Massachusetts

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: MA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................4

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................17

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 17

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 20

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

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

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

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................42

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

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

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

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................68
iv
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

SAFETEA-LU first instituted the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in 2005 and MAP21 continued the program in 2012. Although Massachusetts was in fact designing and 

constructing safety projects, it was using other funding categories. In 2009 Massachusetts 

began obligating funds from the HSIP funding category, only after an HSIP Task Force was 

developed and HSIP guidelines were implemented. Massachusetts is now in the fifth year of an 

active HSIP program. This report summarizes the HSIP management and structure in 

Massachusetts as well as describing the selected HSIP programs and projects. New this year, 

we are submitting the HSIP report on line. This has been particularly challenging for us because 

obtaining access for online submitting is in conflict with our policies on security. We have not 

yet resolved the issues of gaining access and our presently using the access of MassDOT 

personnel with existing access.
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other : The STIP provided for $15 million in 2013 HSIP funds. In an effort to distribute the HSIP funds 

in an equitable manner throughout the Commonwealth on all public roadways (both local and Stateowned) without an overemphasis on the metro-Boston area

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

The HSIP project selection criteria was based on locations being identified as top crash locations (based 

on the number of equivalent property damage only crashes – which weights a fatal crash 10 times that 

of a property damage only crash, and injury crashes as five times that of property damage only crashes) 

in several key focus areas based on our Strategic Highway Safety Plan, regardless of roadway 

jurisdiction. Massachusetts was designated as a Lead State in Lane Departure crashes so top lane 

departure locations were eligible. Similarly, the SHSP included focus areas on intersections, bicycle and 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

pedestrian crashes so top crash locations in these focus areas were also eligible, regardless of the 

jurisdiction. Finally, other eligible projects / programs were selected based on HSIP-eligible criteria such 

as statewide improvements to data or assistance with SHSP. These programs impact safety on all 

roadways regardless of roadway jurisdiction.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The HSIP Task Force consists of seven members: 2 FHWA representatives (one from Massachusetts 

Division Office in Planning and one from the Massachusetts Division Office in Safety), 2 representatives 

from MassDOT Highway Division (Chief Engineer and Safety Engineer), one from MassDOT Office of 

Transportation Planning and two representatives from the Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs), the 

technical arm of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The initial role of the Task Force was 

to establish HSIP guidelines based on input and feedback from others. Once the guidelines were 

finalized, the role of the Task Force is to meet annually or more frequently, (“meetings” could be via 

email or in person) and to confirm the selection of HSIP projects and update the guidelines as needed.

The HSIP Guidelines were last updated in June 2012 prior to the MAP-21 ruling on HSIP.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Other: 

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-nothing changed

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

would like to elaborate.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-CRASH SEVERITY 

WEIGHTING

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program?

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-MPO

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

PROJECT READINESS

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

8

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-STATEWIDE CRASH PROGRAM

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-STATEWIDE NEEDS

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 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

STATEWIDE NEED

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

selection committee

Other-FHWA SYSTEMATIC PROGRAM

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

crashes only

Other-SYSTEMATIC 

APPROACH NOT BASED ON 

CRASHES

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-ALL SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAYS

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

Yes

No
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-ALL SECONDARY ROADS

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

ALL SECONDARY ROADS

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-ALL STATE SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-ALL STATE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

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

Yes
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-ALL STATE SIGNALIZAED INTERSECTIONS

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 100

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

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

0

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-statewide crash statistics

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Other: Other-nothing changed

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

would like to elaborate. 

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 15046224 90 % 13680000 90 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 1671803 10 % 1520000 10 %

Totals 16718027 100% 15200000 100%

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

19 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

19 %

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

$2,100,000.00

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

$2,100,000.00
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Not enough shovel-ready projects in the pipeline because local communities must fund the design on 

locally owned roadways and funding is tight. Previously, in 2009 and 2010, in order to get the HSIP 

projects moving, MassDOT and FHWA allowed the use of HSIP funding for design as long as the project 

was HSIP eligible and was programmed on the STIP in an outlying year. This enabled a full HSIP program 

for the next few years. We may work with FHWA and revisit the idea of using HSIP funding for design. 

Local communities may also work through their MPOs to push projects that are more systematic with 

minimal design efforts like a retroreflective sign upgrade program. Right now several things are being 

considered. Finally, we tied our HSIP funds programs / strategies identified in the updated 2013 SHSP.

However, the strategies developed from the emphasis areas teams are in the process of being worked 

out through the public process and have not yet been finalized. This will be completed in FFY2014 so 

specific strategies will be identified and funded. 

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificat

ion

AADT Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

602182-Great 

BarringtonReconstructi

on of Main 

Street (Route 

7)

Roadway Roadway - other 0.51 

Miles

32036

8

515500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1960

0

25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

602984-

Concord/Linc

oln-Limited 

Access 

Highway 

Improvement

s at Route 2 

and 2A 

around 

Crosby's 

Corner

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

1 

Numbe

rs

47670

39

637750

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

4880

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

602213-

OrleansRoundabout 

Improvement

s at Routes 

28 and 6A

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

41266

3

187000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2540

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

602037-

WorcesterIntersection 

Improvement

s at Lincoln 

St, Highland 

St, Pleasant 

St Corridor

Intersection traffic control 

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

3 

Numbe

rs

18000

00

326034

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2570

0

25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

606048-

GreenfieldRoundabout 

construction 

at Colrain 

Road, College 

Street, and 

Colrain Street

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

22857

8

168100

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Collector

7300 30 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

604813-Oak 

BluffsIntersection 

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

22035

6

114550

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

9400 35 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Improving 

the design 

and 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Improvement

s at 

Edgartown, 

Vineyard 

Road and 

Barnes Road

Other Highway 

Agency

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

605181-

MethuenInterchange 

reconstructio

n on I-93 at 

route 

110/113 

rotary

Interchange design 

Interchange design - other

1 

Numbe

rs

39866

0

776320

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1614

00

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

607219-

WinchendonResurfacing 

and 

Improvement

s on Route 

140, from 

Gardner 

Town Line to 

Teel Road

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

2.148 

Miles

36134

4

125280

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1090

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

603457-West 

BridgewaterIntersection 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

2 

Numbe

rs

41035

9

359300

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

2270

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Improvement

s at Route 

106 and 128 

(Central 

Square)

Other operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

606643-West 

SpringfieldImprovement

s and Related 

Work on I91/Route 5/I90 Connector 

Road

Interchange design 

Acceleration / 

deceleration / merge lane

1 

Numbe

rs

10049

46

147718

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managem

ent 

systems

605365-New 

BedfordIntersection 

Improvement

s at Route 

140/Route 6 

(Kempton St) 

and Brownell 

Ave

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

1 

Numbe

rs

80641

9

363400

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2680

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

607070-

StatewideImplementati

on (Phase I) 

of the 

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

400 

Numbe

rs

18000

00

200000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Flashing 

Yellow Arrow 

at Signalized 

Intersections

highway 

intersecti

ons

607402-

StatewideSigns and 

Marketing 

upgrades at 

interchanges 

to reduce 

wrong way 

crashes

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

348 

Numbe

rs

15075

00

167500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

607521-

Implement 

Emphasis 

Area Plans 

for SHSP

Miscellaneous 0 11025

00

112550

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Varies 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 424 396 377 367 0

Number of serious injuries 4566 4238 3915 3700 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.77 0.72 0.69 0.67 0

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 8.3 7.7 7.2 6.8 0

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

26
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0 0 0 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 0 0 0 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 0 0 0 0

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

To obtain number of fatalities of 65+ drivers and pedestrian, FARS was queried for injury 

severity = fatal injury, age > 65 and person type was driver or pedestrian. The serious injury 

information was based on hospital data, supplied by DPH for drivers and pedestrians over 65.

This data was pulled for 2004-2011 and 5 year averages were calculated. The results were 

divided by the annual census estimates for persons n MA 65+. We simply divided the crashes 

by the population in MA over 65. Population data were obtain by National Center for Health 

Statistics Intercensal estimates of the resident population of the United States (2000-2009 

Data) and National Center for Health Statistics. Postcensal estimates of the resident population 

of the United States (2010-2011 Data)
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-reduction in fatalities and injuries
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-more systemic programs included in HSIP
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

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

Our SHSP is being updated and we are setting up Emphasis Area teams to actively address and track (in a 

multi-disciplined way) several key factors. We have also implemented two new systemic approach 

projects to address left turning crashes at signalized intersections (FYA) and wrong way crashes
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring drivers are 

licensed and fully 

competent

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing driver 

safety awareness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

airbag effectiveness

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

motorcycle awareness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing safety 

enhancements in 

vehicles

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing vehicle-train 

crashes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in the 

roadway

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

highway intersections

Reducing head-on and 

across-median crashes

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enhancing emergency 

medical capabilities to 

increase survivability

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving information 

and decision support 

systems

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Groups of similar project types
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Systemic Treatments
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

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

which you would like to elaborate. 
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements: Overview of General Highway 

Safety Trends

JUNK.xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements: Description of Overall 

Effectiveness

HSIP report FuncClass-Juris-Older.xlsx
2013 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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