept Development:

1. Verify that the project’s purpose and need is consistent with the identified safety concern and NJ most 

current SHSP

2. Prepare an initial cost estimate for at least two Safety Design Alternatives

3. If the identified infrastructure improvements are greater than $250,000 in cost then a Predictive Safety 

Analysis using the (HSM) will be required

• Design and construction

• Evaluation

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 58

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Formula via MPOs

Other-Network screening for high crash locations

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

The allocation of HSIP funds for local and state roads is based on network screening lists for high crash 

locations. In addition to the screening for the local roads (county and municipal owned roads), there is also a 

competitive application process through each MPO.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.

Local Roadways are eligible for HSIP improvements through a competitive application process with the 

respective MPOs. All Local Roadways in New Jersey are covered by one of three MPOs – NJTPA, SJTPO, or 

DVRPC. NJDOT oversees the production of network screening lists for each of the MPO regions, including 

both County and Municipal owned roadways, which help the MPOs prioritize their projects. As New Jersey is a 

focus state for both intersection and pedestrian crashes, screening lists include a focus on Intersection, 

Pedestrian Corridor, High Risk Rural Roads, and Pedestrian Intersection crashes utilizing a weighted severity 

scale. These lists were shared with local roadway owners and government officials to assist in the selection of 

regional priority locations to develop HSIP funded projects leading to better investment of HSIP funding at the 

local level. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Operations

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-Project Management

Other-Environmental

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 58

NJDOT's Bureau of Safety, Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs, under the Assistant Commissioner of Planning, 

Multimodal and Grants Administration is responsible for crash data compilation, analysis and program 

development. The Division of Project Management under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Program 

Management is responsible for final design and implementation of improvements. New Jersey's HSIP Manual 

identifies the process for coordination and delivery of HSIP projects for roadways under state jurisdiction. This 

manual was updated in 2016. Regular meetings are conducted between Planning, Multimodal & Grants 

Administration and staff from Division of Program Management under Division of Project Management to 

monitor and assist as the projects move through project development to advertisement. NJDOT supports the 

advancement of projects under local jurisdiction by participating in the Technical Assistance Team for local 

safety projects. The Technical Assistance Team consist of NJDOT's Safety, Environmental, and Local Aid 

staff. NJDOT's Division of Local Aid, under the Assistant Commissioner of Planning, Multimodal and Grants 

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 HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

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

Each state is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) to guide the allocation of safety funding and resources to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries 

on public roadways. A SHSP is required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) as a condition to utilize federal HSIP funds. In the development of the SHSP, all 

of the external partners mentioned in the question, except the "Tribal Agency" are involved. Only the selected 

external partners are involved in the HSIP planning process.

Describe coordination with external partners.

NJDOT coordinate with all the MPOs, DHTS and FHWA on a regular basis. Daily phone calls, scheduled 

meetings or emails are the main way of communication. FHWA representative is always available to provide 

support and guidance. 

The same partners were involved in the setting of the performance safety targets.

Coordination with local government agencies is done through the MPOs. The three MPOs provide extensive 

support and assistance to their subregions in regards to their safety projects. Quarterly meetings are 

conducted between NJDOT and the MPOs to discuss any major concern and to keep track of the status of the 

projects and the funding. 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 58

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Planning, Multimodal and Grants Administration continues to conduct quarterly 

collaboration meetings with all three MPOs along with subject matter experts at the NJDOT. These meetings 

promote partnering with a focus on safety. NJDOT’s Division of Local Aid coordinates with the MPOs on 

regular basis to ensure advancement of Local Safety Projects.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

2016 HSIP Manual.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Roadway Departure

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Segments

HRRR

Other-Utility Pole Mitigation

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

Crash Reduction Program (Roadway Departure)

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 58

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

Other-The Special Rule for high risk rural road safety was applied to NJ

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Functional classification 

Other-Rural 

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

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 60
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

Other-Project to address established safety problem as shown through crash history, risk-based (systemic) : 

20

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

$0.414 million is authorized in Calendar Year 2017 under the HRRRP. Approximately $3.951 million for CY 18 

and $2.793 million for CY 19 is programmed to be authorized.

It has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2018 and 2019 

reporting periods.

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-New Jersey is designated as a FHWA Intersection Focus State

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

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

Yes
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-60% of NJ’s injury and fatality events occur on local roadways 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

Yes
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Priority given to State's focus areas

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

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 60

Other-Project to address established safety problem as shown through crash history, risk-based (systemic) 

analysis and/or local roadway knowledge : 20

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-Newark is a FHWA designated Pedestrian Focus City, and New Jersey is a FHWA designated Pedestrian 

Focus State

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 58

Other-Pedestrian Crashes Other-NJ is a pedestrian focus state 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Other-Pedestrian generators

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Other-FHWA Ped Focus State : 1

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2008 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Lane miles Roadside features 

Other-Horizontal Curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Sites identified based on methodology developed for systemic treatment for roadway departure crashes

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 58

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Lane miles 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Other-Exposure is taken into consideration

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Program: Other-Utility Pole Mitigation 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

Other-To mitigate some of the Lane Departure crashes involving a utility pole

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fixed Object crashes Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-by ranking

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Field investigation : 1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 20
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

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

apply.

High friction surface treatment

Other-Roundabout Pilot Program

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

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

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

The Highway Safety Manual is a helpful tool used to prioritize the HSIP investments. The HSM is used to 

analyze different alternatives. Also, all of the HSIP projects should have a Benefit/cost ratio greater than 1 and 

the B/C calculations are based on the HSM.

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

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

No
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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

The NJDOT decided to select calendar year as the reporting period to be consistent with the reporting period 

of crashes and to be more precise in the reporting of the projects that get authorized during that period. Most of 

the HSIP authorizations in the NJDOT are processed during the months of August and September and the 

report is finalized during the month of August.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $35,208,540 $25,608,810 72.73%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$3,333,210 $414,000 12.42%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $38,541,750 $26,022,810 67.52%

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

Being that the reporting period is Calendar Year 2017, the programed funds are calculated as follows: 

3/4 of the programed funds for FFY 2017 plus 1/4 of the programed funds for FFY 2018. Values are based on 

the STIP.

$0.414 million is authorized in Calendar Year 2017 under the HRRRP. Approximately $3.951 million for CY 18 

and $2.793 million for CY 19 is programmed to be authorized.

It has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2018 and 2019 

reporting periods.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

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

$20,500,000

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects?

$10,046,000

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

Being that the reporting period is Calendar Year 2017, the programed funds were calculated by taking 3/4 of 

the programed funds in the STIP for the FFY 2017 plus 1/4 of the programed funds for FFY 2018 as follows:

(3/4) of the programed funds for FFY 17 + (1/4) of the programed funds for FFY 18

(3/4)*20,000,000 + (1/4) *22 ,000,000 = 20,500,000

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

$6,554,000

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

$10,159,810

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

Non-infrastructure safety funds = HSIP Planning funds, which includes Rail-Highway and Motor Vehicle Crash 

Records Processing funds 

The programed funds for non-infrastructure safety projects were calculated as follows:

(3/4) * programed funds for FFY 17 + (1/4) * programed funds for FFY18 

The obligated funds for non-infrastructure safety projects may look high. This is because the "2017 Staff Work 

Program - Rail" and the "2018 Staff Work Program - Rail" were both authorized in Calendar Year 2017. 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$25,000,000
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

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

On 6/28/2017, the department transferred $25M in HSIP (Z230) apportionment to STP (Z240). Nothing was 

transferred into HSIP 

Apportionments are not cash. The amounts transferred represented excessive apportionment balances for 

which there were no projects either programmed or ready obligate.

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

The programmed funds for NJ’s HSIP Local Safety Program increased substantially from approximately $5 

million in FY2011 to $22 million in FY2016, based on the priorities and guided investment strategies set by 

2015 updated Strategic Highway Safety Plan to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on New Jersey’s roads. 

The program is no longer limited to low cost improvements only. For projects requiring infrastructure 

improvements, the Capital Project Delivery Process has to be followed. This requires additional staff and 

expertise to carry out these projects from CD to construction. Additional resources and trainings are needed to 

deliver this extent of program on a yearly basis.

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

No
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

2017 Staff Work 

Program - Rail

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$3105000 $3105000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 Railroad Statewide Railroad Develop 

methodologies for 

problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

2017 Staff Work 

Program - Safety

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2047000 $2047000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Statewide Planning Develop 

methodologies for 

problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

2017 Verifiers Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $2718000 $2718000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Statewide Data Develop 

methodologies for 

problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

US 22 Westbound 

(Vauxhall to Bloy) 

(ROW)

Roadway Roadway - restripe to 

revise separation between 

opposing lanes and/or 

shoulder widths 

0.74 Miles $620000 $620000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

62,544 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Widen and/or 

pave shoulders

Washington 

Avenue (CR 503) 

Phase I & II 

(Bergen) (CON)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk Miles $3225000 $3225000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Mercer 

Roundabout - CR 

583, US 206 

(Princeton Ave) 

and Brunswick 

Circle extension 

(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $261000 $261000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Int. Impr. Prog. & 

Safety Corridor 

Prog. (US 130 

and Union), (US 

40/322 and Rt.9) 

(CON)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1323000 $1323000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Chancellor 

Avenue (CR 601) 

- Phase II 

(INSPECTION)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

Intersections $574000 $574000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot

Horizontal Curve 

Safety Treatment, 

RT 50 (69% 

RURAL) (CON)

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

20 Curves $3874000 $3874000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial and Rural 

Minor Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Newark - Broad 

Street Phase II - 5 

intersections (PE)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

5 Intersections $256000 $256000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Hudson -

Improvements to 

JFK Blvd East 

(CR 693) at 

Bergenline 

Avenue (CON)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modify signal mounting 

(spanwire to mast arm)

Intersections $564000 $564000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Hudson -

Improvements to 

Paterson Plank 

Road (CR 681) at 

Webster Avenue 

(CON)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

Intersections $321000 $321000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Union -W. 

Seventh St (CR 

601) Intersection 

Improvements 

(FD)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

Intersections $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Hudosn - JFK 

Blvd from 

Communipaw Ave 

to Sip Ave -Phase 

I (FD)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

Intersections $131000 $131000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

JC -

Communipaw Ave 

- 12 intersections, 

ped 

improvements 

(FD)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Crosswalk 12 Intersections $108000 $108000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Hudson - JF 

Kennedy 

Boulevard (CR 

501) and 

Paterson Plank 

Road - 2 

corridors(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

replace existing indications 

(incandescent-to-LED 

and/or 8-to-12 inch dia.)

Intersections $336000 $336000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

JC - Marin Blvd -

Corridor and 7 

intersections (PE)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

7 Intersections $408000 $408000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Morris - Center 

Grove road (CR 

670) & 

Quakerchurch 

Road - 1 

intersection (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $236000 $236000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Somerset - Main 

Street (CR 533), 

Manville Local 

Safety 

Improvements -

Corridor (PE)

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

Miles $561000 $561000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Union - East Front 

St and Watchung 

Avenue, 

Roosevelt 

Avenue, 

Richmond Street -

3 intersections 

(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

3 Intersections $191000 $191000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

JC- Oakland 

Avenue & St. 

Pauls Avenue 

(PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $143000 $143000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Monmouth -

Leonardville Road 

& East Road -

intersection 

upgrades (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $309000 $309000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

HRRRMonmouth -Stage 

coach Rd , 

corridor, HFST, 

safety edge, 

chevron signs, 

(HRRR) - Phase 

II (PE)

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

Curves $414000 $414000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

JC- Montgomery 

St - 15 

intersections, ped 

improvements 

(FD)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

Miles $133000 $133000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Hudson - JFK 

Blvd from Bond 

Place to Bergen 

Ave - 5 

intersections -

Phase II (PE)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

5 Intersections $317000 $317000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Newark -

Roundabout -

Backus St, 

Chestnut St, 

Wheeler Point Rd 

- Ironbound (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $274000 $274000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Passaic -

Roundabout -

North Haledon 

Ave & Manchester 

Ave - North 

Haledon (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $312000 $312000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Essex -

Roundabout -

Walnut St & West 

Hobart Gap Rd -

Livingston (PE)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $298000 $298000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Hunterdon -

Roundabout -

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $363000 $363000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Stanton Rd, 

Springtown Rd, 

Pleasant Run Rd -

Readington (PE)

Newark - Ferry 

Street - 16 

intersections, 

traffic signal 

upgrade (PE)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

16 Intersections $281000 $281000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Local HSIP 

Support 

Environmental

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$205000 $205000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Stetewide Data

2018 Staff Work 

Program - Rail

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2084810 $2084810 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Statewide Rail Road Develop 

methodologies for 

problem 

identification, 

prioritation, and 

evaluation

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

The funds for the Morris County Roundabout, for the PE phase were authorized. However, no funds were expended since the County no longer has support from the municipality. 

Therefore, this authorization is not included in the list of projects but it appears in the e-STIP.

$0.414 million is authorized in Calendar Year 2017 under the HRRRP. Approximately $3.951 million for CY 18 and $2.793 million for CY 19 is programmed to be authorized.

It has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2018 and 2019 reporting periods
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 584 556 627 589 542 556 562 601 625

Serious Injuries 1,581 1,566 1,412 1,281 1,134 990 1,138 1,019 1,128

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.802 0.761 0.858 0.794 0.727 0.743 0.745 0.780 0.806

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.170 2.144 1.932 1.726 1.522 1.323 1.509 1.322 1.455

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

171 152 159 170 143 179 188 180 201

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

314 347 303 281 209 179 205 205 202
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 58

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 58

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 58

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

For 2019 Target calculations:

• Safety targets were developed based on statistical forecasting to project probable outcomes. 

• 2007-2015 Fatalities were based on available FARS data as of 3/19/2018. 

• 2016 & 2017 Fatalities were based on available NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation Unit as of 

3/19/2018. 

• Serious Injuries were based on available NJDOT data as of 3/14/2018. 2017 numbers were estimated 

based on calculations using available data. 

• 2017, 2018 & 2019 VMTs were not available in March and were estimated based on calculations using 

available data. Note that 2008, 2012 and 2016 VMTs were adjusted for leap year. 

For General Highway Safety Trends:

• 2009-2016 Fatalities, including non-motorized fatalities, are from FARS. 

• 2017 Fatalities, including non-motorized fatalities, are from NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation 

Unit as of 8/30/2018. 

• Serious Injury counts, including non-motorized serious injury counts, are from NJDOT/ARD database 

as of 7/16/2018. 

• 2017 VMT data is provided by NJDOT on 6/18/2018. 

• VMTs have been adjusted for leap years 2012 and 2016 and the rates have been recalculated. 

Describe fatality data source.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 58

FARS

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

Fatalities for the 2019 Target calculations were taken from FARS data as of 3/19/2018 except for the years 

2016 and 2017 which were taken from NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation Unit database as of 

3/19/2018.

Fatalities for the General Trends were taken from FARS except for the year 2017 which were taken from NJ 

State Police Fatal Accident Investigation Unit database as of 8/30/2018.

Fatalities for Functional Classification were taken from FARS except for the year 2017 which were taken from 

NJDOT/ARD database.

Fatalities for Roadway Ownership were taken from FARS except for the year 2017 which were taken from 

NJDOT/ARD database.

Fatalities for Emphasis Areas were taken from NJDOT/ARD database.

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

6.2 4.4 0.53 0.37

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

And Expressways

4.2 3.6 0.9 0.76

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

12.8 16.6 1.41 1.88

Rural Minor Arterial 14 12.8 2.11 1.93

Rural Minor Collector 3.4 5.8 1.8 3.09

Rural Major Collector 19.2 24.8 2.33 3.01

Rural Local Road Or Street 13.4 7 1.91 0.95

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

55.8 58.4 0.38 0.4

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

And Expressways

50.6 54 0.39 0.42

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

162.2 273.2 0.99 1.67

Urban Minor Arterial 121.2 225.4 1.09 2.02
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 58

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Urban Minor Collector 1.6 3.4 0.22 0.47

Urban Major Collector 26.2 48 0.58 1.06

Urban Local Road Or 

Street

39 48.6 0.37 0.45

Not a HPMS Reportable 

Trafficway

11.2 161 0 0
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 58

Year 2012

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 58

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 58

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 58

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

The two categories namely "Other Freeway and Expressway" and "Major and Minor Collector" under 

Functional Classification table may have skewed results because of the changes in Roadway Functional 

System since 2015. An accurate representation of the 5-year rolling averages in these categories will resume 

in 2020.

For Functional Classification: 

- 2017 Fatal and SI counts are from the ARD database. 2017 data for FARS is not available yet.

- VMT data provided by NJDOT on 6/18/2018.

- Calculations for 2016 have been updated.

For Ownership calculations:

- 2017 Fatal and incapacitated counts are from the ARD database. 2017 FARS data is not available yet.

- 2017 VMTs provided by NJDOT on 6/18/2018.

- 2016 incapacitated counts are from the ARD database. 

- 2016 Fatal counts have been updated from FARS.

- 2015 Fatal counts are updated from FARS as it has an "Ownership" field now.

-Counts for 2014 and prior have not been modified.

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

elaborate?

No

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 58

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 605.0 

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

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Number of Serious Injuries 1101.4 

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

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Fatality Rate 0.780 

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

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Serious Injury Rate 1.422 

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

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 393.9 

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

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

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

For 2019 Target calculations:

• Safety targets were developed based on statistical forecasting to project probable outcomes. 

• 2007-2015 Fatalities were based on available FARS data as of 3/19/2018. 

• 2016 & 2017 Fatalities were based on available NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation Unit as of 

3/19/2018. 

• Serious Injuries were based on available NJDOT data as of 3/14/2018. 2017 numbers were estimated 

based on calculations using available data. 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 58

• 2017, 2018 & 2019 VMTs were not available in March and were estimated based on calculations using 

available data. Note that 2008, 2012 and 2016 VMTs were adjusted for leap year. 

For General Highway Safety Trends:

• 2009-2016 Fatalities, including non-motorized fatalities, are from FARS. 

• 2017 Fatalities, including non-motorized fatalities, are from NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation 

Unit as of 8/30/2018. 

• Serious Injury counts, including non-motorized serious injury counts, are from NJDOT/ARD database 

as of 7/16/2018. 

• 2017 VMT data is provided by NJDOT on 6/18/2018. 

• VMTs have been adjusted for leap years 2012 and 2016 and the rates have been recalculated.

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

targets. 

The NJDOT took the lead to establish the five safety performance targets. Several meetings with the MPOs 

and DHTS took place during the process. The New Jersey Division FHWA Safety Engineer also attended 

these meetings and offered input in an advisory capacity. Throughout the process, the NJDOT coordinated 

with MPOs and DHTS to: a) share data for the measures, b) develop and discuss methods to set statewide 

targets, and c) discuss preliminary targets. After obtaining final fatal and SI numbers, the NJDOT developed 

the final safety performance targets using the methodology that was agreed upon in earlier meetings. The 

NJDOT coordinated these targets with the MPOs and DHTS and obtained their concurrence.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

New Jersey is a densely populated state and therefore comprises of limited length of roadways which can be 

qualified under HRRR program. New Jersey has had projects where there were portions of roadways which 

met the HRRR criteria and received safety improvements but could not be funded with HRRR funds. It is very 

difficult to manage a project to keep track of split funding. Therefore it had been decided that the general HSIP 

funds will be used for the projects even if they have portions which qualify for HRRR funds. The projects where 

the complete project area meet the HRRR criteria were funded by the set aside HRRR funds.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 58

$0.414 million is authorized in Calendar Year 2017 under the HRRRP. Approximately $3.951 million for CY 18 

and $2.793 million for CY 19 is programmed to be authorized.

It has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2018 and 2019 

reporting periods.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

100 97 118 102 107 108 132

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

111 144 104 106 139 104 133

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

Fatalities were taken from FARS except for the year 2017. To date, the official FARS data is not available for 

2017. NJDOT/ARD data, as of July 17, 2018, has been used for 2017 fatalities.

Serious Injuries were taken from NJDOT/ARD data as of July 17, 2018.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 58

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced)

Lives saved

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

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

level evaluations.

NJDOT currently evaluates the safety projects funded by HSIP based on before and after crash data and the 

Benefit Cost Ratio. We don’t do the overall formal Program Evaluation. The overall Safety Performance 

Measure chart, which includes fatalities, serious injuries and their rates, gives us an idea how New Jersey is 

performing in the area of traffic and pedestrian safety.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

Year 2017

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 303.2 560.4 0.4 0.74 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 140.8 356 0.18 0.47 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 125.2 182.4 0.17 0.24 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 62.2 122.8 0.08 0.16 0 0 0

Reduce Young Driver 

Crashes

All 60.6 140.6 0.08 0.18 0 0 0

Reduce Impaired Driving All 78.8 201.6 0.1 0.27 0 0 0

Drawsy & Distracted All 203.4 490.4 0.27 0.64 0 0 0

Aggressive Driving All 167.2 333.4 0.22 0.44 0 0 0

Ped. & Bike Vehicleped+Vehiclebike164.8 197.6 0.22 0.26 0 0 0

Unbelted All 282.2 449 0.37 0.59 0 0 0

Heavy Vehicle All 71.4 79.4 0.09 0.11 0 0 0

Unlicensed Drivers All 75 149.4 0.1 0.2 0 0 0

Work zone All 9.4 17.2 0.01 0.02 0 0 0

Railcar-Vehicle All 1.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 58

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 58

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

Fatalities and Serious Injuries have been taken from NJDOT/ARD data. 

VMTs have been adjusted for leap year 2016.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

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

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

FY 2010 - Jersey 

City - Dr. Martin 

Luther King Jr. 

Drive Pedestrian 

Safety 

Improvements

Urban Major 

Collector

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install 

new at intersection

3.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 12.00 2.69

FY 2011 - CITY 

OF NEWARK -

WILSON 

AVENUE AT 

LAFAYETTE 

STREET, 

HOUSTON 

STREET AND 

AVENUE K 

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

17.00 10.00 3.00 3.00 20.00 13.00 0.68

FY 2011 - HRRR -

Sussex Co -

LewisburgCreamery Rd (CR 

565) and 

BranchvilleLewisburg Rd (CR 

628)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

22.00 14.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 29.00 19.00 1.23

FY 2012 - Essex 

County - Park 

Avenue (CR 658) 

at Park Street and 

North/South 

Oraton Parkway

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

28.00 8.00 1.00 11.00 6.00 39.00 15.00 4.42

FY 2012 - Essex 

County -

Springfield 

Avenue (CR 603) 

and Ellis Avenue

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

8.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 14.00 12.00 4.37

FY 2012 HRRR -

Hunterdon County 

- High-Bridge 

Califon Road (CR 

513) and Main 

Street (CR 512)

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 -3.72

FY 2012 -

Somerset County 

- Easton Avenue 

(CR 527) and 

Foxwood Drive

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

22.00 17.00 2.00 3.00 8.00 1.00 32.00 21.00 6.70

FY 2012 - HRRR -

Somerset County 

- New Centre 

Road (CR 627) 

from Auten Road 

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

30.00 9.00 4.00 1.00 12.00 2.00 46.00 12.00 8.86
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 58

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

to Roycefield 

Road

FY 2012 - Union 

County - Vauxhall 

Road (CR 630) 

and Valley Street 

(CR 638)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

21.00 31.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 7.00 25.00 41.00 -12.66

FY 2012 - HRRR -

WARREN 

COUNTY -

ASBURYBLOOMSBURY 

ROAD/ASBURYANDERSON 

ROAD (CR 632)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

27.00 48.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 36.00 55.00 -134.55

FY 2013 HRRR -

Somerset County 

- River Road (CR 

625)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

21.00 25.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 31.00 32.00 0.44

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

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

Yes

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

The HRRR program has been a challenge for New Jersey but we see progress in the foreseeable future, 2018 and 2019 reporting periods.

New Jersey is a densely populated state and therefore comprises of limited length of roadways which can be qualified under HRRR program. New Jersey has had projects where there were portions of roadways which met the HRRR 

criteria and received safety improvements but could not be funded with HRRR funds. It is very difficult to manage a project to keep track of split funding. Therefore it had been decided that the general HSIP funds will be used for the 

projects even if they have portions which qualify for HRRR funds. The projects where the complete project area meet the HRRR criteria were to be funded by the set aside HRRR funds. $0.414 million is authorized in Calendar Year 2017 

under the HRRRP.

However going forward, approximately $3.951 million for CY 18 and $2.793 million for CY 19 are programmed to be authorized. CY 18 and CY 19 monetary values are comprised of projects on our local roadway system. To capture the 

HRRR funds, approximately 90% of the CY 18 monetary value resulted as of a break-up of individual projects into separate projects, general HSIP and HRRRP.

Also, please note that it has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2018 and 2019 reporting periods.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 58

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/18/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

To be precise, the current SHSP covers 8/18/2015 to 8/17/2020.

See Attached 2015 SHSP.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 0 20

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 80 80 60

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 0 20

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 0 20

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 50 50

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 0 10
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 40

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 80 90 3

AADT Year (80) 100 80

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

6 6

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 80

AADT Year (80) 100 80

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 80

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

80 30

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

80 30

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 80 30
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 80 30

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 80 30

Functional Class (19) 80 30

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

97.22 93.89 88.25 80.75 43.64 16.36 85.56 67.00 0.00 14.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

On the actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE FDE on all public by September 30, 2026:

1. the current MIRE FDE are stored in the SLD database. 

2. the NJDOT Information Tech Unit is currently uploading the available MIRE FDE to Business Objects (TransINFO) NJDOT website so that the MIRE FDE would be available/accessible to all NJDOT or MPOs. 

3. NJDOT is proposing to create the MIRE FDE database and export the data to ArcGIS Interactive Transportation Data Applications similar to the current NJDOT roadway Information and Traffic Monitoring (Annual Average Daily 

Traffic Flow) on the NJDOT website for public use. 

4. The NJDOT’s BDTS currently collects many of the required MIRE FDE and developed a plan for the collection and/or update of the remaining required elements. Through BTDS’s Data Warehouse Maintenance (DWM) and TMS 

contracts the following MIRE FDE will be collected in the short-term (1-3 years): 

• 168. Unique Interchange Identifier 

• 172. Interchange Type 

• 4. Ramps Type of Government Ownership 

• 185. Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal 

• 187. Location identifier at Beginning Ramp Terminal 

• 189. Roadway Type at End Ramp Terminal 

• 191. Location identifier at End Ramp Terminal 

• 177. Ramp Length 

• 81. Average Annual Daily Traffic – Local Paved Roads (Federal Aid Roads) 

• 181. Ramp AADT 

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

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Incapacitated No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitated No If the victim has a serious non-fatal injury 

which results in one or more of the 

following: Severe laceration resulting in 

exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood, Broken or 

distorted extremity (arm or leg), Crush 

injuries, Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations, Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body), Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene, or 

Paralysis

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); Crush 

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body); Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene; or 

Paralysis

Yes

Crash Database Incapacitated No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitated No If the victim has a serious non-fatal injury 

which results in one or more of the 

following: Severe laceration resulting in 

exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood, Broken or 

distorted extremity (arm or leg), Crush 

injuries, Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations, Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body), Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene, or 

Paralysis

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); Crush 

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body); Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene; or 

Paralysis

Yes

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

The NJDOT will bring the non-compliant name to the Statewide Traffic Records Coordinating Committee's (STRCC) attention to plan a revision to the existing name.

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

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

Yes

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

Purpose:

The 2017 NJ FHWA Division Unit Performance Plan specified that the Division Office should assess NJDOT’s implementation of HSIP and develop recommendations for improvements to the HSIP. The Division Office chose to focus on 

the LSP for this review since the LSP represented the most dramatic expansion of HSIP expenditures. The objectives of this review were:

• Determine if NJ’s LSP advancement and delivery is aligned with the regulations in 23 CFR 490 and 23 CFR 924.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 58

• Identify the effectiveness of NJ’s current LSP, in terms of project selection and scoping to maximize the safety benefits associated with these infrastructure investments.

The main question was whether the current local safety program identifies and captures the critical elements associated with effectively achieving the goals of the HSIP.

The intent of this review was to acknowledge noteworthy practices and identify opportunities within the program to optimize the safety benefits of HSIP funded local safety projects.

Outcome:

NJ’s local safety program was found to be in general compliance with the requirements of 23 CFR Part 924. NJ’s LSP investment commitments support NJ’s ability to satisfy performance measure requirements in 23 CFR 490. There are 

opportunities in NJ’s current LSP to improve project selection and scoping.

NJ is a national leader with respect to its use of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) in the prioritization of HSIP projects on Local and State roads. NJ’s commitment with respect to the percent of HSIP annual apportionment for 

infrastructure expenditures on Local Roads is also noteworthy.
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2015 SHSP.pdf

2016 HSIP Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

ASR - Safety Target Answers.pdf

HSIP PM Targets 2019 - Final.pdf

Evaluation:

Final LSP Process Review.pdf

Compliance Assessment:

2015 SHSP.pdf
2018 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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