New York

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: NY
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................4

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................4

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

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................51

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 51

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 55

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................................................................56

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................56

Application of Special Rules....................................................................................................................71

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................73

SHSP Emphasis Areas..............................................................................................................................75

Groups of similar project types...............................................................................................................80

Systemic Treatments...............................................................................................................................85

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................91

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................93
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

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 CFE 924. MAP-21 reinforces 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, including non-State Department of 

Transportation's core program to proactively identify and correct high accident locations and progress 

safety projects that facilitate the goal of the program.

Emphasis Areas

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

outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) including pedestrian safety, improving safety at 

highway intersections, decreasing the number of crashes resulting from lane departures and enhancing 

safety in work zones. Site specific projects at high accident locations as well as low cost safety measures 

implemented widely across the network such as Center Line Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) and 

Pedestrian Countdown Timers are being implemented to meet crash goals.

HSIP Fund Administration

NYSDOT is using a hybrid approach to manage the Highway Safety Improvement Program which has 

essentially doubled in size under MAP-21. In FFY14, approximately half of the funds were provided to 

the NYSDOT regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The remaining half was 

administrated centrally by the Statewide Safety and System Optimization Team (SSO) who oversee a 

statewide solicitation for regionally significant safety projects. The statewide solicitation program funds 

the most cost effective safety projects and directs HSIP funds where they are the most needed 

regardless of ownership, mode or geographic restriction. In FFY13 and FFY14, the statewide program 

funded 10 local and 27 state projects for a total of approximately $83M. The FFY15-17 Statewide 

program is funding 14 local projects and 25 state projects for a total of about $82M for the 3 federal 

fiscal years.

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 key "priority result" or 

"emphasis" areas in order to utilize our fiscal and staff resources to greatest effect. The following 

initiatives support the "all public roads" mandate.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

• Locally owned and state owned projects complete equally for funds in the statewide solicitation 

program.

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

Systems (SIMS).

• Plans are underway to build a local GIS route system.

• Enhancements to the Accident Location Information System (ALIS), the Safety Information 

Management System (SIMS) and new Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS) will provide 

functionality that allows safety problem identification and countermeasures analysis to be done 

on the local system in a similar way as the state system.

• Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads.

Performance Indicators

The MAP-21 legislation integrates performance into the HSIP program. The number of fatalities and 

serious injuries and their associated rates have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 years 

as can be seen below. 

Annual - Crash Frequency and Rates

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Fatalities 1,434 1,454 1,332 1,238 1,158 1,201 1,171 1,180 1,199 1,059

Number of Serious Injuries 14,120 13,660 13,689 13,370 13,561 13,373 12,505 12,689 12,005 10,647

Fatality Rate 1.03 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.82

Serious Injury Rate 10.14 9.66 10.01 10.00 10.16 10.19 9.79 9.92 9.95 8.24

5 yr rolling average - Crash Frequency and Rates

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Fatalities 1,277 1,220 1,190 1,182 1,162

Number of Serious 

Injuries 13,531 13,300 13,100 12,827 12,224

Fatality Rate .94 .92 .91 .91 .9

Serious Injury Rate 10 10.03 10.01 9.86 9.48

Data Sources:
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Fatality Data 2004-2013: FARS

Fatality Data 2014: SIMS (preliminary)

Injury Data 2004-2014: SIMS

Fatality Data for 2014 is preliminary throughout the report

Injury Data for 2014 is preliminary throughout the report

Crash Statistics by Functional Classification and Ownership (question 25)

The number of crashes by functional classification and ownership are very general estimates. Functional 

Classification and Ownership are not available on crash reports. Therefore a spatial join was used to join 

the crash data to the inventory data in GIS. Since the linear referencing system is not yet available for the 

local system the majority of crashes on the local system will show up in the "Other" category using this 

method. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is not available by functional classification and ownership. 

Therefore, rates by functional classification and ownership were not provided.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other - In FFY14, approximately 50% of the HSIP funds were provided to the Regions according to a 

safety planning target formula. Most of the remaining funds were allocated to projects via a competitive 

application process.

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

Safety projects on all public roads in New York State including local roads are eligible to receive HSIP 

funds. In FFY14 approximately 50% of the available HSIP funds were allocated to the 11 regions in 

New York state based on a formula that included VMT, population and crashes. Fifty percent of the 

Region 11 allocation was provided to New York City for safety projects on local roads owned by New 

York City. The competitive application component of the HSIP program in New York State awarded 

funding to 24 local projects to be let between FFY 2013 - FFY 17 for a total of about $51M in HSIP 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

funding. In addition, 133 Capital Projects and/or Safety Capital Projects contained a local roads 

component. Approximately $6.5 million was spent in local funds on safety projects in 2014. Project 

improvements on local projects by type in 2014 are shown below.

Safety Improvement Number of Projects

Pedestrian (non-SRTS) 27

Bicycle 5

Highway Reconstruction/Widening/Overlay/New Construction 17

Intersection & Interchange Improvements 12

Traffic Signal Improvements 17

Pavement Markings/Resurfacing 3

Shared Path Usage 3

Signing 6

Clear Zone/Median barrier 2

Sight Distance Improvements/Drainage Rehab 3

RR Crossings 37

Interchange Reconstruction 1

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The New York State Department of Transportation formed a Statewide 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 Program 

Management and Coordination, System Optimization, Local Programs, Integrated Modal Services, 

Planning, Design and Transportation Maintenance. 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

• Monitoring regional programs over the life of the program to ensure safety and optimization 

goals are met.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Other: Other-There have been no changes to the HSIP administration process since the last reporting 

period.

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

would like to elaborate.

NYSDOT is continuing to use a hybrid approach to manage the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) which has essentially doubled in size under MAP-21. Approximately half of the funds have been 

provided to the NYSDOT Regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The remaining 

half is being administered centrally through competitive initiatives managed by the Statewide Safety and 

System Optimization Team. The competitive projects are selected via a statewide application process. 

The statewide solicitations support safety specific projects that direct safety funds where they are most 

needed by targeting locations, corridors, or areas demonstrating an advantageous benefit-cost ratio to 

reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. Funding has been awarded based on an evaluation of these 

projects to maximize investment in the most cost-effective safety projects. Successful proposals are 

consistent with the strategies and emphasis areas identified in the NYS Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other-Priority Investigation Locations (PILS) are identified where the crash rate is greater than the 

average for a similar road type. An annual work program is developed to investigate a percentage of the 

PILS and recommend safety counter measures.

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).
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Bicycle Safety
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Implementing CARDS 

on rural highways with specific 

characteristics.

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other- Locations are 

identified where the percentage 

of wet road accidents is twice 

the normal proportion for the 

Other Other 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

same county and facility type.

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Locations with low friction test 

numbers (FN40 of 32) require 

treatment.

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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.

Other-New York is currently working on a Lane Departure Action Plan. The plan will identify specific 

countermeasures for implementation under specific roadway conditions to decrease the number of lane 

departure crashes.

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

Local projects are usually identified when a municipality informs DOT of a safety issue or through MPO 

planning. Data that shows a safety issue is required to receive funding however a detailed analysis that 

identifies high accident locations is not.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

selection committee

Other- Regional HSIP projects based on recommendation noted above.

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

CARDS projects are selected 

regionally based upon priority 

and availablity of funding or via a 

statewide competitive 

application process.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

safety is incorporated into maintenance projects.

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

investigation.

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other- Many nominal safety improvements are incorporated into maintenance work

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Many nominal safety items 

are incorporated into 

maintenance activities.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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.

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

Local roads are always eligible for HSIP. Local roads are typically identified via local authorities or 

municipalities.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Crashes involving 

pedestrians

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Other Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Intersection features; 

speed limit etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

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

30

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Other: Other-New York State is in the process of developing 3 action plans that incorporate specific 

plans to decrease Pedestrian, Intersection and Lane Departure crashes.

Other: Other-New York State continues to conduct road safety audits on PILS during the year. We 

continue to implement both systemic and location specific counter measures to decrease fatal and 

serious injury crashes.

Other: Other-New York City implemented a Towards Zero Death action plan in 2014 and individual 

borough plans in 2015.

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

would like to elaborate. 

Improving highway safety for the traveling public is defined as a key emphasis area in New York State’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan and continues to be a high priority at NYSDOT. Safety objectives defined in 

the plan include improving safety for pedestrians, improving data analysis tools and capabilities, 

improving the design and operation of highway intersections, decreasing fatalities resulting from travel 

lane departures and improving work zone safety.

I. Pedestrian Safety

Each year, pedestrians are involved in approximately one-quarter of the fatal motor vehicle crashes that 

occur on New York State roadways. NYSDOT continues to look for solutions to improving the safety of all 

roadway users including pedestrians.

Safer Corridors for Pedestrians

In 2012 NYSDOT began developing 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 first project conducted was on the Hempstead Turnpike on Long Island. After a detailed study, 

improvements included: remarking and widening crosswalks, increasing pedestrian crossing times at 

signals, adding new crosswalks, adding latching pedestrian buttons, adding new signals, signal timing 

changes, bus stop re-locations and the installation of raised medians. These improvements were done 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

in conjunction with an enforcement blitz and education campaign targeting the contributing behaviors 

determined in the crash data review. The department is also working on improvements to the entire 

Sunrise Highway (Route 27) and Route 110 corridors; Route 5/Central Avenue and Hoosick Street (Route 

7) in the Albany Capital District and Route 59 in Rockland County. The improvements and action plans 

are expected to be very similar to what is being done on Route 24 (Hempstead Turnpike).

Complete Streets

On a statewide basis, the New York State Department of Transportation is currently applying Complete 

Street provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes. Complete Street design 

must be considered for county and local transportation projects that NYSDOT undertakes or for projects 

that receive federal and state funding and have NYSDOT oversight. Complete streets are designed and 

operated to enable safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders 

of all ages and abilities. An important component of the Complete Streets framework is a "Pedestrian 

Generator Checklist" which is used by planners and designers to identify a need for current or future 

pedestrian accommodations in our projects.

II. Improving Data Analysis Tools and Capabilities

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 (PIL’s). A subset of PILS 

are investigated every year for the purpose of identifying safety improvements. Crash data has 

traditionally included fatal, injury, property damage crashes over $1,000 (reportable PDO) and property 

damage accidents under $1,000 (non-reportable). Additional factors used in developing the Priority 

Investigation Locations (PIL’s) list are traffic volumes, divided or undivided and the number of travel 

lanes. All HSIP locations studied are on the “State System” with the exception of some New York City 

locations.

Status of Crash Data

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 New York’s data information needs. The 

State continues to use a strategic planning approach to improve its various information systems as 

articulated in the State’s Traffic Safety Information Systems Strategic Plan. The status of improvements 

that directly affect the Department’s SIMS are:

Crash Records

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

through 12/31/2014. 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.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Traffic & Criminal Software (TraCS)

New York State continues as an active participating state in the development and further refinement of 

the nationally developed software for electronic collection of ticket and traffic records. Use and 

Dissemination Agreements for use of the software have been signed by more than 469 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 March 31, 2015, 469 agencies are 

transmitting data through the TraCS system. This number will increase steadily as the software is 

deployed to additional agencies in future years. Consistent funding will be vital to achieving this goal. 

The software will reduce the workload at NYSDMV decreasing the time it takes to process each crash 

report. An upgrade was implemented to the "Spider" process which improves the data transmittal and 

processing between the State Police and all ticket and crash data users. In addition, there is an ongoing 

upgrade to the TraCS software which should help to improve data quality and reduce errors.

Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES)

The Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) allows for actual before and after project 

evaluations. The system allows for: verification that projected accident reductions reported as part of 

the Department’s safety goal are reasonable and accurate; quantitative measurements of the 

effectiveness of the Department’s overall capital program in improving highway safety (reducing 

accidents and safety benefit cost ratio); continued development of new accident reduction factors for 

accident countermeasures (shoulder rumble strips, roundabouts, and pavement surface treatments); 

and ensures that the mandated requirements are met.

Accident Location Information System (ALIS)

ALIS is a GIS web based accident location analysis tool that allows for geographic based crash analysis. 

This tool is available to all DOT employees, MPO’s, and county and local governments. All the MPO’s as 

well as New York City are using the analysis tool. This year the analysis tool was upgraded to improve 

performance and update the reporting functions to better align with the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program process. New functionality to compute accident rates for sections of roadway and a new tool 

for creating collision diagrams is being added in 2015.

Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS)

The roads and highways implementation contract was approved in July 2013. The goal of the project is 

to build a statewide linear referencing network with maintenance workflows that are sustainable and 

integrate NYS business systems with the Enterprise Linear Referencing System. This will enhance the 

ability to perform crash analysis on all public roads.

All Public Roads

MAP-21 requires that as part of a State's Highway Safety Improvement Program, a State shall have in 

place a safety data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure 

analysis to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

the safety data on all public roads, including non-State owned public roads and roads on tribal land. A 

major element toward reaching this goal is the development of local crash rates in order to conduct 

equitable safety analysis for both the state and local systems. In addition, NY needs to address the issue 

of advancing the capabilities of our traffic records system for data collection, analysis, and integration 

with other sources of safety data. The State continues to use a number of methods to evaluate how to 

reach the goal of developing and maintaining crash data for all public roads.

Accessing Crash Data

The Department currently has the ability to access crash data on both the state and the local system 

through the Accident Location Information System. The Department’s GIS based web application allows 

users to create Ad-Hoc queries on any public road for any time period; review MV104 data and 

diagrams, and produce a number of different types of reports. There are additional statistical filters 

available to allow the user to generate average frequency or expected percentages from a comparison 

area to assist in identifying "hot spots" for further analysis.

Traffic Counts

Traffic count AADT’s are required in order 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 York. The remaining 73,000 miles are primarily local streets. In order to 

improve the ability to develop crash rates for the local system, data collected under the Department’s 

legacy crash data system as well as the county traffic count program have been analyzed to determine 

the sample size and number of traffic count locations needed to develop a statistically valid average 

annual daily travel (AADT) or “exposure” rate for usage on the local road system. A contract to collect 

traffic counts on an extra 10,000 local (non-state, non-Federal Aid) locations over the next few years was 

approved. The goal is to count 10% of the local mileage in every municipality in New York State. The 

sample will provide a good foundation for producing statistically valid VMT estimates and average AADT 

numbers for local roads. The counts will allow the Department to establish more accurate crash rates for 

the local system similar to that for the state system.

The Department and counties continue to partner in a statewide county traffic count program designed 

to capture traffic volume data on county owned roads. 

The Department took traffic counts on over 4,700 miles of locally owned roads in 2014 and will 

continue this effort for the next year. Also, the FHWA requirements to expand the national highway 

information data base, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) to include traffic volume 

and physical characteristic data on all roads classified as Federal Aid eligible continues to add more 

counts and data elements to local federal aid eligible roads. Count stations are currently assigned to 

14,000 miles (centerline) of roads on the non-federal aid local system. 

Local Highway Route System

At this point in time, the Department does not have a complete and actively maintained Geographic 

Information System (GIS) for local roads. Without a local road based GIS route system, it is difficult to 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

conduct an analysis of crash data on the local system with any parity to the state system. A project is 

currently underway to build a local GIS system.

Compatibility of State and Local Crash Data Analysis

The current analysis tools in the Department’s Safety Information Management System (SIMS) need to 

be redesigned to work with a uniform GIS route system covering both state and local highways. The new 

analysis tools will need to be able to handle both local and state traffic volume data and highway 

characteristic information for all highways. Funding is in place to build these tools (SIMS-RIS-ALIS 

Integration Project). The redesigned system will be an interoperable system able to link crash and 

highway information to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis on the local 

system as is currently being done with the State system.

New Data Projects

The New York State Department of Transportation’s Office of Traffic Safety and Mobility is currently

initiating several new projects designed to support our Highway Safety Improvement Program by 

expanding our analysis capabilities and methods to include all public roads in the state and to improve 

the accuracy and completeness of the safety data used. Much of this work is being accomplished 

through Section 402 grants received from the Governors Traffic Safety Committee (GTSC).

The first project involves modifications to the Departments existing Accident Location Information 

System (ALIS). These changes will integrate the ALIS system with the Departments Enterprise Linear 

Referencing System to provide the necessary traffic volume and highway characteristics needed for the 

network screening analysis that identifies High Accident Locations (HALS). Additional functionality will 

be added to incorporate analysis techniques being developed by Federal Highway Administration to 

identify “systemic” opportunities for improving safety in addition to the HAL locations being treated.

The second project involves the collection of up to date, accurate, reference marker and intersection 

locations and attributes. This data will be used to support the new crash querying and analysis processes 

being developed for the Accident Location Information System (ALIS).

The third project is a long term, multi-agency effort to analyze opportunities to create a more complete 

safety dataset that is accessible to all the partner agencies. This project would determine what data 

could be linked between agencies, where redundant datasets or resources could be eliminated, and how 

access for additional users could be created. This project is designed to establish a strategic vision for 

the “Safety” related programs in New York State.

III. Highway Intersections

Approximately 40% of the crashes statewide between 2008 and 2013 occurred at intersections. As such, 

improving safety at intersections continues to be an area of focus for NYSDOT. According to NYSDOT’s 

PSS system there were 20 HSIP intersection reconstruction and signal upgrade projects programmed in 

SFY 14/15. New York is also in the process of developing an Intersection Safety Action Plan with the goal 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

of completing the plan in 2015. As can be seen from the graphic below, fatal and serious injury crashes 

at intersections have been on a general decline over the past 7 years. While there was an increase in 

2014 numbers, the trend is still generally downward.

Intersections

Year Fatalities

Serious 

Injuries

2008 423 5,678

2009 390 5,532

2010 376 5,286

2011 387 5,301

2012 406 5,280

2013 394 5,122

2014 407 5,295

IV. Travel Lane Departures

Fatalities and Serious Injuries resulting from lane departure crashes have been on a general downward 

trend over the last 10 years as can be seen from the chart below.

Lane Departures

Year Fatalities Serious Injuries

2005 486 3,318

2006 463 3,110

2007 434 3,227

2008 401 3,080

2009 343 3,037
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

2010 428 3,052

2011 357 2,850

2012 365 2,971

2013 378 2,707

2014 351 2,483

Despite the downward trend seen above, lane departures still account for more than 25% of all fatal and 

serious injury crashes and remains an emphasis area for the department. NYSDOT continues to 

implement countermeasures and programs to prevent lane departures crashes such as:

• Installing Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) on rural 2 lane roads that meet 

specific criteria

• Advancing shoulder improvement by incorporating the shoulder wedge joint requirement into 

Vendor Placed Paving contracts.

• Identifying and treating sections of pavement experiencing unusually high proportions of wet 

road accidents via the SKARP program

• Implementing site specific projects to correct geometric issues; and

• Identifying roadway characteristics that place roads at a higher risk for lane departure crashes 

with a goal of implementing additional systemic programs to prevent them. NYSDOT 

participated in a systemic analysis pilot with Cambridge Systematics. The pilot identified undivided rural roads with 2 lanes, 55 mph speed, an AADT between 3000-6000, a shoulder width 

between 1-3’ and a curve radius of 100-300 as having a high risk for lane departure crashes. As a 

result New York will be considering additional systemic counter measures on curves such as true 

wet reflective pavement marking, enhanced chevrons and high friction surface treatments in the 

future.

• Developing a Lane Departure Action Plan with the goal of completing the plan in 2015.

V. Work Zone Safety

In addition to regional and project based quality control and assurance activities, the Main Office 

conducts annual work zone safety inspections in each region to assess the overall quality of work zone 

traffic control statewide. Opportunities for improvement are identified and implemented via new 

policies, guidance, specifications or increased contract enforcement.

Accident data on construction and maintenance work zones are also tracked to help identify any 

accident trends. Work Zone Intrusions have varied over the last 5 years as shown in the table below.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

DOT Projects - Work Zone 

Intrusions

Year #

2010 21

2011 45

2012 51

2013 67

2014 40

VI. System-wide Treatments

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators

In 2010 the Department issued EI-10-030 - Rumble Strips - Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators 

(CARDS) - Guidance and Policy. This policy lays out the framework and criteria for installing centerline 

rumble-strips on eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at least 40mm of asphalt and 

meets the 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 January 2014, approximately 2,323.3 miles of 

CARDS have been installed with a goal to install 3,000 miles by 2017.

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 Program. The goal for pedestrian countdown timers is to 

ensure that they are installed at ALL eligible state owned signals. As of January 2015, countdown timers 

have been installed at approximately 2,556 (81%) of the 3,149 eligible signals. 

VII. Other

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP)

The SAFETAP, based on a Road Safety Audit approach, is a Department Program designed to ensure that 

roadside safety considerations are incorporated in the Department’s Preventive Maintenance single 

course overlay projects. Under SAFETAP, a team of agency experts conduct a project review of 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Preventive Maintenance Paving project sites for the purpose of deciding upon simple, low cost safety 

improvements to be implemented at the time of construction, or soon after construction. Over 8,000 

safety recommendations have been made as a result of the SFY 12/13, SFY 13/14 and SFY 14/15 safety 

reviews and over 3,000 of the recommendations have been completed.

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 treatment generally involves resurfacing with 11⁄2” top course (or 1⁄2” micro 

surfacing) containing non-polishing aggregates. The integrated approach used by NYSDOT in 

implementing SKARP involves close coordination among the Office of Traffic and Safety which has 

overall program monitoring and evaluation responsibilities, the Technical Services Division, which has 

assumed responsibility for friction testing and materials issues, and the Department’s eleven Regional 

Offices, which have responsibility for undertaking the remedial treatments. 

The frictional quality of NYSDOT owned pavements has improved since the programs inception. A 

summary of PIL testing from 1996 through 2014 shows a decline in the number of sites requiring 

treatment, from 91 sites in 1996 to 13 sites in 2014. 

Shoulder Wedge Joints

NYSDOT has incorporated the shoulder wedge joint requirement into Vendor Place Paving contracts. 

The installation of shoulder wedge joints in paving applications provides a ramp type pavement edge. 

The wedge reduces sudden loss of vehicle control by the driver due to vertical drop off.

Traffic Control Signals

In addition to the Pedestrian Countdown timers noted above, NYSDOT continues to deploy “2070” 

traffic signal controllers. This allows the Department to adopt the National Transportation 

Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Standards, deploy closed loop systems to monitor/operate 

signals remotely from Transportation Management Centers as well as operate other communication 

technologies (variable message signs, radio, video cameras, etc.) to improve the safety and performance 

of the highway corridor.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 83802987 47 % 81286987 49 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 205232 0 % 76600 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

35330946 20 % 25943359 16 %

State and Local Funds 59020264 33 % 57648213 35 %
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Other Other 0 0 % 0 0 %

Totals 178359429 100% 164955159 100%

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

$53,996,350.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$54,476,056.00

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

$7,397,703.00

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

$7,397,703.00

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

period?
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Impediments to obligating HSIP funds include project delays for reasons not limited to just safety 

projects such as environmental approvals, right of way/easement issues, community issues, other 

funding needs, resource issues, historic issues, NYS permit issues etc. 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 Solicitation Program

The application process for the statewide HSIP solicitation program, which currently accounts for 50% of 

the HSIP program, 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 implemented a statewide regional 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.

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
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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

which typically have less impediments to a timely implementation.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

No additional information regarding HSIP funding.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

A listing of projects 

with authorized 

HSIP funds from 

2006 to the 

present is 

attached. See main 

menu question #23 

- General Listing of 

Projects.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 1277 1220 1190 1182 1162

Number of serious injuries 13531 13300 13100 12827 12244

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.9

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

10 10.03 10.01 9.86 9.48

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

10.8 63 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1 9.6 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

40.8 234 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

62.4 415.6 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

57 359 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

60.2 450.2 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

5.8 54.8 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 37.6 342 0 0
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

44.6 352.4 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

213 2275.8 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

221.4 2529.2 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

95.6 1136.4 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

38.2 525.2 0 0

OTHER OR UNKNOWN 274 3476 0 0
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 393.8 3146.8 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 181.2 1438.6 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 49.4 422 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 247.8 3606.8 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 1.2 10.2 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0.2 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0.4 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0.4 2.2 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 12.8 108.6 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0.2 8.4 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 1.8 6 0 0
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

OTHER 252.8 2980.4 0 0

UNKNOWN 21 493 0 0
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

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

Since 2000 the number of fatal crashes in New York State has been on a general downward trend. The 

number of fatalities dropped from 1,444 in 2000 to 1,199 in 2013. The fatality rate per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased from 1.13 in 2,000 to .92 in 2013. New York’s fatality rate per 

100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled has been below the national level every year between 2000 and 

2013.

The number of serious injuries has also been on a downward trend. The number of serious injuries in 

New York decreased from 14,466 in 2004 to less than 12,000 in 2013.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

1.74 1.68 1.58 1.54 1.5

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

7.64 7.66 7.6 7.54 7.62

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

9.38 9.3 9.14 9.04 9.08

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

2013 Rolling Average Calculation:

(F+SI) 2013 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2013 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2012 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure) + (F+SI) 2011 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2011 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2010 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2010 Population Figure)+ (F+SI) 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age 

and older/2009 Population Figure)/5 = 9.08

Note: 2014 data is not available 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Decrease in Fatalities and Injuries

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-NYSDOT continues to include local roads in the HSIP program; implement projects to 

decrease fatal and serious injuries and implement the strategies outlined in the SHSP.

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

New York State is in the process of developing the following three safety action plans. The 

recommendations and strategies from the action plans will be incorporated into an updated SHSP.

• Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

• Intersection Safety Action Plan

• Lane Departure Safety Action Plan
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 376 2813 0.29 2.18 0 0 0

Intersections 393 5197 0.3 4.02 0 0 0

Pedestrians 304 2066 0.24 1.53 0 0 0

Bicyclists 45 625 0.03 0.48 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 169 1139 0.13 0.88 0 0 0
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

85

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No additional items to report at this time.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

Optional 

question. 

No 

information 

to report at 

this time.
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP-HRRR Obligations and Adv Const 2006-

Present 3-31-2015 Question 23.xlsx
2015 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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