Page 1 of 75

PENNSYLVANIA

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

Photo Source: 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Highway Safety and Traffic Operations 

Division

0 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 75

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 ....................................................................................................................... 9

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................32

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................32

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................36

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................44

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................44

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................50

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................52

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................54

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................54

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................54

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................59

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................70

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................74

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................75
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 75

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.”
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 75

Executive Summary

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is pleased to present this 2021 Annual Report of our progress 

with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. In 2021, 1,129 people lost their lives on Pennsylvania's 

roadways. This was an increase of 70 fatalities from the 1,059 fatalities in 2019. While overall fatalities went up 

there were some areas where fatal crashes decreased from the previous year. Those crash types included 

pedestrians, alcohol related, stop controlled intersections, heavy truck crashes, crashes involving 65+ 

year-old drivers, and crashes involving 16 or 17-year-old drivers. Some specific areas that fatal crashes 

increased were unrestrained, motorcyclist, speeding, signalized intersections, and lane departures. To reach 

our ultimate goal of zero deaths on our roads, our journey includes ongoing work on both the behavioral side of 

crash causations as well as continuing to improve our highway infrastructure.

Since the last Annual Report, we have maintained our progress on several key initiatives. Pennsylvania is still 

using HSM based network screening to identify locations for safety improvement projects in all 67 counties. To 

increase our evaluation abilities PennDOT worked with Penn State University and several consultants to 

develop a new Highway Safety Network Screening (HSNS). The new network screening was completed in 

June 2021. HSIP funds were utilized to complete the new network screening. PennDOT is currently in the 

process of having the new HSNS input into color coded GIS maps. The new network screening added many 

new aspects and updated some others. The changes or enhancements in PennDOT’s latest HSNS include:

• Urban and rural are now identified by US census data urban and rural area maps with some MPO 

adjustments. In the past PennDOT used the municipality’s classification as urban or rural. Some 

municipalities classified as rural actually fell into urban areas based on the US Census maps. This 

change to urban and rural data allowed the screening process to correctly select the best fitting SPF.

• New SPFs for urban/suburban Collector roads were included. In the past we used Urban Arterial SPFs. 

While this method is commonly used across the country, the introduction of Pennsylvania specific SPFs 

for urban-suburban collectors contributed to a better screening. 

• Thousands of additional sites were added sites were added for our conventional highways and all 

previously screened locations were updated with current data

• All freeway segments, speed change lanes, ramp segments, and ramp terminals were added to the 

statewide network screening. This was possible since the AASHTO 2014 SPFs for freeways and ramps 

were calibrated for Pennsylvania.

PennDOT has also completed calibration for roundabout SPFs based on the research in NCHRP Research 

Report 888. These calibrated SPFs will be used to screen and evaluate the roundabouts across the state. With 

PennDOT only have several dozen roundabouts built with many more in planning and design, we will revisit 

the calibration effort in a few years.

Next PennDOT updated our safety analysis tools. PennDOT’s Tool A & B HSM Analysis tools were completely 

updated. To provide clarity in benefit cost analysis PennDOT adopted the FHWA’s Countermeasure Service 

Life Guide that was just published in March 2021. 

This was PennDOT’s second year under the FAST Act where the Department had to complete a HSIP 

Implementation Plan. The updated data was submitted to the FHWA on June 30, 2020. PennDOT once again 

hired a consultant team to help review the HSIP program’s 2016 and 2017 projects. This update reviewed the 

similar statistics from the first Implementation Plan and updated the charts, graphs and tables with the new 

data. The finding if the updated Implementation plan really didn’t change in the second edition. We did act on 

some of the action points from the first Implementation plan. One of those areas was creating a force account 

policy for municipalities to perform low cost safety improvements on their own roads with their own road crews. 

This should greatly enable systemic based safety improvements to thousands of locations across the 

Commonwealth. This policy, which will be located in PennDOT Publication 638, is currently going through 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 75

PennDOT Clearance Transmittal process for approval. We hope to start some low cost safety projects on local 

streets in 2022.

PennDOT is currently in the process of updating our State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). We are 

reviewing data to measure the success of the 2017 SHSP and to determine what new strategies we should 

add, what existing strategies should continue, need modified, what strategies and actions have been 

implemented, and if any current strategies should be removed. Several steering committees made up of a 

diverse group of individuals from different aspects of transportation are working to develop a new SHSP that 

will push Pennsylvania forward in reducing fatal and injury crashes.

Finally, with the changes in traffic patterns and volumes due to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine 

measures the transportation industry has likely seen a major change. Teleworking for many office type jobs 

has become a normal practice for many businesses. What were once congested roadways to large office 

centers now have major traffic volume decreases, the need for large parking complexes has diminished in 

many urban centers, and some business centers have closed or downsized with no intention to have business 

return. We have also seen an increase in the home delivery service sector. This typically means there is a 

need for more commercial traffic to deliver goods from large warehouse facilities directly to a person’s home. 

The long-term effects of this change in traffic on highway safety are not know but will be monitored and studied 

by the Department and its partners to determine how to move forward and still work toward a safer 

transportation system in the Commonwealth. While a lot of work remains to reach our goal of reducing highway 

fatalities to zero by 2050, we remain encouraged by the progress that has been made in certain areas and the 

opportunities for the future.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 75

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. 

HSIP projects are identified by using data driven safety analysis which includes crash data, predictive analysis 

methods, or by implementing known systemic safety improvements identified by the Highway Safety & Traffic 

Operations Division. Project locations and systemic project scopes are developed by the Engineering Districts 

and /or the regional planning partners. These project proposals are then sent to PennDOT’s Highway Safety & 

Traffic Operations Division (HSTOD) for a technical review and then to the Center for Program Development 

and Management for funding and fiscal review. Then the FHWA Division office finance team reviews the 

financial documents for completeness. Projects are selected for implementation based on the projected safety 

benefit of the safety countermeasures and the allowable funding. Projects are then developed and designed by 

the Engineering Districts. The Engineering Districts let the construction projects (Letting is the day construction 

project bids are received for the project and the lowest bidder is shown), provide construction inspection and 

oversight. As part of the annual HSIP report, HSTOD evaluates projects before and after the project was 

constructed to determine a perceived net benefit based the reduction of fatal, injury, and property damage only 

crashes. PennDOT also tracks the implementation of systemic improvements like rumble strips, High Friction 

Surface treatments, and High Tension Cable Median Barrier. (PennDOT also reviews the effect of common 

location specific projects like adaptive traffic signal controllers.) A network analysis of these systemic 

improvements is completed when there is enough data in a given time span. Currently PennDOT is short on 

staff to do these evaluations, so we have a backlog of research projects. PennDOT has also implemented a 

minimum BCR of 1.0 for spot location safety projects. Districts and MPOs are supposed to select locations that 

have a safety need either by using excess crash values or excess crash cost values.

PennDOT also has a biennial set aside program. Every odd numbered year PennDOT allows the eleven 

engineering Districts and regional planning partners apply for HSIP funds to complete safety projects. The 

projects must use a systemic safety approach and include a HSM analysis and benefit cost analysis. Every 

year $35 million is set aside and every competitive set aside period covers $70 million HSIP funds. 

Pennsylvania's local municipalities may apply for a project through their MPO/RPO. This set aside program is 

now a policy in PennDOT Publication 638.

PennDOT is currently in the process of creating a policy for force account HSIP projects on local roads using 

local municipalities' work forces to complete low cost safety improvements. We are hopeful the new Local 

Force Account Guidelines can be completed by the end of 2021. This new policy will be incorporated into 

PennDOT's Publication 638 chapter 6.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Engineering and Planning
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 75

Staff for the Pennsylvania HSIP are located in PennDOT's Central office in the Highway Safety Section, The 

Center for Program Development and Management (CPDM), the eleven Engineering Districts, and our various 

MPOs and RPOs.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via MPOs

$35 Million per year is set aside for competitive funding awards. The remaining amount of yearly HSIP funds 

are divided among the MPOs and RPOs based on the weighted distribution of fatal and injury crash and the 

number of PDO crashes. The MPO that receives the most regionally allocated funds every year is the DVRPC 

(Greater Philadelphia Area) and the area(s) that receive the least yearly HSIP funds are Wayne 

County(Northeast corner) and Adams County (Gettysburg Area).

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

Local highways (those not owned and maintained by the Commonwealth) make up two-thirds of the 

approximately 120,000 miles of highways in Pennsylvania. These roads are owned by the 2,561 municipalities 

across the state. In 2020 19.8% of highway fatalities occurred on the local road network. Local highway 

fatalities increased from 186 in 2019 to 224 in 2020. Local road fatalities have hovered above or below 

200/year over the past two decades with the highest total of 290 in the year 2001 and the lowest count of 163 

in the year 2002. 

To more accurately determine local roads safety needs, PennDOT was able to create local road cluster lists for 

each municipality. Each list has the street name and how many fatal and injury crashes occurred on that local 

road within that municipality. Specific locations on local roads could not be provided on the list since 

segmenting local roads has not been completed yet. PennDOT does have plans to collect more traffic data on 

local roads using HSIP funds. Soon local roads will be segmented to help pinpoint crash locations through 

ARNOLD. PennDOT has already collected more local road traffic volumes to help expand HSM based network 

screening efforts. Also, the PennDOT PCIT tool allows the public to see where crashes occurred on a local 

road through a map feature. These new local cluster lists were provided to the PA LTAP and the PennDOT 

Engineering districts to determine better locations for local safety improvements.

PennDOT along with LTAP and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) 

conducted technical reviews on local roads which suggested low-cost safety projects. PennDOT provided 

direction for the studies which are conducted by LTAP consultant staff. The studies resulted in dozens of safety 

analysis reports that have an itemized list of safety countermeasures ready for a construction contract or force 

account work. LTAP also provides training to municipalities for a variety of subjects including highway safety.

PennDOT is actively working on policy changes to implement force account safety work on local roads using 

HSIP funds. PennDOT will update their Publication 638 to include the new HSIP local force account guidelines. 

The policy updated should be completed by late 2021. 

Local municipalities remain engaged in the enforcement, education and emergency response side of highway 

safety through NHTSA grants. These behavioral safety efforts are detailed in the Pennsylvania HSP report 

submitted to NHTSA every year.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 75

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Engineering Districts, Planning Organizations, Program Center

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Design – Designers manage safety projects through the design contract process out to construction 

Districts – Districts implement highway safety projects selected for construction

Governors Highway Safety Office- In Pennsylvania this falls under PennDOT and combines its behavioral 

efforts with Safety Engineering efforts (Doesn't use HSIP funds)

Maintenance – Maintenance helps to select projects and then has the task to maintain the projects. In 

Pennsylvania Highway Safety falls under the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations 

Operations – Highway Safety is part of the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations. As we move forward with 

autonomous vehicles and vehicle to infrastructure technologies this group will play a bigger role in safety.

Planning – Programs funding for safety projects and manages the obligation of safety funds.

Highway Safety & Traffic Operations – Lead Division that manages the HSIP program across the state 

(HSTOD). All highway safety activities and policies are managed by the Highway Safety Section within the 

HSTOD. Updates PennDOT Publication 638 to reflect the regulations and policies of the HSIP and SHSP. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

PennDOT works with Universities (Academia) to produce research into safety programs. PennDOT routinely 

uses university support to develop and update SPFS, CMFs, and evaluate countermeasure effectiveness. 

FHWA is involved in the HSIP program in all aspects. They provide final approval on HSIP funded projects, 

national guidance for the HSIP funding program, and participate in monthly coordination for all safety related 

topics.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 75

Gov. Highway Safety Office deals with driver behavior and research aspects of highway safety. This office 

supports the NHTSA grant funded programs. (No HSIP funds.)

Law enforcement & public education partners are involved in many Behavioral safety programs such as 

reducing Impaired driving, increasing seatbelt use, speed enforcement, aggressive driving enforcement, 

reducing districted driving, mature driver safety, motorcycle safety training, young & inexperienced driver 

training, enhancing safety on local roads, and several other topics. 

Local Government Agencies like PSATS and PSABS help provide safety training to municipalities. This is done 

through the Pennsylvania LTAP which uses consultant staff. The LTAP program is administered through a 

contract with PSATS. 

Regional Planning Organizations help to implement HSIP funded projects. 

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period.

Allocation of HSIP funds to Regional Planning patterns was updated based on the new 2020 data. Several new 

options were proposed for distribution of regional funds. The CPDM chose to keep with existing distribution 

method only changing the proportional allocation based on the new 2020 crash data severity distributions.

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

elaborate. 

The HSIP Program fully aligns with the 2017 Pennsylvania Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The 

Pennsylvania SHSP is currently in the revision process for the 5-year update.

PennDOT has updated its network screening in all 67 counties expanding to urban collector roadways and 

Freeways and Ramps. The network screening is discussed in more detail in other parts of this report. The 

network screening used HSIP funds from District safety projects that have fallen behind on their delivery 

schedules and now require funds in later years. 

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 

PennDOT Publication 638 chapter 6 covers the HSIP for Pennsylvania. You can view the publication from 

PennDOT's website. PennDOT is currently in the process of updating Chapter 6 to include local road force 

account projects and to also clarify benefit cost analysis by fixing countermeasure service life. Countermeasure 

service life for HSIP application BCAs will refer to the countermeasure life provided in the FHWA's 

Countermeasure Service Life Guide (FHWA-SA-21-021). When the updates are completed a new version will 

be added to the PennDOT website. 

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 75

• HSIP (no subprograms)

• Intersection

• Left Turn Crash

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Safe Corridor

• Shoulder Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Older Drivers

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

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 • Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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 roads do not have as much detail as state owned roads. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 75

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:6/19/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional, HSIP set Aside, and State 715 Safety Funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 75

• 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

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:6/26/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Old Surface Transportation Act requirement no longer required by FAST Act

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-FAST Act Penalty

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-Number of crashes

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 75

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:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:7/11/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP

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

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 75

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

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional, HSIP set Aside, and State 715 Safety Funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 75

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:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-ISIP 

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 75

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:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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.

We have establish local road high crash locations from ranking each street name by fatal/injury 

crashes. Spreadsheets were completed for every municipality using 5 year crash data.

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 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 75

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:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:3/2/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• 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
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 75

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:5/29/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Median width

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-median slopes/crosssection

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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?

• 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).
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 75

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 75

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP funds and State 715 safety funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-Exhibit 3-15 from AASHTO’s 2004, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 

• Other-MUTCD Table 2C.05

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 75

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Old surface Transportation Act

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• 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

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 75

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:8/6/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Program set up by PA Act 229

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Other-Process to identify these locations is in PennDOT Publication 638 Chapter 5

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.

We have established local road high crash locations from ranking each street name by fatal/injury 

crashes. Spreadsheets were completed for every municipality using 5 year crash data.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness:2
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 75

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Maintenance and Highway Safety 

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 • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 75

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Wet road, SVROR and 

HFO

• Roadside features

• Other-Skid testing

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 75

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:5/27/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP regional allocations, HSIP set aside, and state 715 safety funds

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal crashes only • Other-none • Functional classification

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?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Other-Older Drivers

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 75

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-(FAST) Act Special Rule

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

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?

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 30

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 75

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• 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

• Other-RDIP, ISIP, and other specific countermeasure crash lists that include high tension cable median 

barriers and wrong way crash lists

• Other-Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP)

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

As a state that has always been at the forefront of innovation and industry, it should come as no surprise that 

Pennsylvania is at the very epicenter of the rise in Automated Vehicles (AVs). Pennsylvania’s world-class 

research universities have continually served as a breeding ground for technological advances, with Carnegie 

Mellon University known as the “birthplace of self driving vehicles.” Since 2011, Pennsylvania has emerged as 

a leading location for on-road testing of AVs as they steadily advance toward practical use. As of August 2021, 

there are nine authorized AV testers in Pennsylvania – Aptiv, Argo AI, Aurora, Carnegie Mellon University, 

Locomotion, Nvidia, Plus AI, and Qualcomm. Base on the information the testers provided PennDOT, testing is 

expected to occur in 56 of our 67 counties, with 42% of counties expected to have two or more active testers.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) supports the advancement of automation through 

various ways including the deployment of Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) and Cellular 

Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) Roadside Units (RSUs) at select signalized intersections to enable 

communications between the vehicles and the infrastructure. Currently, there are 54 connected intersections, 

including 8 in Harrisburg and 24 in Pittsburgh, with plans to install an additional 200 in the coming years. In 

2016, PennDOT formed both the Pennsylvania AV Policy Task Force and the Smart Belt Coalition, to ensure 

Pennsylvania aligns with industry and national best practices. The Task Force is made up of a diverse and 

comprehensive set of stakeholders, including representatives from federal, state and local government, law 

enforcement, technology companies, higher education, manufacturers, motorists and trucking groups, and 

academic research institutions. The Smart Belt Coalition is a first-of-its-kind collaboration between PennDOT, 

PTC, Ohio DOT, the Ohio Turnpike, and Michigan DOT and universities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan 

with a focus on automated and connected vehicle initiatives across jurisdictional boarders.

In 2020, the Smart Belt Coalition conducted a demonstration of interstate platooning operations to test the 

administrative and procedural requirements necessary for a truck platooning system to operate continuously 

through a multi-jurisdictional environment. The lessons learned from the demonstration will allow for Coalition 

members to align processes with best practices to the extent allowable by existing state regulations.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 75

PennDOT has also been active in national efforts to develop uniform standards and practices for automated 

vehicles. With the pace of automated vehicle innovation accelerating, Transportation Secretary Yassmin 

Gramian, P.E. is challenging PennDOT to take action to sustain Pennsylvania’s leadership in automated 

vehicle research, while simultaneously ensuring that public safety remains the paramount priority as AVs are 

tested on the roadways. PennDOT recently completed a 7-month effort to update Pennsylvania’s Highly 

Automated Vehicle Testing Guidance. This nationally recognized guidance focuses on the human safety driver, 

training, and safety culture of a tester rather than the technical aspects of the vehicle.

In Spring 2018, PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and Penn State University have partnered 

to develop PennSTART, a state-of-the-art training and testing facility to address the transportation safety and 

operational needs of Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic Region. PennSTART will address safety training and 

research needs in six key areas: traffic incident management (TIM); connected and automated vehicles; tolling 

and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology; work zones; commercial vehicles; and transit vehicles. 

The PennSTART team completed the systems engineering, including Concept of Operations, Facility 

Requirements, Business Plan, and Market Analysis Study, in summer 2020.

In Fall 2019, PennDOT was awarded a $8.4 million Automated Driving System (ADS) Demonstration Grant to 

explore the safe integration of automated vehicles in work zones. Through the department’s oversight, it has 

become clear that AVs do not perform well in the work zones and routinely require human intervention. In 

many cases, testers try to avoid work zones altogether. Unlike other AV challenges, such as variable weather 

conditions, work zones offer a unique opportunity for industry and the public sector to collaborate to resolve 

this issue and safely advance ADS technology. Through the ADS grant, PennDOT plans to develop a 

consistent approach to allow for AVs to safely operate in work zones. Knowing that there is unlikely single 

solution, the PennDOT is looking as variety of methods including (i) Connectivity between AVs and work zone 

artifacts using connectivity equipment (DSRC and C-V2X radios), (ii) innovative coating for pavement marking 

and work zone artifacts, (iii) high definition work zone mapping using Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR), 

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and cameras, and (iv) integration of simulation-based analysis of traffic 

impacts with data obtained from closed-track and live-traffic studies.

Since Winter 2020, Personal Delivery Devices have been allowed to operate on sidewalks and roadways in the 

Commonwealth. PennDOT developed a policy with outlines the operational guidelines for PDDs and the 

information which must be submitted to ensure safe operations on public infrastructure. As of August 2021, 

there is one PDD operator authorized in Pennsylvania – Kiwibot.

Connected and automated vehicle technologies will change the transportation decision-making process 

throughout Pennsylvania. To ensure Pennsylvania stays at the forefront, PennDOT is actively working to 

educate key stakeholders and the public about the impact and benefits of this emerging technology. PennDOT 

has arrange for connected and automated vehicle demonstrations to key transportation and Legislative 

officials. Over 200 riders had an opportunity to experience first-hand the capabilities of connected and 

automated vehicles, including Governor Tom Wolf, members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate 

Transportation Committees, several cabinet-level secretaries, and various local officials. The demonstration 

allowed participants to develop an understanding of how technological advances are being adapted and 

implemented in this rapidly advancing field here in Pennsylvania. PennDOT continues to organize the 

Pennsylvania Automated Vehicle Summit. The 2019 Summit had 400+ attendees and discussions focusing on 

a variety of themes including safety, infrastructure planning, workforce & economic development, equity, 

system validation, and data. The two overarching goals were to encourage interchange and collaboration 

between stakeholders and provide a foundational understanding of automate vehicles.

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

Yes
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 75

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

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation updated Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive 

Analysis Methods Manual, (SPAMM) in May 2021. The updates greatly expanded the publication from its 

original edition released in 2017. The new edition added many new aspects to safety prediction analysis. 

These included adding three new chapters:

• Chapter 3: Freeway and Ramp PA Calibration Factors 

• Chapter 4: PA Network Screening Process 

• Chapter 5: HSM Part D CMF Methods

o This chapter shows how to use the properly user the four methods to combine part D CMFs. 

The methods include Multiplicative, Additive, Common Dominate Residuals, and Dominate 

Effect.

So the definition changes were made along with two new examples on how to use predictive analysis from 

start to finish. References to Pennsylvania’s outdated CMF guide were removed. The updates also added the 

new urban-suburban collector road SPFs along with the calibration factors for using the AASHTO 2014 

Freeway and Ramps SPFs. The network screening chapter is specific to Pennsylvania’s method of using 

predictive analysis methods to determine safety need at segments and intersections.

In June 2021 PennDOT completed its second edition of a statewide network screening using excess crash 

frequency method with cost weighting. The locations for each county are now ranked based on weighting the 

expected F&I crash frequency with the PDO crash frequency for a combined excess crash cost frequency. The 

costs used are based on those in PennDOT’s yearly Crash Facts and Statistics Book . The new network 

screening added thousands of new conventional highway segments and intersections. The locations include 

1,099 local roads that intersect with state roads. All of the previous screened locations were reevaluated to 

determine if any new SPFs are a better fit. All locations were also evaluated to determine if they met the new 

urban and rural criteria. In the previous network screening locations were determined to be urban or rural by 

the municipality designation. For the second edition PennDOT used census data maps to better identify if a 

location was urban or rural. There were several locations from pervious the previous network screening that 

changed to urban and thus were evaluated differently. The largest change to the network screening was the 

addition of evaluating all freeway segments, speed change lanes, ramp segments, and ramp terminals. The 

new screening is currently in the process of getting mapped into GIS. All 67 counties’ top intersection and top 

segment locations were studied by a consultant engineer and a one-page study brief was developed to help 

each planning partner and Engineering District start the process of programming safety projects based on the 

new network screening.

PennDOT also completed comprehensive updates to our HSM analysis tools. The well known Tools A and B 

now include the SPFs for urban-suburban collector roads and part D CMFs were revised to remove CMFs that 

were no longer used replace them with newer CMFs that were more relevant to projects PennDOT has done in 

the past. These new tools were published to PennDOT’s safety website located at: 

https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Pages/Safety-Infrastructure-Improvement-Programs.aspx .

PennDOT has started the process to create new HSM practitioner-based training videos. The first of these 

short videos will cover the network screening process and what the network screening can be used for. 

PennDOT is currently working with consultants and Penn State University on these video projects. Other 

videos will be produced to cover other aspects practitioners commonly have questions about.

PennDOT is updating its PennDOT specific in-person HSM class. The class is 1 1⁄2 days long. The class was 

taught by national experts from Kittelson Associates in the past. The class teaches both the national and state 

SPF models and provides an entire afternoon of hands on use of PennDOT’s HSM analysis tool. 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 75

Finally, PennDOT will incorporate more HSM based decisions into our design manuals. Work is underway to 

include these safety performance-based criteria and engineering methods.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period.

PennDOT recently updated our network screening which is used to select HSIP projects. The network 

screening now includes F&I Excess Crashes along with PDO excess crashes which are used to calculate a 

locations excess yearly crash value. This is used to rank locations for safety need. Along with this we are 

requiring Districts to use a standardized countermeasure service life developed by the FHWA.

PennDOT is also in the process of updating our Publication 638 chapter 6 which is PennDOT’s HSIP 

guidelines. The major changes to the publication include adding local force account guidelines so 

municipalities with roadcrews can install their own signs and pavement markings. These updates should be 

completed by October 2021. 

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

elaborate.

The following noteworthy practices have been identified in Pennsylvania's recently updated HSIP 

Implementation Plan:

Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Implementation - A decade ago, PennDOT recognized that there were 

significant shortfalls in only using site-specific historical crash data as the basis for evaluating highway safety 

issues. At the same time, AASHTO published the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and provided new tools, 

techniques, and methodologies for predicting safety performance and determining appropriate responses that 

would reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Pennsylvania was one of the early leaders in 

implementing the HSM and integrating it into PennDOT’s project development processes. Some specific 

examples include:

- PennDOT now requires that the HSM be used in analysis of alternatives and in request for design exceptions 

if the design exceptions involves safety features adequately addressed in the HSM. It must also be used in 

preparing any HSIP application.

- To support these changes, PennDOT has provided multiple rounds of HSM training to their Headquarters and 

District offices. The training offers hands-on exercises that provide realistic examples of how to apply the HSM 

in Pennsylvania.

- PennDOT has made extensive efforts to fully “localize” the HSM tools. Models for rural two-lane roads, rural 

multilane highways, urban and suburban arterials, and collectors were developed specifically for Pennsylvania. 

Recognizing the wide variety of conditions in the state, SPFs in some Pennsylvania-specific models have been 

taken down to the County level.HSM models for freeways and ramps were recently calibrated for Pennsylvania 

conditions.

Data Analysis – Using a combination of HSM tools and Pennsylvania’s own extensive crash data system, 

PennDOT has done network screening of potential safety issues in all 67 counties and has made those results 

available to the districts. In addition, Pennsylvania established a tracking system for any project receiving HSIP 

funds, including systemic projects, which includes before-and-after crash data for those locations. This allows 

PennDOT to continually evaluate the effectiveness of particular safety countermeasures and determine where 

they have the greatest impact.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 75

Innovative Safety Countermeasures – PennDOT has been one of the early adopters of proven safety 

countermeasures, including a broad application of high friction paving surfaces that have been deployed where 

risk factors indicate high value. These include implementing Safety-Edge as a default standard in resurfacing 

jobs, establishing a statewide roundabout coordinator to facilitate broader use of roundabouts, and 

coordinating the use of Central Office open-end contracts to help the districts implement these projects. 

PennDOT has also implemented systemic improvements to rapidly deploy countermeasures, like centerline 

and edge-of-road rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and high-tension cable median barrier.

Institutionalizing Safety Processes - PennDOT recently updated its Publication 638,The District Highway 

Safety Guidance Manual, to incorporate changes in the HSIP program and updates to Pennsylvania’s crash 

data reporting tools. They are also integrating the concepts of the HSM into the state’s policies and practices 

and createdPublication 638A Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis Methods Manual for people to use when 

completing safety analysis (additional discussion of the changes toPublication 638 follow).

Intersection Safety – As noted earlier, addressing intersection crashes is one of the Key Safety Priority Areas 

in Pennsylvania’s SHSP, accounting for 21% of the annual fatalities and 30% of serious injuries. To improve 

safety and mobility at these crossings, PennDOT has developed an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) 

policy that enables users to consistently consider multiple proven geometry and traffic control strategies for 

either new intersections or modifications to existing intersections.

Supporting Local Road Safety - Although HSIP funds are not currently used on local roads in Pennsylvania, 

PennDOT has developed multiple tools and resources for local governments to improve roadway safety. 

PennDOT’s PCIT tool allows the public and municipalities to see where fatal and serious injury (F+SSI) 

crashes occurred on their local roads through a new map feature. PennDOT has also worked with the state’s 

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) staff to conduct 23 technical safety reviews on local roads, which 

resulted in an itemized list of safety countermeasures ready for a construction contract or force account work.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 75

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

The state fiscal year for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania starts on July 1st every year and end on June 

30th the following year. So for this reporting period of the HSIP annual report the dates are July 1, 2020 to 

June 30, 2021. 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $101,267,766 $89,673,041 88.55%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$103,234 $103,234 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $10,000,000 $10,000,000 100%

Totals $111,371,000 $99,776,275 89.59%

HSIP/HRRR Programmed/Obligated amounts are reported by state fiscal year ending June 30th to match our 

Project Listing (question #29).

The NTSHA penalty funds and the RHCP funds are reported on in different reports. Those programmed and 

obligated fund numbers can be found in those respective reports. 

We are unable to provide an answer for "other federal funds" for safety projects due to limitations of query 

tools.

Pennsylvania sets aside $10 million dollars of State transportation maintenance funds every year for low cost 

safety improvements on state highways. Due to the pandemic and budget concerns, these funds were 

permitted to be used for regular maintenance activities in addition to safety improvements in 2020-21.

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

safety projects?

$7,500,000
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 75

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

$4,800,000

We have one large locally owned road HSIP project in the city of Pittsburgh. The project is on Liberty Avenue. 

We expect the bid for this project to have the bid opening in March 2022. The project is a road diet which will 

also implement signal upgrades and pedestrian upgrades. 

PennDOT no longer provides HSIP set aside funding to the PA LTAP program. 

The other local funds are for MIRE FDE collection on locally owned roads. The major cost in this is collecting 

traffic volume counts on thousands of roads each year to meet the Sept. 2026 deadline imposed by the FAST 

Act. The funding is $1.5 million in FFY 2022. We anticipate providing $1.0 Million for this effort in FFY 2023 

and 2024.

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

$1,500,000

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

$1,500,000

As mentioned before we are providing HSIP funds to collect MIRE FDE data to meet the Sept. 2026 FAST Act 

deadline.

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

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

$0

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

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

$0

No funds are transferred to HSIP or from HSIP.

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

the future.

There are a few Engineering Districts that have encountered project delivery challenges in the development of 

HSIP funded safety projects. This results in several projects missing let dates and HSIP funds not being used 

for those projects in the planned years. To overcome these project delivery issues, the Highway Safety Section 

is working with PennDOT's Bureau of Project Delivery to track the milestones of HSIP projects to ensure 

design project managers stay on schedule to deliver good safety improvement projects on time. A District's 

past project delivery track record has become part of a weighted criteria for HSIP set aside project selection. 

PennDOT may also pursue a different HSIP funding allocation based less on regional boundaries and more 

based on competitive safety needs. 

Local projects using HSIP funds are difficult to deliver in Pennsylvania due to limited project delivery abilities in 

each municipality and legal agreements that need to be created to allow contracted construction work on local 

roads, designate maintenance responsibility, cover right to know laws, and the lack of a HSIP force account 

option. Many municipal governments also lack the ability to develop a project or construct safety projects. 

Implementing systemic projects on local levels usually results in very low cost projects that are hard to bid and 

requires adding several municipalities together that might cross Engineering District boundaries to have a large 

enough project that contractors will bid on and have a reasonable price. This adds to the difficulty in project 

development. PennDOT is exploring options to better address safety concerns on local roads where there are
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 75

known fatal and serious injuries. Right now PennDOT is pursuing the option of using force account projects to 

have safety improvements completed on locally owned roads. This option will allow municipalities that have 

road crews capable of installing signs and pavement markings to receive some HSIP funds to buy signs and 

pavement markings and install them at intersections or curves to mitigate crashes. PennDOT is currently 

working with a consultant to update PennDOT’s Publication 638 to include new HSIP force account guidelines 

for local roads.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

PennDOT is rating location specific projects based on the perceived benefit to cost ratio using a net present 

value calculation and benefit to cost ratio. This has led to more partially funded HSIP projects than was done 

several years ago. Any project applications submitted for a spot location must now have a BCA completed that 

show a 1:1 or better B/C ratio. This has allowed the use of HSIP funds on other projects where partial funding 

can be used to implement safety improvements. The HSIP project selection policy was updated in PennDOT’s 

Publication 638 in May 2019. PennDOT is making another change to Publication 638 chapter 6 (HSIP policy) 

to allow for local road projects through force accounts with induvial municipalities. The municipalities can work 

with the MPO or Engineering District to apply for HSIP funds to implement low-cost safety countermeasures 

that the municipal road crews can install themselves. This will help cut back on the legal agreements between 

the Commonwealth and the municipalities and will hopefully result in more locally owned roads implementing 

proven safety countermeasures. 

The Department finished or second edition of network screening all 67 counties in Pennsylvania in June 2021. 

The highway safety network screenings were developed using the Highway Safety Manual's analysis method 

of Excess Expected Average Crash Frequency with Empirical Bayes (EB) adjustments also known as Potential 

for Safety Improvement (PSI) with a EPDO weighting based on the FHWA’sCrash Cost for Highway Safety 

Analysis guide released in 2018 (FHWA-SA-17-071). This method uses the calculated Expected crashes for 

Fatal & Injury (F&I) and PDOs for a location and subtracts the Predicted crashes (F&I and PDO respectively) 

for that same location to produce excess yearly crash values. Then an annualized excess crash cost is 

calculated based on the F&I and PDO crash cost values and the excess crash values for F&I and PDOs. All 

locations will have that weighted annual excess crash cost ordered highest to lowest. Any value above zero 

shows a potential for safety improvement over the state’s predicted annual crashes for that category of 

roadway or intersection. These locations are mapped in GIS and assigned color coding. Anything Green shows 

the lowest safety priority with higher priorities colored as yellow, then orange, and red as the highest priority 

safety locations.

In March 2020, PennDOT completed new calibration factors for Freeways, Speed Change Lanes, Ramps, and 

Ramp terminal SPFs. The new network screenings include these highway facility types. The initial network 

screenings only used SPFs for all crashes. This latest round of network screening includes fatal and injury 

crash excess values along with PDO excess values. These values are weighted based on crash costs for the 

crash severities.

This detailed network screening is used to help select the best locations for HSIP funded safety projects.

PennDOT has recognized the challenges of expanding the HSIP program to include safety projects on local 

roads. PennDOT has tried multiple approaches to implement such a program; however, sometimes institutional 

and jurisdictional challenges have kept those from moving forward. These challenges frequently arise in the 

programmatic aspects of the program, including the processes that are used to identify problem areas, develop 

applications for viable projects to address those problems, and administer the contracts to complete that work. 

Fortunately, many other states have found ways to deal with many of these issues that may offer options for 

PennDOT. The Noteworthy Practices have been grouped around the following issues:
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 75

1. Funding for Local Road Projects 

2. Increase Number of Local Applicants (Through MPOs and Districts) 

3. Identifying Project Needs on Local Roads 

4. Developing Viable HSIP Projects 

5. Administering Work to Complete HSIP Projects 
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 75

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

2019 SHRP 2 

Traff Incdnt Mgmt 

Responder 

Training

Miscellaneous Training and workforce 

development

0 Miles $550 $23200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Training Data 113174

SR 

2040/Buttermilk 

Hollow Rd - Ceco 

Dr

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

5.17 Miles $1553365 $10394361 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 13,386 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

26623

PA 232 & Swamp 

Rd(C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – new traffic 

signal

0.67 Miles $2234705 $7721051 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,006 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 57625

443 Roadway 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.4 Miles $9216297 $33323999 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 16,777 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

66296

PA 68 Clarion 

Curve

Roadside Slope Flattening 0.44 Miles $30700 $5945857.69 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 9,010 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

88927

PA 28: Highland 

Park - RIDC

Roadway Pavement surface - other 6.85 Miles $152900 $17665240 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 35,105 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

92274

SR 3016 Lulay St 

to Demuth St

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

4.22 Miles $638000 $11996540 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,157 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94476

94 & 394 

Intersection Imp

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

1.04 Miles $116082 $2876050 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 8,734 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94894

US422 Safety 

Project

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 2.27 Miles $124287.16 $3152682.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 14,431 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94936

US6 & PA660 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 0.24 Miles $135000 $4535000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,176 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 101292

SR 2014 (Spring 

St) Corridor 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1.13 Miles $136626 $3099748 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,802 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 102162

Chambersburg 

Signal Imp.

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements –

signal-controlled

24.27 Miles $1801100 $3877809.05 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,718 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 102384
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Tivoli to Glen 

Mawr Curves

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

0.74 Miles $90000 $2088000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,239 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

102641

SR 54 Corridor 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 1.95 Miles $1766797 $22880000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,870 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 103853

ISIP Open End 

Project (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements –

signal-controlled

0 Miles $400000 $4500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 104363

209 -Schafer 

School House

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 4.3 Miles $1326330 $8624363 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 11,410 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 104432

SR 3023 State Hill 

Road Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1.93 Miles $267660 $4007660 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 11,658 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 105954

Big "I" 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

0.08 Miles $60000 $8314029 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,672 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106367

Paxton Street 

RSA

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

3.09 Miles $4687.31 $30000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,931 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

106547

Frankford Avenue 

Signal 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

14.49 Miles $477000 $2325520 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,927 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106993

LCSIP 2021 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0 Miles $1141685 $1151211 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

109513

Turnpike to 

Sproul/Claysburg

Roadway Pavement surface - other 37.2 Miles $1600000 $9500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,357 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109816

US 6N & PA 99 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Modify lane assignment 0.49 Miles $775601 $4008224 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,531 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109901

PA 8 and PA 77 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 0.14 Miles $120000 $2843672.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,572 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109996

SR 309 Signal 

Corridor

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

6.76 Miles $315000 $4313553 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 21,764 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

110327

10-2 SR 3021 

Corridor 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

1.39 Miles $710000 $11133696 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,478 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110783
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Bayfront Parkway 

at 6th Street 

Intersection Impr.

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

1.83 Miles $250000 $2587000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,490 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 110836

Safety 

Improvements 

HighFriction 

SurfaceTreatment

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

1.18 Miles $487063 $585000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,025 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110903

PA 10 Shoulder 

Widening

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – paved or 

other (includes add 

shoulder)

10.78 Miles $200000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 6,351 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110954

Marshall Rd. 

Safety Improv (C)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1.71 Miles $4946776 $5431776 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,969 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

110965

Lansdowne Ave. 

Safety Imp (C)

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

3.23 Miles $3261000 $5222000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 15,597 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

111167

Castor Ave:Comly 

to Rhawn

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

4.7 Miles $192000 $2558403 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 3,987 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

111194

East Church 

Street 

Streetscape

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.35 Miles $8000 $1028000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,419 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 111459

12th St Corridor 

Signals

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and 

ITS - other

7.2 Miles $775000 $8455000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 10,975 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improving 

Incident 

Influence 

Time

111839

Lighted Chevrons Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

0 Miles $1165850 $1171958 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111999

SR 136/SR 1055 

Flashing Beacon

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration)

0 Miles $112095 $97473.53 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,805 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 113757

Wynnewood Rd 

HSIP

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

0.96 Miles $1392527 $1518134 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,892 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

114270

NEPA High 

Friction Surface2021

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

0.75 Miles $232591 $232592 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 10,113 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114328

LVTS High 

Friction Surface 

2021

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

1.33 Miles $405005 $400001 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,422 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114343
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

RATS High 

Friction Surface 

2021

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

1.38 Miles $400000 $400001 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 8,795 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114388

I-180 HTCMB 

UPGRADE

Roadside Barrier – cable 7.55 Miles $1015864 $1090864 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate19,109 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114727

D9 2020 HSIP 

Milled Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips – center 44.31 Miles $184888 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,434 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114780

NTIER HFST 

HSIP

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

2.46 Miles $950000 $950000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,303 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114791

Interstate 84 

Cable Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable 19.99 Miles $350000 $2060801 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate14,883 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114917

Interstate 81 

Cable Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable 15.5 Miles $350000 $2505103 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate18,116 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114919

Route 113 and 

Minsi Trail Rd 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

0.35 Miles $590000 $2093800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,169 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 115418

High Street 

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 0.35 Miles $226000 $1811194 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,664 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 115425

SR 309 and SR 

2045 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0.16 Miles $50000 $3000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,570 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

115571

SR 6 and Maple 

Street Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.16 Miles $300000 $1500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,946 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 115572

SR 307 and 

Winola Road 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.71 Miles $50000 $3000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,174 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 115573

SR 247 and SR 

106 Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.22 Miles $50000 $3000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,790 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 115580

Smart 

Intersections 

Research Project

Miscellaneous Data collection 0 Miles $362000 $637000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Research 

Project

Pedestrians 115705
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Highway Safety 

Network 

Screening (2015-

2019 Data)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 0 Miles $1800000 $1800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Network 

Screening

Lane 

Departure & 

Intersections

115752

SR 3028 

Shoulder 

Widening/ELRS

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – paved or 

other (includes add 

shoulder)

1.96 Miles $50000 $2175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,657 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

115946

SR 0590/3028 

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.17 Miles $50000 $2150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,390 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 116098

Mount Hope 

Intrscn Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.51 Miles $264766.1 $4384533 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,788 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 96506

D9 2021 HSIP 

HFST

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

2.91 Miles $53000 $1306104 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 2,271 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114781

Port Allegany 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

0.86 Miles $82550 $2192490 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,628 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106371

Constitution 

Boulevard - B51

Roadway Pavement surface - other 7.47 Miles $41805 $13144471 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther4,503 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

105454

PA 21 Fayette Co 

Corridor HSIP

Miscellaneous Transportation safety 

planning

0.81 Miles $71800 $2679652.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,764 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Study Infrastructure 

Improvements

106559

PA56/SR4028 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.84 Miles $280800 $7345500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,247 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 88524

PA 68 Zelienople 

Curve

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.23 Miles $97100 $1655932 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,307 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

110826

Hamot Rd/Oliver 

Rd Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

0.22 Miles $2279000 $6160842 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,369 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 102069

SR 8/SR 62 

Intersection 

Safety Audit - 

Venango

Miscellaneous Road safety audits 2.41 Miles $60000 $210000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,783 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Infrastructure 

Improvements

114909

Castor Ave. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

0.2 Miles $209000 $7155435 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,870 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110958
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

PA997 & SR2015 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1.68 Miles $14366 $4775000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,617 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106709

Manor Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

1.29 Miles $203000 $3163000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,692 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110963

PA 28/US 322 

Brookville 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.53 Miles $356000 $9629728 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,319 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 26064

CMB I-70 Town 

Hill to Tpike 

Ramps

Roadside Barrier – cable 15.01 Miles $17191.41 $2650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate7,823 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110863

SR 29 -

Shimersville Hill 

Safety Imprv

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

1.78 Miles $672885 $8923650 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,974 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110183

SR 64/550 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1.04 Miles $2409121 $6367612 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 8,037 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106034

SR4022 ov 

US220

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.04 Miles $50000 $2110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,109 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 99076

SR 2005 TwoWay Left Turn 

Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.48 Miles $75000 $2400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,573 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

108985

Colebrook Road 

Improvemt

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

3.55 Miles $2672780 $5696123.62 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 9,155 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvements

96783

PA 68/Dolby 

Street 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1.79 Miles $130500 $17107453.54 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,316 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 24890

SR61 / 209 

Intersection

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation -

other

3.65 Miles $1245000 $3384826 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,561 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

72466

I-180 HTCMB Roadside Barrier- metal 11.53 Miles $236000 $1798000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate10,936 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114725

Nyes/Dvnshre Hts 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

0.23 Miles $256869 $5202118.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 10,978 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 47521

2020 District 12 

HFS Contract

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

2.71 Miles $125000 $1165000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 10,978 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109965
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SR 222_73 & 

Genesis Dr

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

2.61 Miles $462044 $43016015 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,309 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 92414

209/115 Int. Imp -

Phase2

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

1.52 Miles $5408650 $34200420 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,348 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 88935

PA 34 & PA 850 

Intersect.

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

0.37 Miles $1713126 $5277581.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 12,225 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 85655

Main St. Safety 

Improv

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 1.45 Miles $281888 $5403198 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,647 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110971

SR 255 

Signal/ITS Project

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –other 6.88 Miles $217727 $2273060 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,069 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 114189

PA 287 to West 

Fourth Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

12.14 Miles $492752 $56127000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 13,367 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 93732

Henry Ave 

Congested Corr1 

(C)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 7.94 Miles $14184433 $9713000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,551 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 80104

Interstate 80 

Roadside Safety 

Audit - Mercer 

Count

Miscellaneous Road safety audits 29.49 Miles $10000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate15,631 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Infrastructure 

Improvements

114908

SR 150 Lock 

Haven Signals

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

1.9 Miles $1356910 $4515982 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,654 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

109872

Philipsburg Add 

Center Ln

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.47 Miles $5405259 $12744596 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,121 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

93329

SR 6 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

2.17 Miles $18026 $535000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 17,565 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvements

101991

Route 145 Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 1.26 Miles $27036 $9184380 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,512 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109971

SR 12 Elizabeth 

Avenue

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – paved or 

other (includes add 

shoulder)

1.66 Miles $54625 $12071625 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 18,939 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

79467
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 75

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

US222/322 

Interchange Imp

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 5.12 Miles $2736000 $14041326.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 27,985 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 90491

“Mount Hope Intrscn Improv” (#96506) was the only project to obligate HRRR Funds ($103,234). The HSIP Project Cost dollar amount listed above was for HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) funds only. The HRRR funds obligated for this project was 

$103,234.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 75

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 1,310 1,208 1,195 1,200 1,188 1,137 1,190 1,059 1,129

Serious Injuries 3,455 3,248 3,040 3,030 4,397 4,227 4,504 4,675 4,425

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.316 1.225 1.196 1.189 1.175 1.119 1.165 1.031 1.324

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.471 3.293 3.044 3.002 4.349 4.160 4.411 4.549 5.188

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

184 166 187 172 192 176 221 170 174

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

432 408 341 406 556 573 596 646 502
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 75

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 75

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 75

The number of serious injuries increased significantly after 2015 due to the change in definition/title from

"Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant "Suspected Serious Injury". This change also had a significant impact

on the serious injury rate and non-motorized serious injury performance measures above.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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

45.4 123 0.44 1.17

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

80.2 210.6 1.97 5.18

Rural Minor Arterial 130.2 357.6 2.12 5.86

Rural Minor Collector 45 159.2 2.54 8.95

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 75

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 92.6 302.2 2.35 7.67

Rural Local Road or 

Street

109.8 452.4 2.11 8.68

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

61.8 186.6 0.41 1.22

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

37.2 116 0.52 1.62

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

236.8 910.6 1.52 5.84

Urban Minor Arterial 127.2 593 1.11 5.16

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 57 283 0.78 3.86

Urban Local Road or 

Street

98.8 668.8 1.39 9.29
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 75

Year 2020

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

937.4 3,358.8 1.24 4.43

County Highway 

Agency

5.6 21.4 0.04 0.14

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

180 1,018.2 1.17 6.6

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

1.8 12.2 0.02 0.08

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 15.8 47 0.25 0.75

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania does not classify crash data by "Rural Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways".

Also Urban Collector is not broken down by Major and Minor. Data for all Urban Collectors is reflected in the

"Urban Major Collector" field

Roadway Ownership data includes High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) routes excluded from the HPMS annual 

submittal, per FHWA

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

2020 vehicle miles traveled decreased by 17% from the previous year due in large part to the pandemic. This 

major decrease was a significant factor in calculating the fatality rate and serious injury rate metrics as well as 

all of the other metrics which required VMT data in this report.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 75

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2010 

peaking in 2020. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

Fatalities/Serious Injuries (Question #39). 2018 saw a slight decrease in licensed drivers for this age group but 

still the 4th highest number on record. This age group’s highway fatalities decreased by 38 in 2020. People 

age 65 and older account for approximately 18.7% of Pennsylvania’s population based on US census data.

The number of serious injuries significantly increased after 2015 due to both the change in definition and the 

new title of this injury type. 2016 crash data included the change from "Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant 

"Suspected Serious Injury". Based on this we would expect this trend to continue for the next year. Some 

crashes that had injury severities less than serious (or major) based on the previous crash severity definitions 

are now considered suspected serious injuries.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1113.7

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

Pennsylvania's current target is to reduce 2020 fatalities by two percent per year through 2022. The target 

shown above (1113.7) is the five-year rolling average for 2018-2022. This goal was established in conjunction 

with our Federal partners based on a combination of reviewing Pennsylvania's historical data and observations 

of national trends and reduction in fatalities over the next 30 years will not be linear. This is based on actual 

fatal crash data from 2018 to 2020 and estimated fatal crash data in 2021 and 2022 assuming a 2% reduction 

each year.

Number of Serious Injuries:4490.8

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

Pennsylvania's current target is to hold 2020 serious injuries level through 2022. The target shown above 

(4490.8) is the five-year rolling average for 2018-2022. This goal was established in conjunction with our 

Federal partners based on a combination of reviewing Pennsylvania's historical data and observations of 

national trends and reduction in serious injuries over the next 30 years will not be linear.

Fatality Rate:1.205

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

The target shown above (1.205) is calculated using the 2018-2022 five-year rolling average for fatalities shown 

in the first metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle miles traveled in 2021 and 2022. 

The value of 1.113 in HSP performance target does not match what was submitted in the HSP (1.205).. We do 

not understand where the value of 1.113 is coming from but the website will not accept any other 

number here. Each time we try to enter 1.205 and complete the question the HSP performance target 

populates back to 1.113.

Serious Injury Rate:4.860

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 75

The target shown above (4.860) is calculated using the 2018-2022 five-year rolling average for serious injuries 

shown in the second metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle miles traveled in 2021 

and 2022.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:730.1

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

Pennsylvania's current target is to reduce 2020 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries by reducing 

fatalities by two percent and holding serious injuries level each year through 2022. The target shown above 

(730.1) is the five-year rolling average for 2018-2022. This goal was established in conjunction with our 

Federal partners based on a combination of reviewing Pennsylvania's historical data and observations of 

national trends.

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

safety performance targets. 

PennDOT is currently working with over 40 different public and private sector organizations including our 

SHSO and various different MPO/RPO’s to update Pennsylvania’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

Pennsylvania’s comprehensive approach to improve highway safety started with engaging state and national 

experts at a Highway Safety Summit in April 2021 to collect input. After holding 8 separate Steering Committee 

meetings with our stakeholders to update the strategies and action items, we will develop the SHSP to include 

our Statewide goal for fatalities and serious injuries, as well as targets for PA’s high level emphasis areas. The 

SHSP update’s expected completion is December 2021. 

Our statewide Safety Performance Targets (included in question #34) are established in conjunction with our 

FHWA Division Office. After statewide targets are set, PennDOT contacts the MPOs & RPOs about setting the 

planning partners’ targets and goals. This is accomplished by having many different in person, webinar, and 

conference calls to explain the HSIP program and the federal target requirements. After these meetings there 

is a letter sent to every MPO and RPO that details the State goals and how that would break down to each 

planning partner. The planning partners are given a chance to adopt the statewide goals or develop their own 

goals. 

The planning partners also work with PennDOT engineering districts to develop and deliver safety projects. 

The MPO/RPO can nominate locations for safety improvements and/or take a list the Districts develop and 

study options to improve safety. The projects are then entered into PennDOT’s HSIP application portal and 

reviewed. Projects that meet safety merits are added to MPO/RPOs’ transportation plans. The intention is that 

these projects will drive down the fatal and injury crashes and help the state and its planning partners reach 

our targets. The Pennsylvania SHSO is a unit within PennDOT’s Highway Safety Section. So behavioral safety 

efforts are well known to the engineering side of safety. The behavioral side of safety and the engineering side 

of safety work with each other every day. The Highway Safety Section Chief directs the behavioral, crash data, 

and engineering/risk management units. The Highway Safety Section Chief ensures all three units are working 

toward the same goals.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 75

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 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 1171.9 1140.6

Number of Serious Injuries 4400.3 4445.6

Fatality Rate 1.148 1.163

Serious Injury Rate 4.309 4.531

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

781.7 761.2

The actual number for Fatality Rate is not populating correctly.. this value should be 1.157. The actual number 

for Serious Injury Rate is also not populating correctly.. this value should be 4.510. The values shown above 

are being calculated based on the average of the last 5 individual years for fatality/serious injury rate, NOT by 

taking the 5 year average (2016-2020) for fatality/serious injury rate multiplied by 100,000,000 divided by the 5 

year VMT average (2016-2020) which is how we perform the calculation.. this leads to slightly different results.

Based on the 2016-2020 data, we made significant progress on two of the five targets (Number of Fatalities 

and Fatality Rate). For the three targets that did not make significant progress (Number of Serious Injuries, 

Serious Injury Rate, and Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries), please see question 

34

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

226 207 194 216 238 213 195

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

284 252 420 422 475 501 366

These numbers reflect the count of drivers and pedestrians ages 65 and over and not all persons involved in 

the crash.

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2010 

peaking in 2020. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

Fatalities/Serious Injuries. 2018 saw a slight decrease in licensed drivers for this age group but still the 4th 

highest number on record. This age group’s highway fatalities decreased by 38 in 2020. People age 65 and 

older account for approximately 18.7% of Pennsylvania’s population based on US census data.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 75

The number of serious injuries significantly increased after 2015 due to both the change in definition and the 

new title of this injury type. 2016 crash data included the change from "Major Injury" to the MMUCC compliant 

"Suspected Serious Injury".
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 75

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Lives saved

• Other-3 FHWA Implementation Plans (ISIP, RDIP, SMAP)

• Other-Implementing proven systemic safety countermeasures

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

the State's program level evaluations.

One-point worth noting here is the effectiveness of systemic projects vs. spot specific projects. Spot Specific 

projects account for 70% of Pennsylvania's HSIP funding. However systemic projects provide a much higher 

return in investment with reducing fatal and suspected serious injury crashes. It takes about $14.44 million in 

spot specific location projects to reduce one fatal or suspected serious injuries. Systemic safety projects only 

require $1.50 million in investments to reduce one fat al or suspected serious injury. So systemic projects are 

about 10 times more effective than spot specific locations.

For more details and additional information about PennDOT’s HSIP see PennDOT's updated HSIP 

Implementation Plan submitted to the FHWA on June 30, 2021. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Policy change

• Other-Reduced Fatal and serious injuries

• Other-Projects that result in a BCR over 1.0

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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)

Reducing Impaired 

Driving

Impaired Driver 343.6 1,033.8 0.35 1.05
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 75

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)

Increasing Seat Belt 

Usage

Unbelted 372.4 965.6 0.38 0.99

Infrastructure 

Improvements

Lane Departure 587.8 1,865.4 0.6 1.9

Infrastructure 

Improvements

Intersections 275.8 1,505 0.28 1.53

Reducing Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving 

Speed-related 450 1,355 0.46 1.38

Mature Driver Safety Older Driver 278.2 789.6 0.28 0.8

Motorcycle Safety Motorcycle 186.4 714.4 0.19 0.73

Young and 

Inexperienced Driver 

Safety

Teen Driver (ages 

16-20)

129.8 648.6 0.13 0.66

Enhancing SAfety on 

Local roads

Local Road 195 1,066.6 0.2 1.09

Improving Pedestrian 

Safety

Vehicle/pedestrian 164.6 456.8 0.17 0.46

Improving Traffic 

Records Data`

0 0 0 0

Commercial Vehicle 

Safety

Commercial 

Vehicle

161.4 372.8 0.16 0.38

Improving Bicycle 

Safety

Vehicle/bicycle 18.6 93.8 0.02 0.09

Improving Emergency -

Incident Influence Time 

0 0 0 0

Enhancing Safety In 

Work Zones

Work Zone 17.8 58.4 0.02 0.06

Reducing Vehicle-Train 

Crashes

VehicleTrain/Trolley3 2.6 0 0

Distracted Driving Distracted Driving 61.2 356 0.06 0.36
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 75

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 75

These numbers include all persons in the crash.

Starting in 2016 the terminology "Suspected Serious Injury" was adopted as per the Federal FAST Act. 

Noticeable differences from previous years appear for this injury severity although the definition did not 

drastically change.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 75

Starting in 2017, the Impaired Driver Crash flag began using drug test results in combination with alcohol and 

drug use suspicion to provide additional accuracy.

The numbers for "Older Drivers" reflect the count of all persons involved in a crash with a driver aged 65 or 

older. These numbers will differ from question #38. Young & Inexperienced Drivers includes drivers 16-20 

years old. Speeding and Aggressive Driving includes numbers from Speeding Related (speeding, driving too 

fast for conditions, or police chase) crashes.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: See HSIP-IP 

Description: 

Several countermeasures were evaluated 

for the HSIP Implementation Plan. The 

results of the evaluations are listed in the 

HSIP-IP. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 500 

Number of Installations: 500 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

The results for several different 

countermeasures are listed in the 

Pennsylvania HSIP-IP second edition that 

was submitted to the FHWA June 30, 

2021. 

File Name: HSIP IP 2021 Presentation.pdf
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 75

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

12613-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

9.00 10.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 17.00 17.00 -62.4583524164161

28000-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

20.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 27.00 1.00 48.00 10.00 1.6035312453941

28126-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

15.00 9.00 3.00 1.00 12.00 16.00 30.00 26.00 0.334274937610427

28587-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration 

/ merge lane

388.00 267.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 294.00 201.00 690.00 480.00 -3.89248221574344

62960-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – new traffic 

signal

1.00 2.00 9.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 0.315493708009868

75776-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

13.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 19.00 4.00 34.00 15.00 54.9919327742908

79450-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

71.00 64.00 1.00 2.00 61.00 50.00 133.00 116.00 -0.3952506887943

82869-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - other 4.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 11.00 0.341197875500692

85419-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

14.00 18.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 5.00 116.00 118.00 138.00 143.00 -2.95337726783051

88927-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

8.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 4.00 24.00 11.00 0.352035929069013
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

89654-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Adaptive Signal Control 

System

68.00 77.00 2.00 3.00 106.00 71.00 176.00 151.00 0.27677677963951

90194-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

9.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 13.00 9.00 -1.16651600733706

93116-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 8.00 7.00 3.00 8.00 5.00 19.00 12.00 1.2445494067299

93736-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

9.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 10.00 5.00 22.00 9.00 3.91508872238567

94670-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on 

ramp

72.00 79.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 70.00 152.00 151.00 -

0.0799305598452704

97972-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

4.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 12.00 -0.220217122014753

98362-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 15.00 17.00 26.00 -15.4145101243984

102002-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 10.00 8.00 2.00 11.00 7.00 21.00 17.00 -1.99414320463343

102084-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

343.00 319.00 17.00 13.00 33.00 20.00 367.00 266.00 760.00 618.00 78.5762905237068

102118-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing –other 807.00 852.00 5.00 5.00 32.00 45.00 920.00 828.00 1764.00 1730.00 -8.8287521391348

102132-3 Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

1493.00 1528.00 19.00 24.00 70.00 84.00 1561.00 1303.00 3143.00 2939.00 -24.1762289352203

102133-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

10.00 2.00 9.00 3.00 19.00 5.00 1.59184165592052

102150-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing –other 1545.00 1513.00 33.00 23.00 74.00 82.00 1554.00 1303.00 3206.00 2921.00 32.2151657802086

102168-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

56.00 52.00 3.00 5.00 83.00 80.00 142.00 137.00 -0.853805628213675

102326-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 3.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 3.00 13.00 8.00 30.914614980604
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

102506-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

43.00 63.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 220.00 247.00 275.00 322.00 -4.45832079978021

102876-3 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.509575572027212

102877-3 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.148379148437791

104166-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

5.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 10.00 3.00 1.84656989227529

104360-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 140.00 206.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 82.00 106.00 230.00 322.00 4.26828376399695

104370-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 173.00 313.00 7.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 98.00 158.00 290.00 486.00 -0.59618664033082

104372-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 18.54

104375-3 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadside Barrier- metal 11.00 10.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 15.00 14.00 -13.808293182736

104377-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

131.00 123.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 10.00 125.00 88.00 260.00 222.00 -0.995104331399364

104439-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

15.00 33.00 1.00 14.00 20.00 29.00 54.00 -4.32508638336149

106385-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 20.00 20.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 19.00 33.00 39.00 20.847003708341

106446-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 -1.02743832104278

106560-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

22.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 8.00 35.00 21.00 -17.1545340528175

106566-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier

728.00 693.00 12.00 12.00 22.00 28.00 357.00 369.00 1119.00 1102.00 -18.6070303873125
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

106632-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 9.00 4.00 11.00 13.00 20.00 17.00 -0.610765183617997

106712-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 124.00 174.00 9.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 80.00 77.00 222.00 269.00 15.114323148703

106775-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

34.00 37.00 29.00 23.00 63.00 60.00 -1.05619828534356

106777-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

7.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 16.00 2.00 4.97285957979524

106778-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 34.00 58.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 26.00 25.00 64.00 87.00 -3.32376677993933

106780-3 Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadside Barrier- metal 6.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 -20.3045123908916

107525-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 -1.13

107891-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

106.00 28.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 59.00 22.00 168.00 53.00 23.2269357668404

28397-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

136.00 176.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 13.00 138.00 122.00 284.00 313.00 57.4166548837209

29949-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 0

30949-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

5.00 12.00 10.00 5.00 15.00 17.00 0.0599384899227307

47081-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 13.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 23.00 14.00 39.00 35.00 9.394446350822

62969-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Fencing 48.00 66.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 60.00 39.00 113.00 107.00 6.50593193254407

75045-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

6.00 10.00 14.00 6.00 20.00 16.00 0.154679185814025

78556-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

23.00 22.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19.00 16.00 44.00 40.00 1.75176336941011
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

82887-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 0.138991242239821

85652-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 8.00 7.00 5.00 2.00 13.00 9.00 0.430418975125909

89102-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Adaptive Signal Control 

System

580.00 557.00 5.00 9.00 10.00 30.00 545.00 463.00 1140.00 1059.00 -38.9127607509147

89231-4 Urban Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 24.00 24.00 3.00 2.00 16.00 14.00 43.00 40.00 0.107389279168557

93139-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 13.00 15.00 15.00 11.00 28.00 26.00 0.292104949355558

93172-4 Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 9.00 7.00 6.00 3.00 15.00 10.00 0.34969111532376

94746-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 10.00 7.00 3.00 9.00 2.00 22.00 9.00 20.789679342875

94759-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Adaptive Signal Control 

System

51.00 34.00 1.00 1.00 63.00 41.00 115.00 76.00 -9.97970048512972

96593-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Roadway - other 6.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 11.00 12.00 189.230653266332

97030-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

70.00 42.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 46.00 43.00 119.00 90.00 -2.42224849825191

97406-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

140.00 147.00 3.00 2.00 8.00 18.00 123.00 114.00 274.00 281.00 0.736334589172479

98250-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Adaptive Signal Control 

System

104.00 125.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 144.00 105.00 254.00 237.00 13.8358597787034
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

102086-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of fixed objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

35.00 33.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.00 19.00 59.00 54.00 73.2351533897998

102097-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of fixed objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

79.00 73.00 2.00 4.00 50.00 37.00 131.00 114.00 -3.45305661361102

102098-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of fixed objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

78.00 86.00 3.00 2.00 35.00 40.00 116.00 128.00 -4.64801608975962

102121-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

175.00 93.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 121.00 82.00 304.00 180.00 39.8675854176798

102152-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

40.00 10.00 2.00 23.00 10.00 65.00 20.00 9.98026135676744

102329-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

7.00 10.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 16.00 16.00 2.65917991593038

104349-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 40.00 44.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 31.00 29.00 77.00 75.00 13.1893176470588

104378-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

1490.00 1533.00 32.00 23.00 71.00 52.00 918.00 772.00 2511.00 2380.00 204.282907695299

104384-4 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 3.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 0.476846498518465

104391-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – cable 56.00 76.00 2.00 4.00 23.00 27.00 81.00 107.00 -3.71084727308812

104392-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 -2.53

104396-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier

147.00 106.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 116.00 107.00 267.00 221.00 -58.9087007522357

104401-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

74.00 68.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 90.00 65.00 172.00 137.00 18.176116

104404-4 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 10.00 3.00 1.53380642709149
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

104406-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

0

104407-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

87.00 55.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 72.00 53.00 167.00 111.00 108.436528567351

104421-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 95.00 105.00 5.00 12.00 7.00 110.00 106.00 222.00 218.00 145.736692401463

104422-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

12.00 17.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 27.00 15.00 42.00 33.00 3.79466641099429

104423-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 23.00 17.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 12.00 40.00 30.00 0.421667926886141

104426-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier- metal 99.00 120.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 67.00 41.00 173.00 164.00 26.2261205847705

104440-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 34.00 63.00 2.00 1.00 18.00 17.00 54.00 81.00 26.567989212247

104441-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 66.00 69.00 4.00 2.00 6.00 66.00 71.00 138.00 146.00 101.966378138162

104679-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 48.00 74.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 6.00 57.00 49.00 115.00 131.00 -14.2106365131815

106599-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Rumble strips – center 168.00 170.00 5.00 9.00 20.00 8.00 150.00 115.00 343.00 302.00 -187.741865540303

88875-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

5.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 13.00 14.00 -

0.0599912696931393

90196-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 3.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 0.0307101197142091

93171-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration 

/ merge lane

15.00 6.00 1.00 17.00 5.00 33.00 11.00 2.39982114045826

94894-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

7.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 3.00 15.00 7.00 -0.174673267891793
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

97407-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

96.00 135.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 12.00 177.00 136.00 290.00 285.00 62.7942948568784

98020-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface - other 86.00 140.00 3.00 1.00 13.00 15.00 164.00 178.00 266.00 334.00 13.3874600666713

104373-4 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 6.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 7.00 17.00 13.00 -23.3614834455428

104403-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 51.00 119.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 27.00 36.00 82.00 161.00 -4.47362719263651

104668-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 -1.14727621483376

105289-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 29.00 37.00 5.00 10.00 34.00 47.00 -2.45782798409774

89104-5 

(0140-0173)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 1.23924126033713

95568-5 

(0140-INT)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

9.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 17.00 9.00 27.00 25.00 0.527916912857424

96355-5 

(0120-0197)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 4.00 15.00 10.00 -29.1798505929794

102176-5 

(0120-0090)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 140.00 176.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 107.00 92.00 253.00 274.00 -19.8190097560976

78994-5 

(0210-0322)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

20.00 9.00 2.00 11.00 3.00 31.00 14.00 0.0303947294385992

104380-5 

(0220-0080)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

11.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 18.00 12.00 45.9957153846154

104382-5 

(0230-0080)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

38.00 18.00 2.00 3.00 28.00 13.00 69.00 33.00 -45.6436555307454
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

104387-5 

(0230-0220)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – cable 6.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 13.00 10.00 2.17841025641026

104389-5 

(0270-0322)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – cable 9.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 15.00 13.00 -107.186384615385

82203-5 

(0370-INT)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 5.00 3.00 8.00 13.00 3.00 0.901187304075235

87670-5 

(0320-0015A)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – concrete 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 10.00 9.00 -

0.0145274508604382

87905-5 

(0340-0061)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - other 15.00 30.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 17.00 21.00 37.00 53.00 103.974305084746

88623-5 

(0380-1004)

Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

4.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 0.201171796482412

98240-5 

(0320-0015B)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 1.00 1.00 0.0584341166166632

104405-5 

(0320-

0015C)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 112.00 123.00 1.00 1.00 65.00 58.00 178.00 182.00 15.2023637681159

80694-5 

(0840-0074)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary lanes 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 13.00 6.00 0.0610304687707427

93168-5 

(0840-0425)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 8.7495606142955

21630-5 

(0920-2007)

Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

8.00 9.00 1.00 13.00 6.00 22.00 15.00 0.451647113709897

102063-5 

(1240-GDRL)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 190.00 170.00 7.00 4.00 15.00 8.00 159.00 103.00 371.00 285.00 24.2768085

91643-5 

(0330-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing –

signal coordination

8.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 16.00 19.00 -19.7297313984025
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

98251-5 

(0800-RMBL)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips – center 101.00 137.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 72.00 91.00 182.00 235.00 41.675214494177

98253-5 

(0800-HFST)

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

140.00 69.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 103.00 52.00 245.00 128.00 4.19687649209755

99375-5 

(0300-HTCB)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – cable 164.00 191.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 88.00 82.00 257.00 276.00 52.4587155858931

102078-5 

(0300-HFST)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

24.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 26.00 16.00 51.00 29.00 1.12481245378098

102081-5 

(0900-RDIP)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

409.00 299.00 12.00 7.00 23.00 25.00 420.00 298.00 864.00 629.00 89.1107619474184

102120-5 

(0600-HTCB)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – cable 218.00 385.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 8.00 95.00 137.00 327.00 537.00 -20.1105709561937

102572-5 

(0600-HFST)

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

240.00 182.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 7.00 290.00 232.00 540.00 422.00 1.93761042552869

104361-5 

(0900-HFST)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

37.00 20.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 47.00 5.00 86.00 27.00 -10.3096527935066

102122-5 

(0210-HSIP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

151.00 121.00 11.00 4.00 9.00 12.00 168.00 83.00 339.00 220.00 218.734744292237

102128-5 

(0280-RMBL)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips – edge or 

shoulder

1649.00 1628.00 63.00 54.00 119.00 123.00 1573.00 1217.00 3404.00 3022.00 162.88021

104362-5 

(0920-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

22.00 17.00 2.00 2.00 22.00 7.00 46.00 26.00 6.91835607321131

69056-5 

(1100-RAMP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 20.68
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 75

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

10951-5 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

17.00 24.00 1.00 18.00 14.00 36.00 38.00 14.0750375487913

31067-5 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 7.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 11.00 5.00 0.071700663251621

76191-5 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

15.00 11.00 14.00 8.00 29.00 19.00 0.811591462432837

79405-5 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

15.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 8.00 25.00 16.00 -11.5400647653816

89177-5 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration 

/ merge lane

168.00 243.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 133.00 167.00 310.00 414.00 1.10233355660097

94831-5 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface – high 

friction surface

90.00 41.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 88.00 66.00 184.00 110.00 6.24104471133294

98252-5 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

521.00 339.00 17.00 6.00 19.00 22.00 387.00 205.00 944.00 572.00 205.002371544536

102079-5 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 86.00 161.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 39.00 43.00 130.00 210.00 -21.7725332122051

102135-5 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing – add 

basic advance warning

207.00 176.00 2.00 6.00 7.00 9.00 246.00 189.00 462.00 380.00 -174.102609337105

102136-5 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

485.00 344.00 23.00 7.00 45.00 22.00 415.00 253.00 968.00 626.00 245.287368195881

104355-5 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 3.00 4.00 0.975443791639928

104388-5 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier – cable 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0

104402-5 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 88.00 98.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 90.00 80.00 189.00 192.00 -11.1732029459794
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 75

Compliance Assessment

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

 02/17/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2022

Pennsylvania is currently developing our 5th edition of our Strategic Highway Safety Plan that will be completed by February 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 85 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 85

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 85 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 85 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 71 of 75

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]

100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 74

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 10

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 72 of 75

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

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 0.00 87.50 0.00 90.91 0.00 100.00 80.44 100.00 100.00

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

These percentages are reflected by Function Class and not Jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania has no segments, intersections or ramps classified as Non Local Paved, Non-State.

The percentages under Local Paved Roads are Federal-Aid roads with route #'s for "State Owned" and non-Federal-Aid municipal owned roads for "Non State Owned"

Segment Identifier - We have defined segments for 100% of Liquid Fuels local roads. We are working on QA/QC for all 67 counties; as the QA/QC process is completed for a county, we are segmenting the non-liquid fuels roads. As of 

August 2021, 29 counties are complete through segmentation. There are currently 11 counties in the QA/QC process.

Urban Rural designation - This is collected for every state road segment. Local roads determine urban/rural based on the municipality code.

Intersection/Junction Traffic Control - LRS locations are known but accuracy is not 100% and QA efforts will take place once the inventory is established. PennDOT's Traffic Signal Asset Management System (TSAMS) currently stores all 

signalized intersections in PA including the city of Philadelphia.

AADT/AADT Year - This is collected for 100% of the state roads. We have collected approximately 10% of this information for local roads.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 73 of 75

Ramp AADT (191) – The majority of PA ramps are categorized as 8,000 routes (100% ADT collected). The remaining are 9,000 routes (approx 55% complete).

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.

PennDOT has used HSIP set-aside funds and consultant support to help meet the requirement including the collection of traffic volumes at approximately 5,100 local-state road intersections.

PennDOT is also progressing towards a linear referencing system for local roads. PennDOT’s local road network is complete for all 77,718 miles of liquid fuel payment eligible roads and has been linked to our oracle database. We are 

continuing to work on integrating the local roads that are ineligible for liquid fuel payments. We have 67 counties integrated within the database and are in process of QA/QC for the entire state.

PennDOT plans on completing this by September 2026. BOMO handles collection and BIO is responsible for data management of state-maintained roadways. Traffic data are collected by BPR for all public roadways. Non-local roadway 

data are collected and maintained through the current legacy systems. Data are collected by the District as changes are made, or as discovered during the LRS QA process. Some data are collected using Videolog. BPR is responsible for 

data collection and data management for local roads. BPR also collects traffic data for all roadways. Collection of traffic data is handled through use of pneumatic tubes and portable traffic counters. For non-traffic, data collectors utilized 

tablets in the field and aerial photography or LIDAR when they were cost reasonable. This work has been completed. No update cycle is planned now that the data have been collected.

The cost for liquid-fuels roadways is estimated at $6 million. Traffic data for non-liquid fuels data collection has not been estimated. Collection of remaining non-traffic data for both local and non-local roads is estimated to be at least $2 

million. These costs do not include ongoing maintenance of data after initial collection. The source of all the funding needed to meet goals has not been established. HSIP funds will bear the burden of many of these costs. Research, 

LTAP and TRCC funding will be considered. Additional funding will likely be needed to accelerate the schedule to meet the deadline.
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 74 of 75

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Pub638_Final_signed.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

HSIP IP 2021 Presentation.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 75 of 75

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.