Page 1 of 60

NEW YORK 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 60

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration ..................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................29

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

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................31

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

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................42

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................47

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................49

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................50

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................50

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................50

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................55

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................56

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................59

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................60
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 60

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 York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 60

Executive Summary

This report is intended to satisfy reporting requirements under Section 148 of the Title 23, United States Code 

(23 U.S.C. 148) regulated under 23 CFR 924. MAP-21 and the FastAct reinforce the importance of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

Emphasis Areas

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

the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The emphasis areas in the plan include intersections, lane 

departures, driver behavior, vulnerable users, speed and older and younger drivers. The plan also emphasizes 

emergency response, data and automated/connected vehicles as cross cutting issues that affect all crash 

types. Site specific projects at high accident locations and systemic improvement projects are being 

implemented to meet crash goals.

The first ever statewide New York State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) was released in June 2016 and 

provides funds to improve pedestrian safety in urban areas. The PSAP adds pedestrian locations to the state's 

annual regional work program; implements pedestrian improvements at approximately 2,400 signalized 

intersections and 1,350 uncontrolled crosswalks and provides for pedestrian improvements on 5 pedestrian 

corridors. The PSAP also includes statewide pedestrian education and enforcement initiatives. The PSAP is a 

5 year program scheduled for completion at the end of 2021.

The New York State Department of Transportation contracted with VHB to develop a new safety system called 

CLEAR (Crash Location Engineering, Analysis and Reporting). The CLEAR system will replace the existing 

legacy systems that are used to manage and analyze crash data. The systems to be replaced include: Safety 

Information Management Systems (SIMS), Accident Location Information System (ALIS) and the Post 

Implementation Evaluation System (PIES).The new system is scheduled for production in mid 2021.

HSIP Fund Administration

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

Approximately half of the funds are provided to the NYSDOT regions according to a formula that includes 

crashes, population and center line miles. The remaining funds are administered centrally by the NYSDOT 

Main Office and the Safety and System Optimization (SSO) team. The centrally managed funds are used to 

fund a call for projects program, the statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) and other statewide 

safety initiatives that support the emphasis areas in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Since FFY13 the 

statewide call for projects program has funded 113 state and local projects for a total of approximately $273M 

in HSIP funds. In 2018, the local call for PSAP projects funded 38 local projects for a total of approximately 

$40M in HSIP funds. The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes approximately $110M in HSIP funds to 

improve pedestrian safety at locations in New York State outside of New York City.

All Public Roads

The mandate to address the safety of all public roads has broadened the scope of work of the Department of 

Transportation and our partners, requiring a greater focus on emphasis areas in order to meet crash goals. 

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

 Projects on locally owned and state-owned roads are eligible for the call for projects programs.

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

Systems (SIMS).
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 60

 A local GIS route system was developed. 

 The new CLEAR application will enhance the state’s ability to analyze crash data on the local system.

 Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads. 

Safety Performance Management

The FHWA assessment of the 2018 safety targets found that New York State has met or made significant 

progress towards achieving its safety performance targets.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 60

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. 

Approximately 50% of the HSIP funds in New York State are provided to the Regions according to a formula 

that includes crashes, miles and population. The remaining funds are administered by the Main Office for the 

implementation of statewide safety programs.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

HSIP Administrators are located in the Safety Programs Management Bureau within the Office of Traffic Safety 

and Mobility in the Main Office. There are traffic offices in both the Main Office in Albany and in each of the 11 

regional offices throughout New York State. The regional traffic offices are responsible for program delivery.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Formula via Districts/Regions

 SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

 Other-Periodic Call for Safety Projects

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

All public roads in New York State are eligible for HSIP funds including local roads and roads on tribal lands. 

The regions work with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations to determine which state and local HSIP 

projects to include in the capital program. A portion of the Region 11 allocation is provided to New York City for 

safety projects on local roads owned by New York City. The statewide call for safety projects has awarded 

HSIP funding to 40 local projects to be let between FFY13 - FFY20 for a total of about $91.6M in HSIP funding. 

The pedestrian safety action plan also provided $40M in HSIP funding for local municipalities to implement 

systemic treatments that improve safety for pedestrians.

All crashes on public roads, regardless of ownership are included in New York's crash data systems and are 

available for review and analysis. High crash locations on the state system are identified via an annual network 

screening process. Improvements to New York's crash data systems are underway and will provide enhanced 

analysis capabilities to identify high crash locations and perform systemic analysis on local roads.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 60

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

 Design

 Districts/Regions

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division

 Maintenance

 Operations

 Planning

 Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The New York State Department of Transportation formed a Safety System and Optimization team (SSO) with 

expertise in highway safety and system optimization. The multi disciplinary team is comprised of members 

from various Division and Regional Offices including Safety Programs Management and Coordination Bureau, 

System Optimization Bureau, Local Programs Bureau, Office of Modal Safety and Security, Policy and 

Planning Division, Office of Transportation Maintenance and Office of Design. The SSO team is responsible for 

the following: 

 Providing long term guidance on safety and system optimization to ensure consistency with program 

update strategies;

 Providing clarification and guidance to the 11 NYSDOT regions; 

 Developing technical guidance for safety strategies described in the program update; 

 Developing support materials for NYSDOT Regions in preparing safety program proposals; 

 Reviewing safety program proposals and prioritizing capital program projects; and

 Monitoring regional programs over the life of the program to ensure safety and optimization goals are 

met.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

 FHWA

 Governors Highway Safety Office

 Law Enforcement Agency

 Local Government Agency 

 Local Technical Assistance Program

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

 Tribal Agency

 Other-New York State Department of Health

Describe coordination with external partners.

New York State coordinates regularly with external partners on safety initiatives. For example:

 New York's 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan was developed in coordination with local, state, 

federal, tribal and private organizations throughout the state.

 NYSDOT coordinates with the Governors Traffic Safety Committee on safety target setting. 

 Conference calls are regularly held with MPO Directors, an MPO Safety Working Group and a Safety 

Working Group to coordinate and communicate ongoing safety efforts.

 The core team that developed the statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan included members from 

NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, DOH and the MPOs. The Roadway Departure Action Plan team currently in 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 60

development also includes members from NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, DOH, local governments and the 

MPOs. 

 The GTSC, FHWA, MPO's, local agencies and law enforcement are participating in the design of a new 

safety management system called CLEAR.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

This manual is currently being rewritten to be consistent with the new Safety Management system called 

CLEAR.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Bicycle Safety

 Horizontal Curve

 Intersection

 Local Safety

 Low-Cost Spot Improvements

 Pedestrian Safety

 Right Angle Crash

 Roadway Departure

 Rural State Highways

 Safe Corridor

 Sign Replacement And Improvement

 Skid Hazard

 Wrong Way Driving

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

 Population

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 60

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations

 Volume

 Median width

 Horizontal curvature

 Roadside features
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 60

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 60

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 60

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1999

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 60

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

 Median width

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Other-A project review and windshield survey is conducted as required by the SAFETAP 

program. Qualified staff decide upon the safety work to be done before, during and after 

construction to ensure safety is incorporated into maintenance projects.

 Other-Low cost spot improvements are often recommended as a result of a highway safety 

investigation.

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities or through the MPO planning 

process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other- Many nominal safety improvements are incorporated into maintenance work

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 60

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Other-Crashes involving 

pedestrians

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

 Population

 Median width

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

 Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Other-Risk factors

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities or through the MPO planning 

process. A local call for projects in 2018 provided $40M in HSIP funding for pedestrian improvements 

under this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 selection committee
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 60

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

 Functional classification

 Other-Intersection features; 

speed limit etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 60

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

 Median width

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Other- CARDs are recommended for projects that will put >=40 mm of asphalt and meet the 

following: 1) there is no raised median or TWLTL, 2) the CARD quantity is >=1500'; 3) the 

posted speed >=45 mph; 4) the AADT >=2,000; and 4) the roadway width >=13'.

 Other-High risk factors for roadway departure crashes were identified in a statewide systemic 

analysis. Additional systemic programs will be investigated in the upcoming years to decrease 

roadway departures.

 Relative severity index

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

program?
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 60

Yes

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

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Centerline and shoulder rumblestrips (CARDS and SHARDS) are approved systemic 

treatments.

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-The State of New York's evaluation of HRRR aligns with 23 USC 148 (a)(1) and defines 

significant safety risks as having 'an accident rate per mile above the average crash rate per 

mile established for the region' 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 60

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Volume  Functional classification
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 60

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1995

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 60

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Other-Signs needing improvement can be identified during a SAFETAP review or a Highway 

Safety Investigation. Some regions have implemented a replacement program where signs are 

replaced on a defined schedule.

 Relative severity index

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?

No

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

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1995
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 60

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Other- Locations are identified 

where the percentage of wet 

road accidents is twice the 

normal proportion for the same 

county and facility type.

 Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

 Volume  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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-Locations with >= twice the normal percentage of wet road crashes are identified and 

friction tested. Tested locations which demonstrate one or more low friction test numbers 

(FN40 of 32) are treated.

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Locations with low friction test numbers (FN40 of 32) require treatment.:1
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 60

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:4/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-Benefit Cost Analysis > 1

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

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?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-new minimum standards for exit ramp termini

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

Available funding:1

Incremental B/C:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 70
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 60

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

 Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

 Install/Improve Signing

 Other-Pedestrian Countdown Timers

 Other-Pedestrian Improvements identified in Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

 Rumble Strips

 Wrong way driving treatments

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? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

The future vision is that Connected Vehicle and Automated Vehicle technology will provide the opportunity to 

dramatically improve safety by decreasing the number and severity of crashes caused by human error and 

environmental factors on New York State roads. While guidance, testing, standards, legislation and best 

practices continue to evolve, it is important for transportation operating agencies to be involved in the national 

issues and take advantage of the technology as it is deployed.

New York State strategies noted in the 2017 SHSP include:

1. Remain involved in national activities that support the development of CAV technologies, standards and 

best practices, including the National Pooled Fund Study Group.

2. Express support for the pending NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rule Making for V2V communications 

utilizing 5.9 GHz dedicated short range communications for light vehicles.

3. Urge NHTSA to follow up with a similar Notice of Proposed Rule Making for heavy vehicles.

4. Support, encourage and participate in the development of a New York State legislative and regulatory 

framework that allows for the testing and deployment of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles.

5. Support the development of national regulations for both light and heavy vehicles.

6. Continue the networking of existing traffic signals and other roadside systems in a flexible, standardized 

framework.

7. Improve and standardize GIS mapping and spatial capabilities using the New York State GIS Platforms.

8. Continue to develop an understanding of the technology and short term and long term implications.

9. Support the fusion of the latest generation of automobile based sensor systems that provide advanced 

safety features such as automated braking, driver attention detection, forward collision warning, blind 

spot warning, lane departure assistance, etc. with V2V real time communications between vehicles to 

increase the vehicle's situational awareness.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 60

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 State's Safety Information Management System (SIMS) is used to identify High Accident Locations 

on the state system every year.

 The Highway Safety Manual is an additional source of information when performing highway safety 

investigations and conducting evaluations.

 The CLEAR application once in production, will be consistent with HSM methods.

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

elaborate.

The vision and mission statements as stated in the 2017 New York State Strategic Highway Safety Plan are:

Vision: Roads in New York will be safer to travel for all users.

Mission: New York safety partners will advocate for those who travel by any mode, and deliver data driven 

safety programs to decrease the number of injuries and fatalities that occur on public roads in New York state. 

Together we will work to ensure safety is a top priority in all engineering, education, enforcement and 

emergency medical service activities.

The 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan includes the following emphasis areas and cross cutting issues: 

Intersections, Lane Departures, Vulnerable Users, Age-related (older and younger drivers), Road User 

Behavior, Speed, Emergency response, Improvements to Data and Automated and Connected Vehicles

Intersections

From 2011-2015, 46 percent of fatalities and serious injuries in New York State were intersection-related. New 

York will take a multifaceted approach to solving intersection-related issues that considers the intersection 

design, accommodates users from all modes, and implements improvements both systemically and at 

intersections with a crash history. Examples of strategies include developing an Intersection Safety Action 

Plan, implementing intersection treatments systemically, improving the enforcement of traffic laws at

intersections and supporting the use of technology and traffic incident management to improve safety at 

intersections. In 2019 intersection related fatalities were 41.7 percent of total fatalities.

Roadway Departures

Lane departure fatalities and serious injuries made up almost one-fourth of the total fatalities and serious 

injuries in New York (24 percent) between 2011-2015. To address the wide array of contributing factors to lane 

departure crashes, New York will take an approach that considers both site-specific and systemic 

countermeasures, as well as opportunities for education and enforcement. Strategies include the development 

of a Roadway Departure Action Plan which is currently under development, and the implementation of 

systemic improvements that decrease the number and severity of lane departure crashes. In 2019, lane 

departure fatalities were 32.7% of total fatalities.

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS)

Engineering Instruction EI-13-021 lays out the framework and criteria for installing centerline rumble strips on 

eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at least 0.75" of asphalt and meets the 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 60

geometric/operating criteria is required to install CARDS as part of the project. Because of the low cost and 

proven effectiveness of centerline rumble strips, this new policy is an important tool in reducing both head-on 

and run-off road crashes. As of March 2020, approximately 4,322 miles of CARDS have been installed. 

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP) 

The SKARP program incorporates safety considerations into pavement maintenance activities. SKARP 

identifies sections of pavement experiencing an unusually high proportion of wet road accidents; friction tests 

them and schedules treatment for sections experiencing both high wet road accidents and low friction 

numbers. The frictional quality of NYSDOT owned pavements has improved since the program’s inception. A 

summary of PIL testing from 1996 through 2019 shows a decline in the number of sites requiring treatment, 

from 91 sites in 1996 to 15 sites in 2019. 

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP) 

The SAFETAP program is designed to ensure that roadside safety considerations are incorporated in the 

Departments preventive maintenance single course overlay projects. Under SAFETAP, a team of agency 

experts conduct a project review of preventive maintenance paving project sites to decide upon simple, low 

cost safety improvements to be implemented at the time of construction, or soon after construction. Over 8,300 

safety recommendations have been made since SFY14/15 and over 3,800 of the recommendations were 

completed by the end of SFY18-19.

Vulnerable Users

Vulnerable users include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and those who work on the roadway. New York 

will consider infrastructure improvements, as well as opportunities to enhance education, enforcement, 

emergency response, and data processes in its approach to reduce fatalities and serious injuries of vulnerable 

users of the roadway network. In June of 2016, NYSDOT announced its first ever statewide Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan. The plan includes Engineering, Education and Enforcement measures to improve pedestrian 

safety. Engineering improvements include the implementation of systemic countermeasures at thousands of 

signalized intersections and mid-block crosswalks in urban areas between 2016 and 2021. 

Pedestrian locations were also added to NYSDOT's annual regional work program where the NYSDOT regions 

study 20% of the identified Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) each year to determine what improvements 

can be made to improve pedestrian safety. 

Safer Corridors for Pedestrians: 

In 2012 NYSDOT developed a process to evaluate corridors to improve pedestrian safety. To maximize 

effectiveness, the process emphasizes coordination among the Department and other local, state and federal 

partners. Solutions involve not only engineering measures, but also enforcement campaigns and educational 

efforts. The PSAP includes pedestrian improvements at the following 5 pedestrian corridors: 

1) Erie Boulevard, City Syracuse and Town DeWitt, Onondaga county 

2) US 62 Niagara Falls Boulevard, Town of Amherst, Town of Tonawanda, Erie county 

3) US 11, Village of Malone, Franklin county 

4) Route 59/45, Spring Valley, Rockland county 

5) Route 25A, Town of Huntington, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk county 

Complete Streets 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 60

On a statewide basis, the New York State Department of Transportation continues to apply Complete Street 

provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes.

Pedestrian/Bicycle Unit

The Pedestrian Bicycle Unit (the unit) has two main areas of responsibilities. The first one is coordination and 

outreach both internally and externally. The second area is specific projects in developing policy and providing 

technical guidance for capital projects. The unit is working on the following initiatives: 

 Development of Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Protocol 

 Creating an electronic map of the NYSDOT Bike Touring Routes and then expanding that mapping to 

capture all of the NYSDOT bicycle assets. This work was used to prepare a NYSDOT Bike Routes App 

which is now available both internally and externally. 

 Empire State Trail: Under a Governor Cuomo initiative NYSDOT is partnering with the Hudson River 

Valley Greenway to progress the Empire State Trail. The trail when completed in 2020 will be the 

largest statewide multi-use trail in the nation. The state will develop 350 miles of new trail to create a 

750 mile trail spanning from the New York Harbor to the Canadian Border and from Lake Erie along the 

Erie Canal to Albany. The trail will involve work by 6 NYSDOT Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 and cover 

over 220 miles of on-road connections. 

 Update of the NYS Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 

 Pedestrian Countdown Timers: Pedestrian crashes account for about 25% of all fatal crashes in New 

York and remain an emphasis area in New York State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As of the end 

of September 2019, countdown timers have been installed at approximately 2,770 (85.9%) of the 3,225 

eligible signals. 

Age Related

The SHSP identifies young drivers as those that are 20 and younger. Drivers that are 65 and older represent 

the older driver group. From 2011-2015, 7,881 drivers in both age groups were killed or seriously injured in a 

motor vehicle crash. During the 5-year period, 28 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes involved a young 

or older driver. Decreasing the number of age-related fatalities and serious injuries will be achieved through a 

multidisciplinary approach incorporating engineering designs to accommodate users of all ages as well as 

education and enforcement initiatives.

Road User Behavior and Speed

As advancements in vehicle and roadway design continue to improve safety, human behavior continues to be 

the biggest variable in crash risk. Creating a culture of responsible road users is essential to making a 

significant impact in the reduction of crashes, fatalities, and injuries. New York will implement roadway 

improvements that decrease the incidence of distracted and drowsy driving such as flashing beacons, and 

center-line and edge-line rumble strips as well as improvements that influence driver speed such as signing 

and speed feedback devices, roundabouts, complete streets and road diets. Education and enforcement 

efforts are most important to build awareness and promote safer driving habits.

Emergency Response and Traffic Incident Management

A traffic incident is any non-recurring event (such as a vehicle crash, a vehicle breakdown, work zone, or a 

special event) that causes a reduction in roadway capacity or an abnormal increase in traffic demand that 

disrupts the normal operation of the transportation system. Traffic incidents are an important concern in New 

York State because they can result in a safety issue and are a significant cause of congestion delays. In 

response to this problem, NYSDOT has fostered the development of a Statewide Traffic Incident Management 

(TIM) Program. A TIM Steering Committee was formed to guide the advancement of the statewide TIM 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 60

Program in New York State. This Committee has been meeting regularly for 10 years to foster relationships 

among agencies, determine issues of statewide significance relating to TIM, and to develop training and 

guidelines for the emergency responder community to use in their everyday efforts to keep themselves and the 

public safe. The TIM Steering Committee assisted in the advancement of the Move Over law and also provided 

education on the law to executives and safety stakeholders. The Committee will continue to support similar 

efforts in the future.

Improvements to Data

Status of Crash Data

This report is based on crash data from the Fatality Accident Reporting System (FARS), NYSDOT's Safety 

Information System (SIMS) and NYSDMV's Accident Information System (AIS). Crash records and roadway 

characteristics are analyzed to identify Priority Investigation Locations (PILs). A highway safety investigation is 

conducted at 20% of the state PILs annually. Crash data has traditionally included fatal, injury, property 

damage crashes over $1,000 (reportable) and property damage accidents under $1,000 (non-reportable). 

Additional factors used in developing the PIL list are traffic volumes, divided or undivided and the number of 

travel lanes. All PILs studied are on the State system with the exception of some New York City locations.

The Department continues to partner with the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV), the Governor’s 

Traffic Safety Committee, State Police and other key stakeholders to mutually re-engineer the accident and 

traffic violation records systems to address safety data information needs. The State continues to use a 

strategic planning approach to improve its various information systems as articulated in the Traffic Safety 

Information Systems Strategic Plan. The status of improvements that directly affect the Safety Information 

Management System (SIMS) are:

Crash Records

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

through 12/31/2019. The policies surrounding the processing of PDO crashes have changed from year to year. 

Therefore, it is not possible to compare PDO crash data from year to year.

Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS)

Use and Dissemination Agreements for use of the software have been signed by more than 500 different 

police agencies across the state in 57 counties. This represents more than one-third of all law enforcement 

agencies in NYS who have committed to using the software. As of June 2020, 508 agencies are transmitting 

data through the TraCS system. The software reduces the workload at NYSDMV decreasing the time it takes 

to process each crash report.

CLEAR (Crash Location Engineering and Analysis Repository)

A new safety data transfer process that transfers data from NYSDMV to NYSDOT has been designed. The 

transfer process is phase one of a project to replace NYSDOT's legacy safety data systems with a new system 

called CLEAR. CLEAR will utilize the new safety data warehouse, integrate with the other NYSDOT enterprise 

systems, and enhance NYSDOT’s ability to perform safety planning, analysis and evaluation on all public 

roads. Implementation is planned for the middle of 2021.

Traffic Counts

Traffic count AADTs are required to develop crash rates for the state and local system. The Department has 

complete traffic volume data for almost 44,000 miles of the approximately 117,000 miles of highway in New 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 60

York. The remaining 73,000 miles are primarily local streets. The Department and counties continue to partner 

in a statewide county traffic count program designed to capture traffic volume data on county owned roads. In 

2019, the Department took 2,872 traffic counts on 3055.42 miles of non-federal aid roads.

Local Highway Route System

The local roads LRS build was completed and included in its entirety to the FHWA with the June 2018 HPMS 

submission. The Department continues to identify roadways and reverse directions that can be added to the 

State LRS.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 60

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $117,842,727 $110,585,809 93.84%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 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)

$63,739,019 $62,937,459 98.74%

State and Local Funds $34,868,243 $28,028,151 80.38%

Totals $216,449,989 $201,551,419 93.12%

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

safety projects?

$11,975,002

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

$11,438,696

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

$593,600

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

$593,600

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 York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 60

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. 

Impediments to obligating HSIP funds include project delays for reasons not limited to safety projects such as 

environmental approvals, right of way/easement issues, community issues, other funding needs, resource 

issues, historic issues, NYS permit issues etc. The complicated process required to implement projects that 

use federal aid including HSIP can also be an impediment, especially for local governments. In addition, the 

Federal Obligation Limitation that exists on all federal funding also serves as an impediment to obligating 

safety funds. The following describes some of the approaches used to overcome those obstacles for HSIP 

projects. 

Statewide Call for Projects 

The application process for the statewide HSIP call for projects requires an applicant to identify all potential 

barriers to a timely implementation. The barriers are one of the factors taken into consideration during the 

project selection process. Thus, a project with good safety benefits but significant impediments to a timely 

implementation may be denied funding in favor of another safety project with less risk. 

Design Services Agreement 

Design resources are sometimes limited at the regional level especially for larger projects. The department has 

a statewide design services agreement that can be used to fund contract services to assist with design or other 

urgent safety project needs. The contract is funded via HSIP dollars specifically set aside for that purpose. 

HSIP funded design services agreements are also being used for PSAP field assessments and design. 

Marchiselli 

The department will continue to support programs such as the Marchiselli Highway Improvement Program 

which provides funding assistance to local municipalities for approved projects. The Marchiselli program 

requires state and local governments to share in the cost of approved local projects. The projects are typically 

funded in shares of 80% Federal, 15% State and 5% local. 

Low Cost Counter Measures 

The NYSDOT is encouraging and implementing more low cost and systemic safety counter measures which 

typically have less impediments to a timely implementation and are often easier for local municipalities to 

implement. 

Toll Credits 

Toll credits have been used for the local match for many HSIP projects. Using toll credits can assist local 

governments that don't have access to funds for the required federal match.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 60

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

NY231 SAFETY IMPVTS @ 

NSP INTCHNG

Alignment $498600 $554000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

NY27 PED SAFETY IMPVTS 

NYC LINE - N NIAGARA

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$249689.36 $277432.63 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

NY25 PEDESTRIAN 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$10640797.9

9

$10640797.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

NY27 M&F QUEENS/NASS -

BROADWAY

Roadway $593 $658.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

PED SAFETY ACTION PLAN 

- PHASE 2

Roadway 

delineation

$5894000.01 $6619700.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

NY110 PED SAFETY & OPER 

IMPVTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$18824.12 $20915.69 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

SC - PSAP - PED SIGNAL 

SAFETY IMPVTS.

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$915000 $915000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

BROOKHAVEN TOWN -

PSAP - PED SAFETY SIGNAL 

IMPVT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$60000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PIL & HSI SAFETY STUDIES $593600 $649000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Spot Data

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Alignment $0 $100000 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Alignment $383400 $426000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

HSIP, ROUTE 146, CARMAN 

ROAD SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS, 

GUILDERLAND

Roadway $414462.84 $460514.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

NY 146/NY 146A 

INTERSECTION: SAFETY 

IMPROVE, CLIFTON PARK

Roadway $126907 $178470.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RT.146 SAFETY PROJECT, 

TOWN OF CLIFTON PARK, 

SARATOGA COUNTY

Roadway $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RT. 4/I-90 INTERSECTION 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway $262800 $292000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

NYS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN: PHASE TWO

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$3050125 $3050125 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

BALLSTON AVE, UNION ST. 

TO HAMILTON ST., 

RECONSTRUCTION

Roadway $113185.24 $142956.64 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

MADISON AVE MILL-FILL 

FROM NEW SCOTLAND TO 

LARK ST., ALBANY

Roadway $154 $171.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

HSIP CARDS AND DURABLE 

PAVEMNT MARKINGS 

INSTALLATION SFY 19

Roadway 

delineation

$44329 $437504.3 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

TRAFFIC SIGNALS REBUILD 

SFY19

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$10800 $35000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

ADA COMPLIANCE SFY19 Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$142264 $2356369.86 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PAVEMENT CORRECTIVE 

MAINTENANCE SFY19 2ND 

PROJECT

Roadway $150908 $13132322.42 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY PROJECT 14, RT 

365A: RTE 5 TO RTE 365, 

CITY OF ONEIDA

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$271764.9 $301961 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

BAGG'S SQUARE/HARBOR 

POINT PEDESTRIAN WAY

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$1244967 $4991598.27 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RT 13 @ RT 31 

INTERSECTION SAFETY 

IMPROV, TOWN OF LENOX

Intersection 

traffic control

$661789.22 $735321.36 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN (PSAP), 

PHASE I, CONTRACT 2

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$3618721 $3618721 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

UTICA PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY ACTION PLAN 

(PSAP)

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$80277.78 $80277.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

RT 5S: SAFETY PROJECT, 

CITY OF UTICA

Roadway $5992.2 $6658 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

ROUTE 30/30A SAFETY 

PROJECT

Roadway $43985.26 $220703.15 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SR 5:PAVE REHAB AND 

SAFETY IMPROVE: STROUD 

ST TO HUBBARD PL

Alignment $426214.95 $3568595.92 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RTE 26 AND 26/365 

OVERLAP: SAFETY AND PM 

PAVING, C/ROME

Roadway $136800 $152000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RT 11 AT RT 49 SAFETY IMP, 

VIL OF CENTRAL SQUARE

Alignment $548100 $609000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-481 KIRKVILLE RD 

INTERCHANGE OFF-RAMP 

REALIGNMENT

Alignment $450083 $500092.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RT 13 AT TRUMBULLS 

CORNERS RD, TOWN OF 

NEWFIELD, TOMPKINS CO

Alignment $31500 $35000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RT 5 AT HAMILTON RD 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Alignment $229432 $254924.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RT 5 WEST OF 

CHAMBERLIN DR TO EAST 

OF SUNVIEW DR. 

ELBRIDGE

Roadway $198535.77 $198536.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN, PHASE 1

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$3913429.46 $3913429.46 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

ERIE BLVD PSAP PROJECT, 

BRIDGE ST TO GENESEE ST

Roadway $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

RT 481 INTERSECTION 

W/CR 45, OSWEGO CO

Alignment $192385.8 $213762 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

ROUTE 370 AT JOHN GLENN 

BLVD SAFETY PROJECT

Intersection 

traffic control

$2745941.17 $4457559.49 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CARDS INSTALLATION 

PROJECT, ONONDAGA 

COUNTY

Roadway $98540 $98540 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

ROUTE 11 SAFETY 

SIDEWALK INSTALLATION 

PROJECT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$253577.11 $281752.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PIL 2015 I-690 OVER JOHN 

GLENN BLVD SAFETY 

PROJECT

Roadway $55800 $62000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

NY 5 INTERSECTION 

ENHANCEMENT AT SOUTH 

AVE

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$225000.18 $250000.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RT 5 & 20 SAFETY (RT 247 & 

MIDDLE CHESHIRE RD 

INTERSECTIONS)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$5400 $6000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RT 15 CORRIDOR 

OPERATION 

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, 

PHASE 1

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$135000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

RT 31 FROM RT 19 TO WEST 

OF SALMON CREEK

Roadway $67000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RT 77 @ LEDGE ROAD 

INTERSECTION SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Roadway $499221.91 $554691.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

NY 96 INTERSECTION 

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT AT 

LYNAUGH RD

Roadway $3994456.78 $4469864.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$-2326576 $-2326576 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN PHASE II

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$6366706.01 $6366706.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

RT 104 PAVEMENT MBC, 

POUND RD TO ROTTERDAM 

RD AND SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS AT 

KNICKERBOCKER RD

Roadway $179253.01 $2742013.62 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RT 252 FROM LOWENTHAL 

RD TO MARKETPLACE DR 

MBC

Roadway $178459 $5854622.92 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

NY 286 @ 5 MILE LINE RD 

INTERSECTION SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS

Roadway $157500 $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RIDGEWAY AVE SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway $661914 $793105.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot

MONROE CO. REFLECTIVE 

BACKPLATE PROJECT

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$36000 $59527.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

CR 23 INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT AT MCIVOR 

RD/FORT HILL RD

Roadway $2110464 $2723906 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CR 28 AT SHORTSVILLE RD 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

$1985907 $3220471.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RT 93 (DYSINGER RD); 

NORTH SIDE SIDEWALK 

REPLACEMENT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$222667.89 $267993.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

RT 104 & RT 93 

INTERSECTION

Roadway $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN (PSAP), 

PHASE IIA

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$966531 $966531 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PSAP - PHASE IIB; ERIE & 

NIAGARA COS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$5016666.1 $5342671.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PSAP - PHASE IIB; 

CATTARAUGUS & 

CHAUTAUQUA COS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$2907416 $2907416 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RT 277 (UNION RD) @ RT 33 

RAMPS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$18000 $110000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

ROUTE 179: ABBOTT RD TO 

US 20

Roadway $1639416 $4694294.07 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

NY 187 (TRANSIT RD) @ 

MILESTRIP RD

Roadway $36000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

RT 400 @ RT 16 TRAFFIC 

CALMING

Intersection 

geometry

$12000 State and 

Local Funds

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

I-290 WB EXIT RAMP TO US 

62, AND REHABILITATION 

OF CULVERTS CA00285 

AND C530088

Roadway $1147723.44 $1549070.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

JJ AUDUBON 

PKY/ELLICOTT CRK; 

BRIDGE 

SUPERSTRUCTURE 

REPLACE

Roadway $360935 $5205022.64 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

WALMORE RD; RT 62 - 

LOCKPORT RD, NIAGARA 

COUNTY

Roadway $574200 $3426000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

HWY LIGHTING ON NIAG. 

FALLS BLVD; I-290 TO 

NIAGARA CO LINE

Lighting $-2546 $77171.11 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Older 

Drivers

CITY OF NORTH 

TONAWANDA PSAP; 3 SIG

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$323000 $323000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

ADA COMPLIANCE 

PROJECT; ERIE & NIAGARA 

COS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$22471 $231964.53 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

ADA COMPLIANCE & 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 

UPGRADES; VARIOUS 

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$410113 $1718836.12 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

ROUTES; ERIE & NIAGARA 

COS

STBG, 

NHPP)

RT 20 @ RT 60; 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadside $282355.73 $315028.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RT 5; RT 62 - I290 Roadway $837517 $4468013.19 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - RT 39; CLARK ST - 

NEWMAN ST

Roadway $-18151 $-139403.97 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - RT 62; RT 265 - 

PACKARD

Roadway $-10391 $758385.7 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 430, RT 952P & RT 

954K, CITY OF JAMESTOWN

Roadway $408136 $2981644.45 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 324; NY 78 - NY 5 Roadway $52165 $47193.61 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 266; NY 325 - 

TONAWANDA CITY LINE

Roadway $1093219 $3166864.45 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 75; SOUTH OF 

SUNSET DR - BIN 1029910 & 

US 20 - NY 5

Roadway $97572 $870489.33 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 265; US 62 TO NY 

182

Roadway $199961 $1891081.39 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

PMI - NY 5; BIG TREE RD - 

KANE ST

Roadway $219125 $7729155.26 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

ADA COMPLIANCE 

PROJECT; CATT & CHAUT 

COS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$18209 $187838.22 State and 

Local Funds

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

ADA COMPLIANCE & 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 

UPGRADES; VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS; 

CATTARAUGUS, 

CHAUTAUQUA & ERIE COS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$220206 $1091330.83 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN PHASE II

Roadway 

delineation

$3395377 $3395377 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

ELMIRA URBAN AREA 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

PROJECT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$175000 $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PAVEMENT MARKINGS, 

MULTIPLE LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

$407700 $1844999.17 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RT 190 HIGHWAY 

RECONSTRUCTION

Shoulder 

treatments

$245225.18 $1309805.01 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

CITY OF WATERTOWN 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

CITY OF PLATTSBURGH 

CROSSING SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$41000 $41000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN PHASE 2

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$280000 $280000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN - RT 11 

(MALONE)

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$280000 $280000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

D&H CANADIAN MAIN, 

GREEN ST. X-ING

Railroad grade 

crossings

$0 $-

0.21999999998661

2

0 Railroad Spot

RT 172 @ RT 117 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Alignment $17883.02 $19870.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

ROUTE 312 @ I84 RAMPS Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$160679 $196814.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-84 ITS: PENNSYLVANIA - 

CONNECTICUT STATE LINE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

$17061.3 $529356.88 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

ROUTE 17 SLOATSBURG 

COMPLETE 

STREETS/INFRASTRUCTUR

E IMPROVEM

Roadway $2414567.41 $11944448.31 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REGION 8 PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY ACTION PLAN

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$7172209 $7529854 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

REGION 8 PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY ACTION PLAN 

CONTRACT #3

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$3715069.6 $3715069.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

REGION 8 PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY ACTION PLAN 

CONTRACT #5

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$2660321.65 $2660321.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

RTE 22 PMI PAVING 

SCARSDALE FROM 

EASTCHESTER TO WHITE 

PLAINS

Roadway $82326 $552029.58 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RT. 376 @ ROBINSON 

LANE/LAKE WALTON RD 

INTERSECTION

Roadway $89999.99 $299324.94 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RTE 202 @ PIP INNOVATIVE 

INTERSECTION 

RECONFIGURATION

Roadway $3607525.99 $3607525.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CITY OF BEACON 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 

DEVELOPMENT

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$328000 $328000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

TOWN OF RAMAPO 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$70000 $70000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

CITY OF KINGSTON 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$59000 $59000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

LOWER HUDSON TRANSIT 

LINK -ROUTE 59 SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

$498001.73 $553335.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RT 42 AT COUNTY ROADS 

52 & 53, SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

$137240.88 $152489.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RTE 28 AND RTE 357 

INTERSECTION 

RECONSTRUCTION

Alignment $124382.98 $138203.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

RTE 10 TOWN OF WALTON 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Alignment $92926.69 $103251.88 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SOUTHSIDE ONEONTA 

SAFETY AND MOBILITY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

$200000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN (PSAP), CITY 

OF BINGHAMTON

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$111000 $111000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

ACTION PLAN (PSAP), 

VILLAGE OF ENDICOTT

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS - 

BROOME, OTSEGO, & 

TIOGA COUNTIES

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$176932 $196591.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

REGION 9 PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$678577.82 $753975.36 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

GUIDERAIL UPGRADE ON 

GCP BETWEEN 31ST ST & 

NASSAU CO. LINE

Roadside $359999.98 $1179999.98 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

ON GCP B/W FRANCIS 

LEWIS & 188TH ST

Shoulder 

treatments

$3690000 $8795000 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

OCEAN PKWY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS. KINGS 

CO, NYC

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$64423.41 $71581.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

SAFETY IMPROV ON 

HARLEM RVR DR (131ST ST 

- 166TH ST) , NYC

Roadside $34187.42 $37986.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

REALIGNMENT OF THE 

BRONX RIVER PKWY AT 

GUN HILL RD. BX, NYC

Alignment $492462.49 $580773.7 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

ON LONG ISLAND 

EXPRESSWAY

Intersection 

geometry

$1912500 $2125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

GRAND CONCOURSE 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS, PH.3

Roadway $623600 $692888.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

COUNTDOWN PEDESTRIAN 

SIGNALS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$2900000 $3222222.22 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

ON VARIOUS HIGHWAYS

Roadside $2501131 $2779034.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

AT EXIT RAMPS AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS

Intersection 

geometry

$180000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 60

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 1,171 1,180 1,202 1,041 1,136 1,041 1,006 943 938

Serious Injuries 12,012 12,163 11,609 10,874 11,077 11,501 11,148 10,996 11,712

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.956 0.963 0.967 0.840 0.933 0.853 0.815 0.763 0.755

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.804 9.924 9.335 8.771 9.102 9.427 9.028 8.903 9.425

Number nonmotorized fatalities350 353 382 314 353 357 297 294 335

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

2,599 2,725 2,696 2,378 2,240 2,407 2,261 2,309 2,540
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

10000

10500

11000

11500

12000

12500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 44 of 60

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

10

10.2

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 York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 60

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

2019 fatalities are preliminary and sourced from the TSSR (NYS Traffic Safety Statistical Repository). 

Fatalities prior to 2019 are sourced from NHTSA's Fatality Accident Reporting System (FARS). 

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)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

16.2 118.8 0.01 0.1

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

5.2 25.6 0 0.02

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

46.6 316.6 0.04 0.26

Rural Minor Arterial 42.2 304.6 0.03 0.25

Rural Minor Collector 44.4 365.8 0.04 0.3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 46 of 60

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Major Collector 49.6 420.6 0.04 0.34

Rural Local Road or 

Street

37 272.4 0.03 0.25

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

56.8 648.2 0.05 0.53

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

67 578.4 0.05 0.47

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

207.2 2,244.2 0.17 1.83

Urban Minor Arterial 210.6 2,452 0.17 1.99

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 89.2 1,197.2 0.07 0.97

Urban Local Road or 

Street

96.6 1,409.8 0.08 1.14
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 60

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

391.6 3,484.4 0.32 2.83

County Highway 

Agency

202 1,691 0.17 1.38

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

94.8 933.6 0.08 0.76

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

258.8 4,022.2 0.21 3.27

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 3.4 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0.2 1.4 0 0

Other State Agency 0.4 4.6 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 2.6 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 19.4 228.6 0.02 0.19

Local Toll Authority 0.8 17.6 0 0.01

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation 0.8 8.8 0 0.01

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1012.7

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by using a linear trend line 

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2021 forecast was generated using the FORECAST function in Excel. 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 60

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 2% cap. The 

targets are consistent with the goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Number of Serious Injuries:10896.8

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by using a linear trend line 

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2021 forecast was generated using the FORECAST function in Excel. 

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 2% cap. The 

targets are consistent with the goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Fatality Rate:0.824

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by using a linear trend line 

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2021 forecast was generated using the FORECAST function in Excel. 

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 2% cap. The 

targets are consistent with the goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Serious Injury Rate:8.865

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by using a linear trend line 

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2020 forecast was generated using the FORECAST function in Excel. 

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 2% cap. The 

targets are consistent with the goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:2583.5

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

The following method was used to define the target: 1) Estimated the existing trend by using a linear trend line 

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 

as the data point for each year. 2) The 2020 forecast was generated using the FORECAST function in Excel. 

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 4% cap. The 

targets are consistent with the goals identified in the 2017 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

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

safety performance targets. 

NYSDOT communicates regularly with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the Governors Traffic 

Safety Committee. NYSDOT produces a fact sheet for the MPOs that identifies the targets and describes the 

process used to set them. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 60

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 1072.1 1012.8

Number of Serious Injuries 10987.0 11286.8

Fatality Rate 0.858 0.824

Serious Injury Rate 8.620 9.177

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

2726.0 2678.6

Preliminary data suggests NY will meet its targets for fatalities, fatality rate and non-motorized fatalities and 

serious injuries. The serious injury and serious injury rates increased in 2019 and it does not appear as if the 

State will meet those targets in 2019. Fatality numbers are draft since 2019 data is not yet available in FARS. 

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No

The fatality rate for rural collectors and local roads in 2016 is 1.786 (5 year moving average). 

The fatality rate for rural collectors and local roads in 2018 is 1.676 (5 year moving average). 

The rate between 2016 and 2018 (most recent FARS data) decreased, therefore the HRRR does not apply. 

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

232 201 211 196 211 210 0

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

1,130 1,036 1,090 1,095 1,068 1,208 0

2019 data is not yet available
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 60

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries

 Other-target crashes

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations.

The fatality rate in New York was under 1.0 in 2018 and has been below 1.0 per 100M VMT since 2007. The 

number of fatalities and the fatality rate have continued on a downward trend in New York at a time when many 

states are experiencing an increase. The number of serious injuries and the serious injury rates were on a 

downward trend but the annual numbers were up in 2019. 

Center-line Audible Roadway Delineators Evaluation (CARDS): An evaluation of the CARDS program was 

conducted in 2019. Statistically significant results showed a reduction in the number of run-off-the-road 

crashes by 22 percent, head-on/sideswipe crashes by 37 percent and head-on/sideswipe injury crashes by 42 

percent where CARDS were installed.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

 # miles improved by HSIP

 # RSAs completed

 HSIP Obligations

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

 Increased focus on local road safety

 More systemic programs

 Policy change

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2018

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 315.2 2,588.2 0.26 2.11

Intersections 420.8 5,673.8 0.34 4.62

Pedestrians 280.8 1,755 0.23 1.43

Bicyclists 39.2 564 0.03 0.46
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 60

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)

Older Drivers 90.4

Motorcyclists 148.6 1,064 0.12 0.87
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 53 of 60

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 54 of 60

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators 

Description: 

The study evaluated the safety 

effectiveness of the systemic 

implementation of center-line audible 

roadway delineators (CARDS) on New 

York State owned roads. The effect of 

CARDs on head-on, sideswipe (HO/SS), 

run-off-road (ROR), injury crashes, and 

fatal crashes were analyzed. 2-4 years of 

before/after was used depending on the 

year of installation. 

Target Crash Type: 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 590.1 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

Results: 

CMF for Run-Off-Road crashes – a CMF 

of 0.774 (expected reduction of 22.6%) in 

all ROR crashes. CMF for HeadOn/Sideswipe (HO/SS) crashes – a CMF 

of 0.623 (expected reduction of 37.7%) in 

HO/SS total crashes, and a CMF of 0.572 

for HO/SS injury crashes (expected 

reduction of 42.8% in injury HO/SS 

crashes). 

File Name: Hyperlink
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 60

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 60

Compliance Assessment

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

 06/13/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

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]

100 100 100 100 100 100

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]

100 100 95.5 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 60

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

99.9 98.8

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

99.4 84.4 17.6 16.9

AADT Year (80) [82] 99.4 84.4

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

90 83

AADT Year (80) [82] 90 83

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 60

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

92.4 41.7

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

92.4 41.7

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.93 98.20 60.00 58.25 98.62 89.40 90.34 90.77 100.00 100.00

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

The 90% and 83% of intersections with AADT is related to intersections where both intersecting roads are non-local. 

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. 

New York State Department of Transportation is currently working on several Enterprise projects that will capture, maintain, and utilize MIRE segment, ramp and junction data elements. Current project design efforts are focusing on 

identifying official sources of data, data fields needed by different program areas, and version control. 

For segments, a new Enterprise application for roadway data called SEE is in development. The new application will allow the program area to manage data for dual carriageways and will improve the workflow of integrating with the 

milepoint LRS. Additional local roads are being built to help the safety program locate crashes and meet Federal requirements to map all public roads. The Traffic and Safety program is also developing a new Enterprise safety application. 

The “Crash Location and Engineering Analysis” (CLEAR) project will implement Transcend Spatial’s Intersection analyzer application to add additional MIRE elements captured from the roadway data and calculate an MEV value for crash 

rate analysis. The integration of all these elements through multiple Enterprise systems with different business needs is no small task and the New York State department of Transportation is working to ensure we have the most accurate 

and up to date data.
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 60

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

NYCARDS_Evaluation_2020.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2020 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 60

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.