Page 1 of 55

NEW JERSEY 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 

Photo Source: 

Google, Burlington County, NJ 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 55

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................8

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 8

Program Administration .....................................................................................................................8

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................12

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................23

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................32

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................32

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................38

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................41

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................43

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................43

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................44

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................48

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................50

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................54

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................55
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 55

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. 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.”
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 55

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. HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic 

approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. 

The reporting period for the 2020 Annual Safety Report (ASR) is the Calendar Year (CY) from January 1, 2019 

to December 31, 2019. 

New Jersey has met or made significant progress towards achieving its safety performance targets for 2018, 

as communicated by FHWA. 

New Jersey has analyzed roadway safety performance as described in Part 30 of this report “General Highway 

Safety Trends in the State for Past Five Years”. New Jersey’s five-year rolling average for the period of 2015-

2019 for the number of fatalities slightly trickled upward approximately 0.2% while fatality rate has decreased 

by approximately 0.5%, number of serious injuries increased by approximately 24%, serious injury rates also 

increased approximately 23% and the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries increased 

approximately 15%. 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. 

Beginning in 2019, New Jersey updated the police crash report to be consistent with the federally required 

injury classifications (Killed, Suspected Serious Injury, Suspected Minor Injury, Possible Injury, and No 

Apparent Injury). As a result of this change, injuries not previously attributed to the serious injury classification 

are now included in this number. For example, a crash victim with a broken arm that would have previously 

been classified as a Moderate Injury, is not classified as a Suspected Serious Injury. As a result, New Jersey 

saw a 116% increase in reported serious injuries due to the changes in reporting. This large increase creates a 

challenge in predicting anticipated totals for future years. 

To achieve the long-term vision of towards zero deaths on all public roads, New Jersey established a 2.5% per 

year reduction goal in the five-year rolling average of fatalities and serious injuries in its NJ 2015 Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). New Jersey’s 2019 fatalities and serious injuries actual value, while tracking a 

slight increase, remains below the projected 2.5% reduction target line. New Jersey aims to revise the stated 

goal with the update of the SHSP. 

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 understanding the benefits of 

systemic evaluation and deployment which provide an expanded comprehensive and proactive approach to 

road safety efforts. New Jersey is constantly evaluating ways to expand the deployment of systemic safety 

improvements. 

Furthering these efforts, New Jersey has completed the inventory and assessment of the state’s roadway 

curves for two of our three metropolitan regions, Delaware Valley River Planning Commission (DVRPC) and 

South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO). Similar effort in the remaining North Jersey 

Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) metropolitan region is underway. 

Evaluations on the Mid Block Crosswalks Pedestrian Safety Improvements are complete. Pilot corridors for 

deployment of Signal Backplates with Retroreflective Borders Program have been identified. Coordination with 

our Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) colleagues to seek advanced technology countermeasures for 

safety enhancement are continuing, such as Lead Pedestrian Intervals at signals equipped with advanced 

technology. NJ will continue to pro-actively coordinate with our ITS colleagues to seek advanced technology 

safety solutions. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 55

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

Surface Treatment (HFST) on roadway curves which experience high roadway departure crashes such as 

fixed objects and overturns. New Jersey continues to evaluate HFST installations, update the specifications 

and coordinate with our local, regional and federal partners. 

New Jersey is finalizing the 2020 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The NJ 2020 SHSP reinforces New 

Jersey’s commitment to a performance based, data-driven investment strategy aligning with a Towards Zero 

Death vision. The plan was developed with extensive collaboration, participation and coordination with state’s 

safety stakeholders through a hierarchal organization structure of a Core Working Group, a Steering 

Committee, Emphasis Area Teams and the Executive Committee, in addition to robust public engagement 

through a series of Safety Summits and media presence including a user-friendly website ( 

http://www.saferoadsforallNJ.com ). NJ 2020 SHSP will support seven (7) Emphasis Areas with strategic plans 

capitalizing on the four E’s – Engineering, Education, Enforcement and Emergency Response. The State 

continues to support the goals of NJ 2015 SHSP through the HSIP apportionments for state and local projects 

and will transition seamlessly to NJ 2020 SHSP following its adoption. 

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

doing so. With guidance from and partnership with our federal and local partners, New Jersey continues its 

commitment to share information and knowledge with our safety partners through grant programs, such as 

Accelerated Safety Activities Program (ASAP), Everyday Counts initiatives, such as Safe Transportation for 

Every Pedestrian (STEP – EDC-4, 5), Reducing Rural Roadway Departures in NJ (EDC-5), workshops and 

peer exchanges. NJ is continuing to make progress on these EDC initiatives. 

One of the important steps in a performance based program is post-evaluation of deployed assets. NJ 

completed the systemic program of installing Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) along state roadways through 

multiple capital projects in 2016. The 3 year post deployment data, following a 6 month normalization period, is 

being collected and analyzed. NJ will start reporting on our findings and results with the 2021 HSIP Annual 

Safety Report. 

HSIP is New Jersey’s commitment to its safety partners. Continual evaluation and improvement is key to any 

successful program. To ensure robust and continuous involvement, New Jersey hosts quarterly meetings on its 

HSIP Portfolio with senior management lead and multi-agency/divisional participation. This provides an 

opportunity for risk assessment, portfolio updates, programming information, and collaborative decision 

making. New Jersey’s HSIP model has received accolades at a national level.

Our Local Safety Program partners, the metropolitan organizations (MPOs) are a valued partner in the 

development, programming and construction of projects on our county and local roads through the HSIP Local 

Safety Program apportionments. A brief update of their accomplishments and efforts is presented below: 

NJTPA 

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) is the MPO serving thirteen (13) northern 

counties of New Jersey (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, 

Somerset, Sussex, Union and Warren); in addition to two cities (Newark and Jersey City) for a total of fifteen 

(15) sub-regions. 

To date the NJTPA has allocated $145 million in HSIP funds for 139 projects. In 2019, $12.15 million in HSIP 

funding was authorized for design, construction and construction inspection of 24 projects. Projects authorized 

for construction included $1.7 million for a High Risk Rural Roads project in Monmouth County, High Friction 

Surface Treatment on 11 curves in Ocean County, and improvements to 9 intersections in Essex County. 

Since 2015, the NJTPA has also provided funding for consultant inspection during construction on 22 projects 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 55

totaling more the $8.6 million. In 2019, $2.8 million in inspection funding was authorized. 

Through the Local Safety Engineering Assistance Program (LSEAP), the NJTPA also provides engineering 

assistance to projects selected to advance through the LSP and HRRRP. To date, $20.5 million in design 

assistance has been provided for 50 projects including the design of eight modern roundabouts and three road 

diets. Since the program’s inception in 2013, requests for design assistance has continued to increase. 

Presently, 75% of applications to the LSP/HRRRP request assistance. 

In 2019 NJTPA also released the solicitation for the FY 2020 Local Safety and High Risk Rural Roads 

Programs. Fourteen applications were received totaling $99 million in requested funding. These applications 

are under review and the technical review committee will recommend a program for the NJTPA Board to 

advance in the fall of 2020. 

The Consultant Assistance Program, which is a companion program to the solicitation, also commenced for the 

first time in 2019 providing assistance to applicants with traffic counts, signal warrant analysis, crash diagrams, 

conceptual layouts and cost estimates. Seven sub-regions received assistance with the development of 11 

applications. The request for assistance was much greater than the programmed budget for this inaugural 

year, so the budget for the program has been increased for the next solicitation. 

Finally, The NJTPA continues to partner with the NJDOT to conduct Road Safety Audits with a total of 42 

completed since 2010. Short term recommendations from 28 RSAs have been or will be incorporated into 

projects advanced in the LSP. In 2019, four RSAs were completed in Morris, Ocean, Passaic and Somerset 

Counties. 

SJTPO 

The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) is the MPO serving New Jersey’s four 

southernmost counties, including Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem. 

SJTPO has been actively advancing safety through both planning / engineering as well as safety education 

programs focused on user behavior. More information on SJTPO’s safety education programs are available at 

www.sjtpo.org/education . Recognizing that safety needed attention beyond the $2 million annual HSIP line 

item, SJTPO has been working with its member jurisdictions to update its Project Evaluation Process to ensure 

safety is incorporated in all projects funded through SJTPO. That updated process was adopted in July 2020 

and will formally take effect with the 2020 solicitation of projects for the FY 2022-2031 Transportation 

Improvements Program (TIP). However, informally, SJTPO has been working since 2019 on this effort, 

beginning with Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City, which was the top ranked bicycle and pedestrian crash corridor 

in the region. The request for Design funds for repaving was adjusted into a comprehensive safety assessment 

of the corridor, which is now advancing as Design for a Road Diet. 

Other ongoing safety projects include centerline rumble strips in Cape May County, High friction Surface 

Treatment in Cumberland County, five roundabout projects with two in Cape May County, two in Salem 

County, and one in Cumberland County, intersection signalization in the City of Vineland, a pedestrian corridor 

improvement in Salem City, a Regional Curve Inventory and Safety Assessment that was completed in 

partnership with DVRPC, and preparing six bicycle and pedestrian corridor safety projects, two each in the 

Cities of Bridgeton, Millville, and Vineland based on the current Cumberland County Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Safety Action Plan effort. SJTPO has newly entered into Design Assistance on two complex roundabout 

projects in Salem County and is considering a similar arrangement for other upcoming projects, beginning as 

soon as FY 2022. 

DVRPC 

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) serves four counties in southern New Jersey 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 55

(Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer) and two cities (Camden and Trenton). 

DVRPC did not conduct a formal project application solicitation again in 2019 for the Local Federal HSIP and 

HRRR Programs, but continued to assist member counties with project advancement. During 2019 DVRPC 

facilitated the consultant selection process for the Systemic Pilot Program for Roundabouts to advance two 

candidates, one in Burlington County (CR 541 Stokes Road & CR 648 Willow Grove Rd) and on in Camden 

County (705 Sicklerville Rd & 706 Erial Rd). Both roundabouts successfully authorized for preliminary 

engineering, but not until January of 2020. Other ongoing safety projects: 

• Mt. Ephraim Avenue Corridor-wide Pedestrian Safety Local Concept Development was not completed until 

spring of 2020 due to problems related to the HSM analysis on the part of the consultant; IRC meeting 

occurred spring of 2020. 

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

progressing, final design slated for calendar year 2020. 

• The Curve Data Gathering and Safety Assessment study was completed in 2019. 

• Parkway Avenue CD study was completed in late 2019 and the IRC meeting occurred in the spring of 2020.

New Jersey remains committed to a mission of safe travel for all roadway users.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 55

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 $60 million annually 

for the HSIP Program. This apportionment is distributed 60% to local roadways 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/programs 

being developed and implemented to ensure that the focus is 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: Includes the following - 

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, ROW and Construction 

 Post construction Evaluation 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Formula via MPOs 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 55

 SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

 Other-Network screening for high crash locations 

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 through their 

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 assist the MPOs in prioritizing their projects. 

The local Screening Lists for each MPO include: 

1. High Risk Rural Road Segment List 

2. Roadway Corridor Segment List 

3. Intersection List 

4. Pedestrian/Bicycle Corridor Segment List 

5. Pedestrian Corridor Segment List 

6. Pedestrian/Bicycle Intersection List 

7. Pedestrian Intersection List 

The screening lists reflect NJ's commitment to address pedestrian, bicycle and intersection safety concerns in 

response to FHWA designation of NJ as a Pedestrian/Bicycle and Intersection Focus State. 

The lists are shared through the MPOs with the local officials to assist in the selection of regional safety priority 

locations and develop, design and construct HSIP funded projects, improving safety along NJ's local 

roadways. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

 Other-Project Management 

 Other-Environmental 

The HSIP Program is managed by the Bureau of Safety, Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs (BSBPP), which is 

part of Statewide Planning, through active and frequent coordination with internal and external stakeholders. 

Internal stakeholders include Design, Division of Local Aid, Operations, Planning, Project Management, 

Environmental and Bureau of Traffic Engineering. 

This coordination is critical for HSIP State portfolio to advance. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 55

Describe coordination with internal partners.

NJDOT's Bureau of Safety, Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs (BSBPP), under the Assistant Commissioner of 

Planning, Multimodal and Grants Administration (PMGA) is responsible for crash analysis and program 

development. Bureau of Transportation Data Support (BTDS), also under the leadership of Assistant 

Commissioner of PMGA is responsible for gathering, verifying and sharing crash data. The Division of Project 

Management (DPM) under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Program Management (CPM) is responsible 

for managing the generated projects through the project delivery process from Concept Development to 

Construction, seeking input from the subject matter experts in the Department. 

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. New Jersey plans on revising the HSIP Manual and

Implementation Guide in CY 2021. Regular meetings are conducted between PMGA and staff from DPM to 

monitor and assist as the projects move through project development to advertisement. Quarterly meetings 

with BSBPP, BTDS, DPM, Capital Investment and Program Development (CIPD), Bureau of Environmental 

Engineering and other SME's are conducted led by the Office of Assistant Commissioner, PMGA. 

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 

PMGA 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. 

 FHWA 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Local Government Agency 

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

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, are involved. Only the selected external partners are 

involved in the HSIP planning process. 

Describe coordination with external partners.

NJDOT coordinates with all the MPOs, Governors Highway Safety Office (Division of Highway Traffic Safety or 

DHTS) and FHWA on a regular basis. Daily phone calls, scheduled meetings or emails are the main way of 

communication. The 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. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 55

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period.

NJDOT has made a few changes to the STIP programming, organization structure and implementation 

process. The changes are highlighted inBOLD and explained below: 

2020 STIP Programming for HSIP funds:

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program Planning 

2. Local Safety/High Risk Rural Roads Program 

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Record Processing 

4. Utility Pole Mitigation Program 

5. Safety Programs 

In addition, some large projects are line items on the STIP. These large projects are funded with HSIP funds 

but are separated from the Programs and Sub-programs due to the size of the projects. These projects end up 

picking up the leftover funds from the programs already established. This way, a large project doesn’t utilize 

the whole amount of funds designated to one program. 

Furthermore, the criteria to include projects under the programs and sub-programs remains the same. 

Safety Programs includes the following sub-programs: 

1. Pedestrian Improvement Program (including Bicycle Safety) 

2. Intersection Improvement Program 

3. Segment Improvement Program (Excluding at-intersection crashes) 

4. Crash Reduction Programs for Roadway Departure and Fixed Object crashes. 

Organizational:

Motor Vehicle Crash Record Processing (MVCRP) team now reports to Bureau of Transportation Data Support 

(BTDS), while the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Planning team continues to report to Bureau 

of Safety, Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs (BSBPP). 

Finally, NJDOT has proposed the addition of three activities to the Capital Project Delivery Process that align 

with HSIP Program delivery. The following are the activities proposed: 

1. Conduct HSM Analysis 

2. HSM Analysis Review 

3. Eligibility Approval by FHWA 

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

elaborate. 

The Assistant Commissioner of Planning, Multimodal and Grants Administration (PMGA) 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. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 55

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 HRRR

 Intersection 

 Local Safety 

 Pedestrian Safety 

 Roadway Departure 

 Segments 

 Other-Utility Pole Mitigation 

NJDOT has made a few changes to the STIP programming, organization structure and implementation 

process. The changes are highlighted inBOLD and explained below: 

2020 STIP Programming for HSIP funds:

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program Planning 

2. Local Safety/High Risk Rural Roads Program 

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Record Processing 

4. Utility Pole Mitigation Program 

5. Safety Programs 

In addition, some large projects are line items on the STIP. These large projects are funded with HSIP funds 

but are separated from the Programs and Sub-programs due to the size of the projects. These projects end up 

picking up the leftover funds from the programs already stablished. This way, a large project doesn’t utilize the 

whole amount of funds designated to one program. 

Furthermore, the criteria to include projects under the programs and sub-programs remains the same. 

Safety Programs includes the following sub-programs: 

1. Pedestrian Improvement Program (including Bicycle Safety) 

2. Intersection Improvement Program 

3. Segment Improvement Program (Excluding at-intersection crashes) 

4. Crash Reduction Programs for Roadway Departure and Fixed Object crashes. 

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:9/16/2005

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-HRRRP is part of Local Safety Program

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 55

Other-HRRRP funding is part of Local Safety Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Functional classification

 Other-Rural

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

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

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

(systemic) :20

Total Relative Weight:100

The HRRR Program focuses on reducing fatalities. The identification of locations along rural roadways with 

safety concerns is based on the historical crash trends. 

Rural roads are characterized by lower traffic volumes, leading to lesser number of crashes and an even 

smaller subset of severe crashes. Therefore, it is important for New Jersey to identify the location with a 

historical trend of high number of total crashes. 

The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. 

The HRRR methodology will be changed to: 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 55

Federal rules require that states define High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) in conjunction with the NJ 2020 SHSP. 

Safety improvements on roads that meet the state’s definition of a HRRR may be eligible for federal HRRR 

Program funds. First, to be eligible as a HRRR, the road segment must have a functional classification as 

either a rural major collector, a rural minor collector, or a rural local road. In addition to the classification, to 

qualify for HRRR funds, a data-driven analysis must identify the road segment as having significant safety 

risks. The FHWA directs that each state develop its own methodology for identifying segments with significant 

safety risks with FHWA approval. 

New Jersey’s approved methodology for identifying a road segment as a HRRR is that the rural road segment 

must demonstrate fatal and incapacitating injury crashes per mile higher than the average for the segment on 

rural roadways with similar geometric features (Also known as homogeneous segments, defined based on a 

variety of factors, such as functional class, speed limit, two-lane versus multilane, etc.). Rural major or minor 

collector segments and local road segments with similar roadway geometric features are referred to as peer 

groups. The number of fatal and incapacitating injuries for a particular segment are compared to the average 

number of fatal and incapacitating injuries for peer group segments within the same metropolitan planning 

organization boundary to determine if the segment in question exceeds the average for the peer group. 

Segments that exceed the average for the peer group are classified as having a significant safety risk and 

thus, a HRRR segment. 

High risk locations may also be identified through means such as field reviews, safety assessments, Road 

Safety Audits, and local knowledge and experience. Using information from observations in the field can 

identify high risk locations that may not be identified through data analysis or by identifying roadway 

characteristics. High risk rural roadway characteristics that are correlated with specific severe crash types such 

as cross-section width, lack of shoulders, substandard alignment, and hazardous roadside may be considered 

for systemic improvements across multiple HRRR segments. Systemic treatments generally involve the 

widespread implementation of low-cost safety countermeasures such as rumble strips, high friction surface 

treatment on high risk curves, and back plates with retroreflective borders on traffic signals to increase 

visibility. NJDOT assessed 5,704 individual rural road segments in 2018. Of those, 41 segments were 

identified as HRRR in the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization Region across Atlantic, Cape 

May, Cumberland, and Salem counties; 54 HRRR segments were identified in the North Jersey Transportation 

Planning Authority region across Hunterdon, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Somerset, Sussex, and Warren 

counties; and 17 HRRR segments were identified in the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

region across Burlington, Gloucester, Mercer, and Camden counties. 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 55

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 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?

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

The HSIP Programs are focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. The identification of a hotspot 

location is based on the historical crash trends. 

Crashes are stochastic events, and the severity of the crash is dictated by variables and circumstances that 

are complex behavioral integrated models. It is hard to discern that certain locations with prevalence of severe 

crashes one year does not rank on the severity safety index the following year. 

These are some of the reasons why, as safety practitioners, New Jersey chooses to identify the locations using 

all crashes. The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. Our network screening lists have been revised recently to help us identify locations with high 

EPDO scores. 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:9/16/2005

What is the justification for this program? 

 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? 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 55

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 Other-Priority given to State's focus areas

 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

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

The HSIP Programs are focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. The identification of a hotspot 

location is based on the historical crash trends. 

Crashes are stochastic events, and the severity of the crash is dictated by variables and circumstances that 

are complex behavioral integrated models. It is hard to discern that certain locations with prevalence of severe 

crashes one year does not rank on the severity safety index the following year. 

These are some of the reasons why, as safety practitioners, New Jersey chooses to identify the locations using 

all crashes. The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. The local network screening lists have been revised recently to help identify locations with high 

EPDO scores. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 55

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:9/16/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

state

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 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?

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

This program includes Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. 

The HSIP Programs are focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. The identification of a hotspot 

location is based on the historical crash trends. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 55

Crashes are stochastic events, and the severity of the crash is dictated by variables and circumstances that 

are complex behavioral integrated models. It is hard to discern that certain locations with prevalence of severe 

crashes one year does not rank on the severity safety index the following year. 

These are some of the reasons why, as safety practitioners, New Jersey chooses to identify the locations using 

all crashes. The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. Our network screening lists have been revised recently to help us identify locations with high 

EPDO scores. 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:9/16/2008

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Lane miles  Roadside features

 Other-Horizontal Curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 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?

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 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 55

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

The HSIP Programs are focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. The identification of a hotspot 

location is based on the historical crash trends. 

Crashes are stochastic events, and the severity of the crash is dictated by variables and circumstances that 

are complex behavioral integrated models. It is hard to discern that certain locations with prevalence of severe 

crashes one year does not rank on the severity safety index the following year. 

These are some of the reasons why, as safety practitioners, New Jersey chooses to identify the locations using 

all crashes. The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. Our network screening lists have been revised recently to help us identify locations with high 

EPDO scores. 

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:2/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Volume

 Lane miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 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?
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 55

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

The HSIP Programs are focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. The identification of a hotspot 

location is based on the historical crash trends. 

Crashes are stochastic events, and the severity of the crash is dictated by variables and circumstances that 

are complex behavioral integrated models. It is hard to discern that certain locations with prevalence of severe 

crashes one year does not rank on the severity safety index the following year. 

These are some of the reasons why, as safety practitioners, New Jersey chooses to identify the locations using 

all crashes. The severity of the historical trends is captured by the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 

methodology. Our network screening lists have been revised recently to help us identify locations with high 

EPDO scores. 

Program: Other-Utility Pole Mitigation

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Other-Fixed Object crashes  Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 55

No

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

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? 

 14

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Other-High Friction Surface Treatment 

 Other-Roundabout Pilot Program 

 Rumble Strips 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

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

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 SHSP/Local road safety plan 

 Stakeholder input 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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, with every effort made to select the alternative with benefit cost ratio greater than 

1.0. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 55

The NJ HSIP Manual and Implementation Guide requires that HSM Analysis be performed and approved for at 

least three alternatives, including the no-build, for the project to be deemed eligible for HSIP funding. The 

analysis is one of the key variables in the selection of a Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA). 

NJDOT has completed the research in developing calibration factors specific to NJ, as per the guidance in 

HSM. These calibration factors will be used for all HSM Analyses submitted in Fall 2020. We will review their 

applicability after the release of HSM, 2nd Edition. 

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period.

NJDOT has revised the Network Screening Lists to reflect the latest available data. The following is a list of 

revised Network Screening Lists: 

1. 2019 NJDOT Intersection Screening List (2014-2016 crash data) 

2. 2019 NJDOT Segment Screening List (2014-2016 crash data) 

3. 2019 NJDOT Fixed Object, Divided Roadways Screening List (2014-2016 crash data) 

4. 2019 NJDOT Fixed Object, Undivided Roadways Screening List (2014-2016 crash data) 

5. 2019 Pedestrian Safety Management System Intersection Screening List (2013-2017 crash data) 

6. 2019 Pedestrian Safety Management System Segment Screening List (2013-2017 crash data) 

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

elaborate.

NJDOT is planning on initiating the revision and update to our HSIP Manual and Implementation Guide, with 

active participation of key stakeholders. 

NJDOT will also revise the Network Screening Lists, either annually or every two years, to better reflect the 

latest available data. 

Additionally, NJDOT has proposed the addition of three activities in the Capital Project Delivery Process that 

align with the HSIP Program delivery. The following are the activities added to the Capital Project Delivery 

Process: 

1. Conduct HSM Analysis 

2. HSM Analysis Review 

3. Eligibility Approval by FHWA 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 55

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

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) $54,849,250 $37,221,271 67.86%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $2,310,187 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $948,876 0%

Totals $54,849,250 $40,480,334 73.8%

HSIP Obligated funds = Total HSIP - HRRRP

In Calendar year 2019, $948,876 State and Local Funds were authorized for the FD phase of a project called 

“Route 15 & Berkshire Valley Road (CR 699)”. The rest of the phases for this project will use HSIP funds since 

this project meets the criteria to be included in our Safety Programs.

Being that the reporting period is Calendar Year 2019, the programmed funds are calculated as follows:

3/4 of the programmed funds for FFY 2019 plus 1/4 of the programmed funds for FFY 2020.

Values are based on the STIP.

$2.310 million has been authorized in Calendar Year 2019 under the HRRR. This is from unobligated HRRRP 

from previous years.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 55

Approximately $0.249 million for CY 20 and $2.060 million for CY 21 are programmed to be authorized under 

HRRR so far. 

It has been determined that the HRRR special rule does not apply to New Jersey for the 2020. 

Attached are the following supporting documents: 

1. "Q#23 2020 Calculations" showing the calculations for obligated funds for: Total HSIP, HRRRP, Noninfrastructure, Local projects, and Systemic improvements. 

2. “Q#23 Programmed Vs Obligated Funds” showing the calculations for the Programmed funds. The file 

has two tabs. 

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

safety projects? 

$22,000,000

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

$15,173,561

Being that the reporting period is Calendar Year 2019, the programmed funds were calculated by taking 3⁄4 of 

the programmed funds in the STIP for the FFY 2019 plus 1⁄4 of the programmed funds for FFY 2020 as follows: 

(3/4) of the programmed funds for FFY 19 + (1/4) of the programmed funds for FFY 20 

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

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

$6,500,000

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

$15,526,991

The STIP Programming is based on Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) and the HSIP Annual Report is based on 

Calendar Year (CY). This creates challenges in understanding and reporting the programming. 

For the purposes of calculation, the programming is reported as 3⁄4 of the programmed funds in STIP for FFY 

2019 and 1⁄4 of the programmed funds in FFY 2020. 

However, this does not provide a complete picture, as all the FFY 2020 programmed funds are available for 

obligation in October (which is technically still CY 2019). 

It is due to this reason that there remains a possibility of double obligations in one CY, as you see in the details 

for 2019 and 2020 MV Crash Records. (Obligation of $9.241 million for a programmed amount of $5 million 

over FFY 2019 and FFY 2020). 

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
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 55

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$0

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

the future. 

The 2019 programmed funds for NJ’s HSIP program on the Capital side were as follows: 

 Crash Reduction Program - $4 million 

 Intersection Improvement Program - $5 million 

 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program - $4 million 

 Segment Improvement Program - $2 million 

 Utility Pole Mitigation - $0.175 million 

 Local Safety/High Risk Rural Roads Program - $22 million 

 Motor Vehicle Crash Record Processing - $2.5 million 

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

million in FY2011 to $22 million in FY2018, 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 change allowed the program to address substantive safety on local infrastructure, and no longer be limited 

to low cost improvements. 

However, on the State side the individual programs still presented a challenge to address safety concerns with 

the limited funds. To address this impediment, partially, the four programs: Crash Reduction Program, 

Intersection Improvement Program, Pedestrian Safety Program and Segment Improvement Program- were 

aggregated into Safety Programs (as mentioned earlier in the report). The aggregation of four programs into 

Safety Programs line item (2020 STIP) will help provide flexibility, both in terms of funds and deliverability. 

The Utility Pole Mitigation Program faces a challenge with the utility companies’ acceptance of the revised 

Agreement language. NJDOT and the DAG’s Office are coordinating with utility companies and FHWA to 

address any concerns. 

For projects requiring infrastructure improvements, the Capital Project Delivery Process has to be followed. 

NJDOT is taking a phased approach in overcoming the impediments to the HSIP obligations. The Capital 

Project Delivery Process is being revised with the addition of the following activities, as mentioned earlier. This 

change will address Project Managers' request for clarity on requirements for HSIP eligibility. 

Another impediment and challenge is training. BSBPP is collaborating with Bureau of Research and FHWA, 

through their training effort, to include HSM Training in their portfolio. BSBPP, through the Bureau of Research, 

has developed NJ specific Calibration Factors. NJDOT will require the use of NJ Calibration Factors on any 

submission starting Fall, 2020.

Finally, NJDOT, in collaboration with our MPO and local partners, will investigate the development of a robust 

Systemic Program and create a list of shelf ready projects. It has been our experience that smaller HSIP 

projects get absorbed by larger capital projects that are funded by NHPP or STGBT-Flex funds. Providing for 

systemic shelf projects will bridge that gap in the obligated vs. authorized funds. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 55

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

In addition to the efforts mentioned above, BSBPP is actively collaborating with Division of Project 

Management, Local Aid and MPOs to provide support and guidance on implementation of HSIP projects. The 

efforts include training, programming coordination, HSM review support, quarterly meetings to assess status of 

active HSIP projects, explore multi-year funding for construction, serve on the Technical Evaluation 

Committees for consultant selection on HSIP projects.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 55

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Route US 30 

and Mill Road 

(CR 651) (FD)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersection

s

$494702.29 $494702.29 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther35,61

4

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

geometry/layou

t to improve 

safety

Rt. 22 WB 

Vicinity of Vaux 

Hall Rd - Bloy 

St (UTILITY)

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1 Lanes $696163.24 $696163.24 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther60,42

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

and auxiliary 

lanes, improve 

ramp geometry 

Rt. 22 WB 

Vicinity of Vaux 

Hall Rd - Bloy 

St (CON)

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1 Lanes $3249807.1

8

$3249807.1

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther60,42

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install shoulder 

and auxiliary 

lanes, improve 

ramp geometry 

Rt 66, Jumping 

Brook Rd to 

Bowne 

Rd/Wayside 

Rd (FD)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3289461.1 $3289461.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,50

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Install 

roundabouts to 

control traffic 

and reduce 

conflicts 

between 

vehicles at 

intersections. 

Improve 

geometry/layou

t to increase 

safety.

Int. Impr. Prog. 

2017-2 (NJ 36 

and 

Broadway), (NJ 

70 and New 

Hampshire), 

(US 1 and 

Wooding) - FD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

3 Intersection

s

$1100772.2

4

$1100772.2

4

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve the 

visibility of 

traffic signals

2020 Staff 

Work Program 

- Safety

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $1940866 $1940866 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety 

Planning

NJ 2020 SHSP Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $846300 $846300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SHSP

2019 MV Crash 

Records

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $4512068.0

6

$4512068.0

6

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

2020 MV Crash 

Records

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $4729057.1

8

$4729057.1

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

NJ Regional 

Curve 

Inventory and 

Safety 

Assessment for 

NJTPA Region

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $3498700 $3498700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

Newark - Broad 

Street Phase II 

- 5 

intersections - 

FD

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

5 Intersection

s

$143598 $143598 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther34,80

0

25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

Morris - Center 

Grove road 

(CR 670) & 

Quakerchurch 

Road - 1 

intersection - 

FD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

1 Intersection

s

$146574 $146574 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,800 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

Ocean -Traffic 

Safety 

Improvements 

at the 

intersection of 

Cedar Bridge 

Avenue (CR 

528) & Oberlin 

Avenue - 1 

intersection - 

INSPECTION

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

1 Intersection

s

$190000 $190000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,10

0

50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

Union - East 

Front Street 

(CR 620) and 

Watchung 

Avenue, 

Roosevelt 

Avenue, 

Richmond - 

Street/Norwoo

d Avenue - 3 

intersections - 

FD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

3 Intersection

s

$113102 $113102 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,300 30 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

JC- Oakland 

Avenue & St. 

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$60185 $60185 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

5,500 25 City or 

Municipal 

Spot Intersection

s

Pedestrian-A2
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Pauls Avenue - 

FD

Highway 

Agency

Monmouth - 

Leonardville 

Road & East 

Road - 

intersection 

upgrades - FD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

1 Intersection

s

$128755 $128755 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,40

0

35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

Passaic –

Allwood Road 

(CR 602) and 

Clifton Avenue 

(SR 161) 

Corridors - PE

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

3.34 Intersection

s

$782582 $782582 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,60

0

30 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1; 

Passaic –

Market Street 

(CR 648) 

Corridor - PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

1.35 Intersection

s

$669969 $669969 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,00

0

25 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

JC – West Side 

Avenue 

Corridor - PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

23 Intersection

s

$662808 $662808 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,000 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

JC – Sip 

Avenue 

Corridor - PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

13 Intersection

s

$562843 $562843 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,50

0

25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

Middlesex –

Main Street 

(CR 531) 

Metuchen - PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

1.04 Intersection

s

$552843 $552843 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,30

0

30 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

Hudson – Park 

Avenue, JFK 

Blvd East, JFK 

Blvd. - PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

3.83 Intersection

s

$970688 $970688 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,500 25 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

Somerset –

Easton Avenue 

(CR 527) - PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

1 Intersection

s

$385128 $385128 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther41,10

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

Union – East 

Front Street, 

7th Street - PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacemen

t

6 Intersection

s

$351222 $351222 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,300 30 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-D1

Monmouth –

Roundabout - 

Holmdel - PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$295262 $295262 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,000 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

IntersectionUnsignalizedF3
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

HRRRMonmouth -

Stage coach 

Road (CR 524), 

corridor, HFST, 

safety edge, 

chevron signs, 

(HRRR) - 

Phase III - PE

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

1.7 Miles $573187 $573187 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 2,500 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Lane 

Departure-A4, 

A6

Somerset - 

Allen Road (CR 

652) and 

Somerville 

Road 

Roundbout - 

PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$334851 $334851 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 6,500 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

IntersectionUnsignalizedF3

Ocean -New 

Central Ave 

(CR31) and 

North Hope 

Chapel Rd (CR 

639) 

Roundabout - 

PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$344950 $344950 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 4,000 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

IntersectionUnsignalizedF3

Newark - Ferry 

Street - 16 

intersections, 

traffic signal 

upgrade - FD

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

16 Intersection

s

$167367 $167367 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 13,70

0

25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

OceanHorizontal 

Curve High 

Friction 

Surface 

Treatment 

(HFST) HRRRPhase I - 

INSPECTION

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

6 Curves $146000 $146000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure-A6

OceanHorizontal 

Curve High 

Friction 

Surface 

Treatment 

(HFST)- Phase 

II (LSP 

Segments) - 

CON

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

11 Curves $2256639 $2256639 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure-A6
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

HRRRMonmouthRoadway 

Improvements 

and resurfacing 

along CR 524 

(Stage Coach 

Road) - Phase I 

- CON

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

0.3 Miles $1737000 $1737000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,900 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Lane 

Departure-A4, 

A6

Somerset - 

Main Street 

(CR 533) 

Manville - FD

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

15 Intersection

s

$383049.97 $383049.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,50

0

40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

IntersectionSignalized-A6, 

D1; PedestrianA2,B1

Egg Harbor 

Township 

Centerline 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - center 35.3 Miles $660634.93 $660634.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Install shoulder 

and centerline 

rumble strips

Cape May 

County Pilot 

Roundabout 2 

(Woodbine)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1402569.8 $1402569.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,478 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Install 

roundabouts

Cumberland 

County 

Flashers (10 

Locations)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

10 Intersection

s

$1151753 $1151753 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve signs, 

pavement 

markings, 

overall 

lighting,and 

pedestrianscale lighting

In Calendar year 2019, $948,876 State Funds were authorized for the FD phase of a project called “Route 15 & Berkshire Valley Road (CR 699)”. This project meets the criteria to be included in our Safety Programs and the rest of the 

phases for this project will use HSIP in future years. This Project is not included in this list. 

Non-Federal Match – Toll Credit

Toll Credits were created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21), and are to be used as credits toward the non-federal matching share of programs authorized by Title 23 (except for the emergency relief program) 

and for transit programs authorized by Chapter 53 of Title 49. 

The amount of credit earned is based on revenues generated by the toll authority (i.e., toll receipts, concession sales, right-of-way leases or interest), including borrowed funds (i.e., bonds, loans) supported by this revenue stream, that 

are used by the toll authority to build, improve or maintain highways, bridges and/or tunnels that serve interstate commerce. The federal government has allowed state and local governments to use toll credits as part of the local matching 

funds in regard to transit grants. This allowance results from the recognition that different modes of transportation are interconnected. Capital expenditures to reduce congestion in a particular corridor benefit all modes of transportation in 

that corridor, be they automobiles, transit buses, or a rail system. 

With the assumption that federal funds apportionments will continue to remain flat and a steady or increasing request for additional credits will continue, there is an expectation for the available balance of toll credits to accrue over the next 

10 years. With new credits outpacing usage, New Jersey expects to have sufficient toll credits to continue to utilize the soft match of federal funds over the entire 10 year plan.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 55

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 627 589 542 556 561 602 624 564 562

Serious Injuries 1,412 1,281 1,134 990 1,138 1,019 1,137 1,284 2,768

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.860 0.790 0.730 0.740 0.740 0.780 0.810 0.730 0.720

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.930 1.730 1.520 1.320 1.510 1.320 1.470 1.660 3.540

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

159 170 143 179 188 181 200 191 191

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

303 281 209 179 205 205 202 234 522
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 55

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 55

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 55

The amounts shown on this table were calculated in March 2020 for the Safety Performance Target 

calculations. 

VMT for 2019 was not available at the time the calculations were done. 2019 VMT was estimated based on 

calculations using available data. Note that 2012 &2016 were adjusted for Leap Years (366 days) 

2011-2018 Number of Fatalities is based on available data as of 3/29/20. 

2019 Number of Fatalities are based on available NJ State Fatal Accident Investigation Unit as of 3/17/20. 

Number of Serious Injuries is based on available NJDOT data (DOT-ARD database) as of 3/4/20. 2019 

numbers are estimated based on calculations using available data. 

Fatality, Serious Injury, and VMT data is provided by NJDOT - BTDS 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

Fatalities are taken from FARS if available. 

For General Trends and Safety Performance: Fatalities are from FARS as of 3/29/20 except for 2019 

fatalities that are from NJ State Police Fatal Accident Investigation as of 3/17/20. 

For Functional Classification: 2017 and 2018 fatalities have been updated from FARS. 2019 fatalities are 

from NJDOT-ARD database. 2019 data for FARS is not available yet. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 55

For Roadway Ownership: 2019 Fatalities are from NJDOT-ARD database. 2019 FARS data is not available 

yet.

For Older Drivers and Pedestrians: 2014-2018 Fatalities are from FARS. 2019 Drivers fatalities are from 

NJSP Fatal report.

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

ownership.

Year 2019

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)

2 2,016 2,017 2,018 2,019

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

6.2 7.6 0.51 0.62

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

5.4 5 1.14 1.05

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

10 20.6 1.44 2.98

Rural Minor Arterial 10.4 17.2 1.57 2.58

Rural Minor Collector 1.08 3.48

Rural Major Collector 18.6 26.8 2.26 3.27

Rural Local Road Or 

Street

13.4 9.8 1.57 1.12

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

55.8 93.8 0.37 0.61

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

52.2 88.4 0.4 0.68

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

183.2 397 1.13 2.45

Urban Minor Arterial 120.4 339.6 1.07 3.01

Urban Minor Collector 8 0.4 1.15

Urban Major Collector 39.2 107.4 0.86 2.33

Urban Local Road Or 

Street

46.4 91.6 0.4 0.82
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 55

Year 2019

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

245 476.2 0.8 1.56

County Highway 

Agency

182 475.6 1.24 3.21

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

91.6 189.8 1.76 3.63

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 47.4 67.2 0.33 0.47

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

For Functional Classification:

- 2017 Fatality counts have been updated from FARS.

- 2018 counts have been updated. Fatalities from FARS and SI from NJDOT-ARD database.

- 2019 Fatal and SI counts are from the NJDOT-ARD database. 2019 data for FARS is not available yet.

- VMT data provided by NJDOT on 8/11/2020.

For Ownership calculations:
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 55

- 2019 Fatal and incapacitated counts are from the ARD database. 2019 FARS data is not available yet.

- 2019 VMTs provided by NJDOT on 8/11/2020.

- VMT and HMVMT figures for 2011 and 2012 are estimations based off of real 2013 VMTs.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:574.0

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

See attached document called "Basis for established target"

Number of Serious Injuries:2124.8

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

See attached document called "Basis for established target"

Fatality Rate:0.740

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

See attached document called "Basis for established target"

Serious Injury Rate:2.724

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

See attached document called "Basis for established target"

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:588.5

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

See attached document called "Basis for established target"

The five- year rolling average targets above, incorporating serious injuries, indicate a large increase. This is a 

result of a large spike in reported serious injuries in 2019 crashes.

Beginning in 2019, New Jersey updated the police crash report to be consistent with the federally required 

injury classifications (Killed, Suspected Serious Injury, Suspected Minor Injury, Possible Injury, and No 

Apparent Injury). As a result of this change, injuries not previously attributed to the serious injury classification 

are now included in this number.

For example, a crash victim with a broken arm that would have previously been classified as a Moderate injury, 

is now classified as Suspected Serious Injury. As a result, New Jersey saw a 116% increase in reported 

serious injuries due to the changes in reporting.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 55

This large increase creates a challenge in predicting anticipated totals for future years. New Jersey expects the 

five-year rolling average to increase over the next few years until the data stabilizes. 

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 

c) discuss preliminary 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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 605.0 582.6

Number of Serious Injuries 1101.4 1469.2

Fatality Rate 0.780 0.756

Serious Injury Rate 1.422 1.900

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

393.9 463.8

The attached excel file called "Q#37 Progress meeting 2019 SPT" describes the progress toward meeting the 

State's 2019 Safety Performance Targets. 

NJDOT’s target setting process included coordination with NJ’s three Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) and FHWA’s NJ Division Office, along with NJ’s Division of Highway Traffic Safety (DHTS) to ensure a 

consistent approach for target setting. The identified targets reflect coordination and collaboration with NJ’s 

Governor’s Highway Safety Representative. The selected targets for number of fatalities, fatality rates, and 

number of serious injuries are consistent with the targets which will be reported in NJ’s Highway Safety Plan by 

the Division of Highway Traffic Safety. 

The targets were established after careful consideration of previous trends (statistical forecasting to predict 

probable outcomes), recently built projects and the current socioeconomic environment. The targets are based 

on five year rolling average values and are reported to satisfy federal requirements with the understanding that 

New Jersey’s safety vision is to achieve zero deaths on all public roads. This long-term safety vision requires 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 55

time to change attitudes and behaviors and to construct infrastructure improvements to reduce the frequency 

and severity of crashes. 

Number of Fatalities: 

Outcome: 582.6 

Target: 605.0 

The target was met with the outcome being 3.7% better. 

Fatality Rate: 

Outcome: 0.756 

Target: 0.780 

The target was met and the outcome was 3.07% better. 

Number of Serious Injuries: 

Outcome: 1469.2 

Target: 1101.4 

Baseline: 1092.5 

The target was not met and the outcome was not better than baseline. The outcome was with 33.4% greater 

than the target and 34.5% greater than the baseline. 

Serious Injury Rate: 

Outcome: 1.900 

Target: 1.422 

Baseline: 1.439 

The target was not met and the outcome was not better than the baseline. The outcome was 33.6% greater 

than the target and 32% greater than the baseline. 

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:

Outcome: 463.7 

Target: 393.9 

Baseline: 379.1 

The target was not met and the outcome was not better than the baseline. The outcome was 17.7% greater 

than the target and 22.3% greater than the baseline. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 55

The five year rolling average targets above, incorporating serious injuries, indicate a large increase. This is a 

result of a large spike in reported serious injuries in 2019 crashes. Beginning in 2019, New Jersey updated the 

police crash report to be consistent with the federally required injury classifications (Killed, Suspected Serious 

Injury, Suspected Minor Injury, Possible Injury, and No Apparent Injury). As a result of this change, injuries not 

previously attributed to the serious injury classification are now included in this number. For example, a crash 

victim with a broken arm that would have previously been classified as a Moderate injury, is now classified as 

Suspected Serious Injury. As a result, New Jersey saw a 116% increase in reported serious injuries due to the 

changes in reporting. This large increase creates a challenge in predicting anticipated totals for future years. 

New Jersey expects the five year rolling average to increase over the next few years until the data stabilizes. 

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No

The HRRR methodology will be changed to: 

Federal rules require that states define High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) in conjunction with the NJ 2020 SHSP. 

Safety improvements on roads that meet the state’s definition of a HRRR may be eligible for federal HRRR 

Program funds. First, to be eligible as a HRRR, the road segment must have a functional classification as 

either a rural major collector, a rural minor collector, or a rural local road. In addition to the classification, to 

qualify for HRRR funds, a data-driven analysis must identify the road segment as having significant safety 

risks. The FHWA directs that each state develop its own methodology for identifying segments with significant 

safety risks with FHWA approval. New Jersey’s approved methodology for identifying a road segment as a 

HRRR is that the rural road segment must demonstrate fatal and incapacitating injury crashes per mile higher 

than the average for the segment on rural roadways with similar geometric features (Also known as 

homogeneous segments, defined based on a variety of factors, such as functional class, speed limit, two-lane 

versus multilane, etc.). Rural major or minor collector segments and local road segments with similar roadway 

geometric features are referred to as peer groups. The number of fatal and incapacitating injuries for a 

particular segment are compared to the average number of fatal and incapacitating injuries for peer group 

segments within the same metropolitan planning organization boundary to determine if the segment in question 

exceeds the average for the peer group. Segments that exceed the average for the peer group are classified 

as having a significant safety risk and thus, a HRRR segment. 

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

109 75 84 86 95 103 87

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

103 111 141 102 123 148 326

2014-2018 Fatalities for Drivers and Pedestrians are from FARS. 

2019 Drivers Killed from NJSP Fatal report. 

2011-2019 Pedestrian Serious Injuries are from NJDOT-ARD database. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 55

Driver counts are of drivers only; excludes all other persons involved in the crash (pedestrian, occupants, etc.).

Pedestrian counts are of pedestrians and cyclists who were involved in a crash that has an older driver. 

Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule doesn't apply to NJ in Federal Fiscal Year 2020. See attached memo 

called “FFY 20 Older Drivers and Pedestrians"
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 55

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Benefit/Cost Ratio 

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

 Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced) 

 Lives saved 

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. The HSIP Safety Performance Targets charts, 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. 

NJDOT, with assistance from the FHWA, has begun planning an evaluation effort to improve their HSIP 

evaluation process. The evaluation effort will be conducted to provide direction and improve decisions and 

processes to NJDOT’s HSIP evaluation process of countermeasures, projects and programs. 

NJDOT updates the HSIP Portfolio quarterly, tracking the projects within the program in terms of authorizations 

and delivery. The HSIP Program will be evaluated using the following metrics, starting next year: 

1. Return on Investment – Post-deployment Benefit Cost Evaluation (Systemic Programs funded by HSIP) 

2. HSIP Funding Assessment – Obligated vs. Authorized funds 

3. Construction of projects initiated through the HSIP portfolio – using HSIP or other funds 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 # RSAs completed 

 HSIP Obligations 

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

 Increased focus on local road safety 

 More systemic programs 



RSAs completed – Measured by the number of RSAs completed 

 HSIP Obligations – Comparing the HSIP obligations each year 

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process – Number of training classes, conferences and 

webinars 

 Increased focus on local road safety – Number of trainings on Local Safety Application, revision of the 

local safety application, participation in Local Safety Application Technical Review Committees, 

Number of HSM Analysis reviewed for the local applications 

 More systemic programs – Comparing the number of Systemic Programs initiated each year. 

NJDOT has continued to focus on training in order to increase awareness of safety and data-driven processes. 

Staff has presented at multiple forums, and collaborated with our MPO partners to increase our reach to the 

locals. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 55

In consultation with and participation of MPOs, NJDOT developed the network screening lists for local roads in 

NJ in addition to developing state roadway network screening lists. 

NJDOT has invested in initiating efforts to inventory the curves along NJ's roadways. This inventory is 

anticipated to lead to development of systemic programs. 

As mentioned earlier, there are some changes anticipated for completion in the forthcoming years that will 

streamline the HSIP implementation and delivery. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

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)

Lane Departure Run-off-road 306.6 703.8 0.39 0.91

Intersections Intersections 151.8 481.2 0.19 0.62

Older Drivers All 66 123.4 0.08 0.15

Motorcyclists All 65.6 160.4 0.08 0.21

Reduce Young Driver 

Crashes

All 20.4 66.8 0.02 0.08

Reduce Impaired 

Driving

All 89.4 240.6 0.11 0.31

Drowsy & Distracted All 196 647.6 0.25 0.83

Aggressive Driving All 170.4 463 0.22 0.59

Ped. & Bike vehicle-ped and 

vehicle-bike

190 278.8 0.25 0.36

Unbelted All 285.4 577.2 0.37 0.74

Heavy Vehicle All 74.4 106.4 0.09 0.13

Unlicensed Drivers All 81.6 209 0.1 0.32

Work zone All 9 20 0.01 0.02

Railcar-Vehicle All 1 0.4 0 0
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 55

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 55

All numbers are form NJDOT-ARD database with the following exceptions: 

Younger Driver: Fatality numbers have been updated from FARS for 2011-2018 based on drivers with age 16-

20 inclusive. 2019 Fatalities are from NJSP Fatal report. 

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

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

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

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 55

Older Drivers: Fatality numbers have been updated from FARS for 2011-2018 based on drivers with age 65 

and older. 2019 Fatalities are from NJSP Fatal report. 

Older Driver and Younger Driver: Fatal and SI numbers are based on the driver and excludes all other persons 

involved in the crash (pedestrian, occupants, etc.). 

Pedestrian and Bicycle: 2019 fatalities are from 2019 NJSP Fatal report. 

Most of the numbers have been updated for 2018-2019 except for Older and Younger Drivers which have been 

updated for 2011-2019. Pedestrian and Bicycle have been added for 2019 only. 

The five- year rolling average targets above, incorporating serious injuries, indicate a large increase. This is a 

result of a large spike in reported serious injuries in 2019 crashes. 

Beginning in 2019, New Jersey updated the police crash report to be consistent with the federally required 

injury classifications (Killed, Suspected Serious Injury, Suspected Minor Injury, Possible Injury, and No 

Apparent Injury). As a result of this change, injuries not previously attributed to the serious injury classification 

are now included in this number. 

For example, a crash victim with a broken arm that would have previously been classified as a Moderate injury, 

is now classified as Suspected Serious Injury. As a result, New Jersey saw a 116% increase in reported 

serious injuries due to the changes in reporting. 

This large increase creates a challenge in predicting anticipated totals for future years. New Jersey expects the 

five-year rolling average to increase over the next few years until the data stabilizes. 

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

NJDOT installed Centerline rumble stripes as part of a Systemic Program, and the construction was completed 

in October 2016. According to Highway Safety Manual, the post-deployment evaluation should include at least 

three (3) years of safety data following a six (6) month period of normalization. BSBPP has collected the safety 

data for the contracts for the first two years with CY 2020 pending. CY 2020 safety data will be available by 

July 2021. 

BSBPP will continue collecting and analyzing the safety data. It is anticipated that post-deployment evaluation 

reports for the Program will be shared in the CY 2021 ASR.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 55

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

Essex County -

CR 602 at 

Grove St and 

Coit St, CR 

665 at Civic 

Sq, CR 658 at 

6th, 7th, 

Roseville Ave 

and 9th St

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

28.00 24.67 14.33 13.67 42.33 38.34 0.71

Monmouth 

County -

Memorial 

Dr/CR 40A 

from Rt. 33 to 

Munroe Ave

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

13.00 10.00 11.67 6.00 24.67 16.00 4.96

Passaic 

County - Main 

Avenue (CR 

601) from 

Passaic 

Avenue to 

Monroe Street

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 2.33 1.67 3.34 4.00 3.34 0

Union County -

East Broad 

Street (CR 

509) at Elm 

Street

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2.67 3.67 0.67 3.34 3.67 2.55

Union County -

Vauxhall Road 

(CR 630) at 

Pine/Barbara 

Avenues and 

Caldwell/Glenn 

Avenues

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

3.67 7.00 1.67 3.67 5.34 10.67 0

Somerset 

County -

Washington 

Avenue (CR 

529) at 

Greenbrook 

Road 

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

4.67 2.67 2.67 0.67 7.34 3.34 5.79
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 55

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

Ocean County 

- CR 539 (MP 

3.69 - 27.50)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - center 51.00 58.67 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.00 21.00 23.67 74.66 84.34 4.89

Attached are 7 files with the B/C calculations. 

Passaic County – Main Avenue (CR 601) from Passaic Avenue to Monroe Street: Improvements were pedestrian focused and included 5 upgraded crosswalks and pedestrian signs, ADA compliant curb ramps and pedestrian countdown 

signals at 5 intersections and a RRFB at one location. The B/C analysis was applied to pedestrian involved crashes only. Although the total crashes decreased from 12 to 7, the moderate crashes increased from 1 to 2 and the complaint 

of pain crashes increased from 4 to 5. 

Union County - Vauxhall Road (CR 630) at Pine/Barbara Avenues and Caldwell/Glenn Avenues improvements included two traffic signal upgrades including pedestrian countdowns and high visibility crosswalks. The 3-year post 

construction analysis has shown a negative benefit. Crashes increased at both intersections. Crash severity remained consistent with all complaint of pain and PDOs. These two intersection will be analyzed for several more years to see 

if the 5 year rolling average shows any benefit.
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 55

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

New Jersey is finalizing the 2020 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The NJ 2020 SHSP reinforces New Jersey’s commitment to a performance based, data-driven investment strategy aligning with a Towards Zero Death vision. The 

plan was developed with extensive collaboration, participation and coordination with state’s safety stakeholders through a hierarchal organization structure of a Core Working Group, a Steering Committee, Emphasis Area Teams and the 

Executive Committee, in addition to robust public engagement through a series of Safety Summits and media presence including a user-friendly website ( www.saferoadsforallNJ.com ). NJ 2020 SHSP will support seven (7) Emphasis 

Areas with strategic plans capitalizing on the four E’s – Engineering, Education, Enforcement and Emergency Response. The State continues to support the goals of NJ 2015 SHSP through the HSIP apportionments for state and local 

projects and will transition seamlessly to NJ 2020 SHSP following its adoption. 

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 50

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 80 100 65

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 50

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 50

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 55

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

50 50

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 20

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 50

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 80 90 5

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 80

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 30

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

70 20

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 80

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 80

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 80
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 55

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

80 30

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

80 30

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

40 30

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

80 30

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

40 30

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

40 30

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

40 30

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

80 35

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

80 35

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

80 35

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

40 30

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 97.22 93.89 96.25 82.50 61.82 31.36 98.89 80.00 0.00 40.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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. some of the current MIRE FDEs are stored in the SLD database. 

2. the NJDOT Information Tech Unit will continue to upload 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. Procuring funds to collect all Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is a critical issue. 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 55

5. 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), HPMS 

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

 178. Unique Interchange Identifier 

 131. Intersection/Junction Traffic Control 

 182. Interchange Type 

 4. Ramps Type of Government Ownership 

 195. Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal 

 197. Location identifier at Beginning Ramp Terminal 

 199. Roadway Type at End Ramp Terminal 

 201. Location identifier at End Ramp Terminal 

 187. Ramp Length 

 79. Average Annual Daily Traffic – on the approach leg of the intersection/junction and local Paved Roads – Non-State owned AADT 

 191. Ramp AADT 
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 55

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Q#23 Programmed Vs Obligated funds.xlsx

Q#23 2020 Calculations.xlsm

Project Implementation:

Q#23 Programmed Vs Obligated funds revised.xlsx

Q#23 2020 Calculations revised.xlsm

Q#34 Basis for established target.docx

Safety Performance:

Q#39 FFY 20 Older Drivers and Pedestrians.pdf

Q#34 2021 Safety Performance Targets transmittal July 17 2020.docx

Q#34 HSIP PM Targets 2021 - Charts Final_20200416.pdf

Q#34 SAFETY - STATEWIDE TARGETS.docx

Q#34 Basis for established target.docx

Q#34 Commissioner's letter to FHWA.pdf

Q#37 Progress meeting 2019 SPT.xlsx

Q#39 FFY 20 Older Drivers and Pedestrians.pdf

Evaluation:

Q#46 -Essex - Lyons Park Clinton analysis.xlsx

Q#46 -Monmouth-MemorialDrive.xlsx

Q#46 -Ocean - CR 539.xlsx

Q#46 -Passaic-Main Avenue.xlsx

Q#46 -Somerset-Washington Avenue.xlsx

Q#46 -Union-East Broad Elm.xlsx

Q#46 -Union-Vauxhall.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2020 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 55

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 noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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