Page 1 of 60

MASSACHUSETTS

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 60

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 20

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 23

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 26

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 26

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 40

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 43

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 46

Year 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 46

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 52

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 54
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 60

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 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.” 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 60

Executive Summary 

In 2009, under Safetea-LU, Massachusetts began obligating funds from the HSIP funding category, only after 

an HSIP Task Force was developed and HSIP guidelines were implemented. Through MAP-21 and now, 

through FAST Act, this program continues. HSIP projects and programs were, and continue to be, identified 

through our Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and, where possible, consist of a combination of high crash 

locations, systemic projects and programs identified through the various emphasis areas of the SHSP. The 

program funds projects on all public roadways, not just State Highways, and it uses a data driven process to 

identify and select the projects and programs. The SHSP is currently being revised and new strategies will help 

guide the future years of HSIP. The HSIP is a much needed program to bring down our fatalities and injuries in 

order to achieve our Towards Zero Death goal. This report summarizes the HSIP management and structure in 

Massachusetts as well as describing the selected HSIP programs and projects. As was done last year for the 

first time, we continue to perform evaluations on the effectiveness of the projects and program. 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 60

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

A Massachusetts HSIP Task Force was established in 2009 to develop guidelines for HSIP-eligible projects 

and programs. The Task Force consists of FHWA, MassDOT Highway, MassDOT Planning and MARPA 

(Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. An HSIP eligible project is one that 

contains a hot spot crash location (a cluster in which the total number of “equivalent property damage only” 

crashes in the cluster is within the top 5% of all clusters in a specific region), systemic fixes or any strategy, 

activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

In the past, HSIP projects included infrastructure fixes, enhanced enforcement, awareness campaigns, data or 

other types. However, with FAST Act, only infrastructure fixes, enhanced enforcement in work zones and data 

improvements are allowed. More details can be found at 

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/HSIP/HSIP%20Criteria%20Updates.pdf . To see the 

HSIP eligible clusters, go to: http://services.massdot.state.ma.us/maptemplate/TopCrashLocations/. 

MassDOT Federal Aid Programming and Reimbursement Office and MassDOT Planning allocate the funds 

into various categories for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), including Statewide 

HSIP funds and HSIP funds for each of the regions. HSIP projects are then selected based on the HSIP 

guidelines, the MPO processes, priority and readiness (regardless of roadway jurisdiction). Once an HSIP 

project has been identified on the STIP, an early requirement is a Road Safety Audit which helps to guide the 

recommended improvements.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Traffic Engineering and Safety

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-combination 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

HSIP funding is apportioned to the Commonwealth through FHWA’s Fast Act through Federal Fiscal Years 

2019 and 2020 – in the amounts of $34,664,070, and $35,367,782, respectively. FHWA’s Cambridge office 

has issued guidance to assume that the apportionments shall be level funded through FFY 2023 of our Federal 

Aid program. Obligations against our apportionments and carryover balances are assigned to HSIP eligible 

projects under our various Capital Investment Plan and State Transportation Improvement Programs, namely, 

our Safety Improvements program; Intersection Improvements program, and our Roadway Reconstruction 

program. We are forecasting to obligate near the apportioned amount each Federal Fiscal Year for the next 

five years.

Apportionments Obligations

FFY 2019: $34,664,070 $41,257,229

FFY 2020: $35,367,782 $27,129,164

FFY 2021: $35,367,782 $30,241,516

FFY 2022: $35,367,782 $27,371,112

FFY 2023: $35,367,782 $45,658,470

5 yr. Avg: $35,227,040 $34,331,504

MassDOT has guidance on what locations are HSIP eligible (although this methodology is undergoing change 

to reflect more of the Highway Safety Manual methodologies and is expected to be implemented next year). 

The MassDOT guidance is provided on our website (http:// 

www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/HSIP/HSIP%20Criteria%20Updates%2011_15_17.pdf ) and 

has been developed and implemented in cooperation with FHWA the MPOs. The allocation of HSIP funds by 

MassDOT to projects at these locations is determined not solely by project eligibility and eligible design 

components, but also by fiscal constraint against our federal obligation limitation and by our perennial Capital 

Investment Plan (CIP) program sizing exercise.

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

Working with the 13 Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) and the 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) that encompass the entire geographic area of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, HSIP funds are 

allocated not only to projects that are eligible within the statewide Safety Improvements program but also to 

eligible projects programmed by the MPOs, which may include local roads and tribal roads. Because most of 

the project proponents in the Commonwealth are municipalities, these projects are locally initiated, driven, and 

coordinated with MassDOT through the project initiation and development process. There is close coordination 

between our Traffic Safety division staff and RPA staff on the sharing of data and identifying crash cluster 

locations and prioritizing safety improvements to assist local entities and the MPOs in making sound safety 

investment decisions.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 60

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Other-Please note that while the Governors Highway Safety Office is a partner with the HSIP, the agency is not 

internal to MassDOT

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

and two representatives from the Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs), the technical arm of the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs). The initial role of the Task Force was to establish HSIP guidelines based on 

input and feedback from others. The continuing role of the Task Force is to meet annually or as needed, 

(“meetings” could be via email or in person) to review and update the HSIP guidelines. The HSIP Task Force 

does not select the individual projects / programs. Program and project selection occurs both in MassDOT HQ 

and at the regional MPO level (MassDOT District and MassDOT Planning sit on the MPOs). There is funding 

set aside for each MPO. The statewide HSIP, administered through MassDOT HQ, involves systemic projects 

and high crash locations as well as programs and strategies based on the SHSP. The programs and strategies 

from the SHSP are developed through the SHSP Emphasis Area teams with input from many (both internal 

and external). It should be noted that the HSIP guidelines ( 

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/HSIP/HSIP%20Criteria%20Updates%2011_15_17.pdf ) 

are currently being updated to reflect an approach more inline with the Highway Safety Manual methodology. It 

is anticipated this will be in place by next year and discussed with the HSIP Task Force.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members

Other-Advocacy groups

Other-Public Health

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with external partners.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 60

All HSIP projects must be based on strategies identified in the SHSP which has been developed with the 

assistance from our internal and external partners. We started updating the SHSP with over 200 participants 

from more than 25 agencies (including all of those external partners mentioned in the response to Question 9) 

and entities and the strategies identified in the SHSP are those that can be used for the HSIP eligible projects. 

Furthermore, all HSIP-eligible projects require Road Safety Audits which ensures coordination with external 

partners. Project selection has a significant amount of external input through the MPO public process. Some 

specific programs are based on an Ad Hoc basis, as needed. As an example of this is when we were 

developing the pedestrian/bicyclist safety campaign (a Statewide HSIP program), we developed a committee 

consisting of Governors Highway Safety Office, Public Health, MPOs, advocacy groups, local police and 

community officials, etc. to assist with the specifics and to guide the program.

As stated earlier, there is an HSIP Task Force that develops the HSIP guidelines and identifies eligibility of 

HSIP projects (but does not select the specific projects). The HSIP Task Force consists of seven members: 2 

FHWA representatives (one from Massachusetts Division Office in Planning and one from the Massachusetts 

Division Office in Safety), 2 representatives from MassDOT Highway Division (Chief Engineer and Safety 

Engineer), one from MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning and two representatives from the Regional 

Planning Agencies (RPAs), the technical arm of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The 

selection of the individual regional HSIP projects is done at the MPO level through the very public MPO 

process involving MassDOT and many external partners. The selection of the statewide HSIP projects is based 

on a data driven process (EPDO) using the strategies identified in the HSIP.

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Bicycle Safety

HSIP (no subprograms) 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 60

Pedestrian Safety

HRRR

Other-Data

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Population 

Other-EMS runs, % journey to work 

by bicycle 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-based on RSA, feedback and readiness 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 60

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-readiness : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/3/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-subject to HRRR rule 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-EPDO 

Functional classification 

Other-rural/urban boundary 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Crash rate

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 60

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HRRR eligibility

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).

Other-readiness factor of HRRR eligible projects : 100

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

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

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 60

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

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

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

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-EPDO 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-MPO

Other-statewide selection based on ranking and readiness 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 60

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-PROJECT READINESS : 1

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects 

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

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?

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District recommended and initiated
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 60

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Population 

Other-EMS runs, % journey to work 

by walking 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 60

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-RSA, feedback and readiness

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-readiness : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 12/31/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Specifically called out in 23 U.S.C.148(a)(6) 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-cycle of sign improvements 

based on 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-cycle of sign upgrades 

Other-on secondary roads, it is systemwide per district 

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?
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 60

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-secondary roadways are systemwide and done by district 

Other-interstates and principal arterials are selected by State Sign Engineer based on a cycle of replacements

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 

Other-readiness : 2

Program: Other-Data 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2004 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Data quality need 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-Need based on outdated system and changes to roadway file 

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

Yes
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 60

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-determined need based on changes to outdated systems 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 100 

Total Relative Weight : 100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 4.7 

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Other-Bicyclist and pedestrian improvements

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Stakeholder input 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 60

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

MassDOT definitely considers vehicle to infrastructure technologies with regards to safety. However, no HSIP 

funds were spent on the V2I technologies during this Federal Fiscal Year. It should be noted that during this 

Fiscal year, MassDOT worked with WAZE to install beacons in our tunnel system. As drivers have become 

more reliant on their GPS/smart phones for directions, there are more crashes occurring in our tunnels where 

GPS connectivity was lost and drivers were confused. The beacon technology is providing for an open platform 

seamless connection to navigation systems. While this is V2I technology, the beacons are being installed with 

no Federal dollars. WAZE has also been used as a pilot in our highway operations center as a means to 

improve incident response time. Initial results proved this to be the case. Expanding the pilot has been 

challenging on MassDOT staffing resources and looking to modify this process. MassDOT has been 

implementing smart work zone technologies that are designed to provide real time feedback to drivers 

regarding travel times and congestion information, incidents, temporary closures and other information that will 

enhance the safety of road users and workers. We continue to look forward to other technologies that will 

enhance safety and reduce fatalities and injuries on the public roadways. 

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

Yes

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

MassDOT uses both the predictive methodology and the empirical-Bayes method described in the Highway 

Safety Manual to support administrating the HSIP. MassDOT is in the process of updating the network 

screening process to consider the difference between expected and predicted crashes using HSM 

methodologies and Massachusetts-specific safety performance functions.

During RSAs (especially for HSIP projects), MassDOT uses HSM methodologies so expected crash frequency 

can be used for discussion, diagnosis, and countermeasure selection.

MassDOT also uses HSM methodologies to evaluate HSIP projects at the site-, project-, and countermeasure 

level. The empirical-Bayes method is used to estimate the number of crashes expected in the after period had 

no change occurred to compare with what was observed in the after period.

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 60

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

Based on a recent white paper from FHWA, MassDOT has updated the comprehensive crash costs used for 

evaluation. FHWA’s national costs were adjusted to Massachusetts using the state adjustment factors provided 

in the appendix of the paper. The new Massachusetts KABCO-level comprehensive crash costs are as follows:

K - $14,842,300

A - $860,700

B - $260,800

C - $165,000

O - $15,600

For most facility types, MassDOT calculated average comprehensive crash costs for fatal and injury crashes 

as well as total crashes.

As a transition to a full empirical-Bayes-based network screening process, MassDOT used these new costs for 

identifying HSIP intersection clusters for the year. An average EPDO was estimated for fatal and injury crashes 

(21).

MassDOT used the predictive methodology and empirical-Bayes for network screening to identify candidate 

segments for the High-Risk Rural Roads program.

MassDOT also modified the benefit:cost analyses of countermeasures reported in the 2016 HSIP report to 

reflect these new costs. 

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 60

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This HSIP report covers Federal Fiscal Year 2017

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $31,024,781 $33,160,469 106.88%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,335,616 $2,637,643 197.49%

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)

$26,158,194 $27,086,642 103.55%

State and Local Funds $10,135,148 $10,749,228 106.06%

Totals $68,653,739 $73,633,982 107.25%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

26% 

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

30% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The percentages of the program spent on locally owned roadways was calculated directly from the project list 

that is included in Question 29 (under the field "ownership") and comparing the programmed costs to those 

costs form the Statewide transportation Improvement Program.

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 60

2% 

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

8% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The percentages of the program spent on locally owned roadways was calculated directly from the project list 

that is included in Question 29 (under the field "improvement category" = non-infrastructure) and comparing 

the programmed costs to those costs from the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

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% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

There are two main impediments to obligating HSIP funds. One is project readiness. If a programmed project is 

not able to advertise (for any number of reasons), it is very difficult to just swap in another HSIP project 

because there are limited projects that already designed and ready to advertise. This could be because 

projects are rarely designed unless they are already programmed on the STIP and even then, they are

designed and reviewed to meet the advertising date. So if a programmed project is not able to advertise, we 

are often left with a hole to try and fill in a replacement project.

The second major impediment to obligating HSIP funds is that we cannot develop low cost-short term systemic 

projects here in Massachusetts. We are not able to have local communities self-certify that project work all 

occurs within the public way. This must only be done with layout plans or survey. Therefore, any simple 

pavement marking and/or signage project (typically the low cost/short term type systemic projects) must 

include a survey which adds time and expense and precludes the short term / low cost projects. 

Based on the above two factors, it sometimes makes it challenging for MassDOT to obligate funds. This is 

especially true in cases in which we have short notice such as for High Risk Rural Roads Projects when we are 

informed 18 months before they must be obligated that we fall within the rule and must obligate a certain 

amount of money. It is too short of a time frame to develop a project (including ROW, environmental 

processes, etc.) so we struggle with what can be done.

There are steps we have taken to resolve these issues. With regards to readiness, we actually anticipated the 

need for a HRRR project and started working on one in advance of the notification. In addition, a Project 

Manager from the MassDOT Design Section will be providing assistance to push projects along. With regards 

to the difficulties we face for systemic project, MassDOT Traffic and Safety Engineering has been meeting with 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 60

FHWA ROW Section and MassDOT ROW Section to prepare a white paper and try to resolve ROW issues 

with regards to low cost systemic projects. 

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

No
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 60

General Listing of Projects

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

 RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Signals along Main Street Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1 Intersections $880553.84 $6281877.18055556 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,523 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals on Rt 85 MapleSt Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

1 Lanes $2701395.72 $6157125.775 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

22,669 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals on Montvale Ave Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2 Intersections $3533505.91 $5238784.27777778 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,900 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals Center St-Rt 21 Roadway Roadway - other 1 Lanes $967918.95 $6191050.7625 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,600 30 City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals Rt 1/Chestnut St Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $1727578.38 $1919531.53333333 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

23,500 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Main St Corridor & Inters Roadway Roadway - other 1 streetscape and 

safety 

improvements

$433449.31 $8149812 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e.

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

10,800 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals&Rt 3 Ramp Derby Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $1952042.6 $6853040.48472222 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

27,900 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

298 Signs $287342.48 $319269.422222222 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 60

 RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Signals @ 2 loc in Lowell Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1825435.44 $2028262 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

14,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Signals@Granite&Squantum Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

1 Intersections $768731.63 $854146.255555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

20,113 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

36.6 Miles $5952672.9 $6614081 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

75,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Signals Rt40 @Oak Hill Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $867760.02 $3333581.0625 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

12,985 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

14.8 Miles $4055596.2 $4506218 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

70,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Signals Marston @ Comm 

Dr

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $356518.8 $1273925.525 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,444 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Incorporate 

safety elements 

into intersection 

design

and 

maintenance.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $1451229.75 $1612477.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Bike&Ped Var Loc. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

5.59 Miles $603961.31 $671068.122222222 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,490 30 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists Incorporate 

changes 

precipitated by 

new directives

related to 

healthy 

transportation.

Bike&Ped Var Loc. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

5 Locations $547695 $608550 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Incorporate

changes 

precipitated by 

new directives
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 60

 RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

related to 

healthy 

transportation.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

848 Signs $504073.49 $560081.655555555 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1702 Signs $782319.38 $869243.755555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Sign Upgrades Var. Loc. Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1828 Signs $1032590.25 $1147322.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

need Older Drivers Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

older road user 

needs.

Data Linkage to DPH Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $46800 $52000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 need data 

improvements 

for all EA

improve data

Bike&Ped Var Loc. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

6 Locations $464178.38 $515753.755555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists Improve design 

and engineering

of bicycle 

facilities.

Cable Barrier I-195. Roadside Barrier - cable 1.24 Miles $404619.08 $449576.755555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

62,334 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Incorporate 

safety elements 

into roadway 

design

and 

maintenance.

Geocoding System Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 state crash 

improvement 

program

$1350000 $1837500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

statewide 0 statewide statewide Data improve data

HRRR Design for Top 

Locations

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 1 HRRR project 

selection and 

design

$1411807.7 $1905472.7 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

0 other varies could be more 

than 1 emphasis 

area

depending on 

location

SE Region HRRR road deprt Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

8 Locations $888335 $987039 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

varies 0 varies Spot Lane Departure Incorporate 

safety elements 

into roadway 

design

and 

maintenance.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 60

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 364 340 347 374 383 351 354 350 395

Serious Injuries 3,983 3,392 3,437 3,577 3,587 3,197 3,031 2,867 2,980

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.670 0.630 0.640 0.690 0.700 0.630 0.630 0.580 0.650

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.290 6.250 6.310 6.560 6.530 5.740 5.400 4.740 4.920

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

88 52 78 76 99 86 84 94 91

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

340 363 403 448 511 432 479 433 447
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 60

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Year 2016

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

3 16 0.39 2.12

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0.6 3.2 0.64 3.46

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

6.4 11.6 2.42 4.1

Rural Minor Arterial 6.6 21.8 1.69 5.36

Rural Minor Collector 2.2 11.2 1.79 9.19

Rural Major Collector 6 37 1.43 8.99

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 60

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or Street 7.8 30.2 1.46 5.66

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

50.6 238.8 0.31 1.48

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

21.4 121.4 0.37 2.03

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

86 969 0.72 8.2

Urban Minor Arterial 62.8 930.8 0.63 9.65

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 16 308.4 0.48 9.96

Urban Local Road or Street 88.8 281.6 1.12 3.54

unknown (not geocoded) 6.2 164.8 0 0
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 60

Year 2016

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 143.4 900.8 0.45 2.85

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.4 1 0.48 1.22

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency 8.8 66 1 7.47

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

3.2 34.8 0.26 2.83

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Local Highway Agency 191.8 1,931.6 0.82 8.25

unknown (not geocoded) 18.4 195.8 0 0
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 60

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 60

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 60

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

•

The VMTs for jurisdiction were based on information provided by MassDOT Planning and is based on a 

brand new tool. ( http://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/DataViewers/vmt/ ) 

• Vehicle mile traveled data are taken from the Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy 

Information website https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm2.cfm (link shown for 

2007 but used 2008-2011). This information was used for the VMTs for functional classification. The 

VMTs for jurisdiction greater than 2011 were based on information provided by MassDOT Planning and 

is based on a brand new tool. ( http://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/DataViewers/vmt/ ) 

• The fatality data for functional classification came from FARS and the fatality data for jurisdiction was 

obtained from the Statewide Crash Database System (CDS). The serious injury data for functional 

classification and for jurisdiction was obtained from CDS. 

• Although the crash data is separated by urban major and minor collector, the VMTs are not and 

therefore, the two categories were combined. 

• Prior to 2009, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and MassHighway Department were separate 

entities. In 2009 they were consolidated into MassDOT and the jurisdiction reflects as such “State 

Highway Agency” 

• A category for Unknown functional classification was added so that no fatal or serious injury crashes 

would be excluded from this analysis. These are data points with unknown functional classification 

because the crash could not be located to a point and the FARS analyst was unsure how to code (or 

the statewide crash system did not contain coordinates and therefore was unable to link to roadway 

data). Similarly, there is an unknown category for jurisdiction for those fatalities and serious injuries that 

were not able to be located and therefore not able to be linked to the roadway data. 

• Less than 0.1% of the VMTs of Massachusetts roads have no jurisdiction category for the years of 

2011-13 and therefore were not accounted for in the analysis. 

• The category of “City OR Town Highway Agency” was added because Massachusetts does not make a 

distinction between these roads. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 60

• The category for Other State Agency includes crashes from the Department of Conservations, 

Massport, and State Inst. 

• The category for Private includes crashes that occurred on Private roads as well as those that occurred 

on Unaccepted roads. 

• The category of Other Federal Agency (military, institutional, , etc) includes crashes from Federal Park, 

Department of Defense, US Army Corps, Federal Inst., Other Federal, US Army, and US Navy. 

• The category of Other Public Instrumentality includes crashes that occurred on State College/University 

property. 

• For 2008 & 2009, there were no VMTs available for Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) Other Freeways and 

Expressways, therefore, crashes in this category were combined with Rural Principal Arterial (RPA) 

Other so rates could be calculated. 

• For 2008, there was no VMT value for Urban Major Collector, therefore, crashes in this category used 

the VMT for Urban Collector (combined major + minor) VMT value so rates could be calculated. 

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 353.0 

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

Per FHWA guidance, our target setting process began with a trend line projection 

based on the most recent available data. The number of fatalities in Massachusetts has 

been relatively stable for 2013, 2014, and 2015. In 2016 there was a marked increase 

in these numbers (up from about 345 to 395). However, based on preliminary 2017 

draft FARS statistics, the 2016 fatalities appear to be an anomaly. Therefore, rather 

than following the trend of increasing numbers starting in 2016, we predict 2017 and 

2018 will return to numbers seen in 2015. Further, the 2019 fatalities should be down 

because of the strategies being advanced and implemented as part of the soon-to-be 

released 2018 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The strategies to be adopted 

through the SHSP include a mix of engineering, enforcement, education, awareness 

and emergency response strategies, as well as data enhancements to better track the 

information. With these considerations and initiatives, we anticipate the 5 year average 

fatalities for 2015-2019 will be 353, a nearly 4% drop from the 2012-2016 5 year 

rolling average of 367. This target was developed in coordination with the Executive 

Office of Public Safety and Security – Highway Safety Division (EOPSS/HS) 

(required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT Office of Transportation 

Planning (OTP) working closely with the MPOs, and the Office of Performance 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 60

Management and Innovation (OPMI, which produces an annual performance report 

called Tracker that serves the public and State Legislature). Moreover, it should be 

noted that our overarching goal is towards zero deaths and we will continue to work 

towards that goal by implementing SHSP strategies. Our interim goal for 2018-2022 

five year average for fatalities is 320 which reflects a nearly 13% drop from the 2012-

2016 five year fatality average of 367. 

Number of Serious Injuries 2801.0 

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

FHWA guidance, we began with the trend line then considered external factors and 

planned implementation to inform the targets. Based on the trend line, the predicted 

number of serious injuries for 2015-2019 five year rolling average would be 2801 per 

year, down from 3132 for 2012-2016 yearly average, a 10.6% drop. Please note that in 

the Massachusetts crash system, the injury severity is based on “incapacitating 

injuries” not “serious injuries.” This will change in 2019 based on the Federal rule for 

defining suspected serious injuries. There are external factors, some specific to 

Massachusetts and others that are applicable nationwide, that will impact the trend line 

(positively and negatively) although we do not yet know enough to know how these 

will impact the trends. Examples include: a required change in reporting and definition 

of serious injuries on the crash report, a recent State recreational marijuana law (in the 

process of implementation), a proposed hands-free law and anticipated changes in 

other roadway safety laws in the near future. Meanwhile, MassDOT will begin 

implementing strategies and countermeasures that are being developed in the updated 

2018 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This target was developed in coordination with 

EOPSS/HSD(required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT OTP working 

closely with the MPOs, and the Office of Performance Management and Innovation 

(OPMI, which produces an annual performance report called Tracker that serves the 

public and State Legislature). Moreover, it should be noted that our overarching goal 

is towards zero deaths and serious injuries, and we will continue to work towards that 

goal. Our interim goal for 2018-2022 five year rolling average for serious injuries is 

2467 which reflects a nearly 21% drop from the 2012-2016 serious injury five year 

rolling average of 3132. 

Fatality Rate 0.580 

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

Fatality Rate: The fatality rate is calculated using the goal of fatalities and the 

projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to obtain the 2015-2019 fatality rate. 

MassDOT Planning projects a 0.3% annual increase in VMTs. Therefore, the fatality 

rate from 2012-2016 of 0.64 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled will drop 

to 0.58 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2015-2019 which reflects a 

8.7% drop. The interim goal for fatality rate in 2018-2022 is 0.52 which reflects a drop 

of approximately 18% since 2012-2016. The long term goal is towards zero deaths, so 

the long term fatality rate target is 0.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.370 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 60

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

The serious injury rate is calculated using the goal of serious injuries and the projected 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to obtain the 2015-2019 fatality rate goal. MassDOT 

Planning projects a 0.3% annual increase in VMTs. Therefore, the serious injury rate 

from 2012-2016 of 5.44 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled will 

drop to 4.37 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2015-2019 

which reflects a nearly 20% drop. The interim goal for serious injury rate in 2018-

2022 is 3.5 which reflects a drop of approximately 36% since 2012-2016.The long 

term goal is towards zero deaths and injuries, so the long term serious injury rate is 0.0 

serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 541.0 

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

As with all the other target setting measures, FHWA’s guidance is to start with a trend 

line forecast and then consider external factors and planned implementation in order to 

set targets. Using the historical data to create a trend line, the predicted number of 

fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists for 2015-2019 yearly average would be 

an increase from the 2012-2016 yearly average of 551. However, even though the 

fatalities and injuries has been trending up instead of down, the many Massachusetts 

agencies engaged in the safety of non-motorized modes are actively working on 

strategies to ameliorate the non-motorist fatality and injuries while promoting and 

encouraging walking and cycling. Therefore, the goal is to reverse the trend of 

increasing fatalities and injuries and move towards zero deaths and injuries. To do 

this, we have set the goal identical to last year which is 541 non-motorist fatalities and 

injuries for the 2015-2019 five year average. As the 2018 Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan is being completed and the Statewide Pedestrian Plan is being finalized, new 

multi-disciplined and multi-agency strategies will be developed and implemented. 

Several projects and multi-agency programs have been and are being implemented that 

will hopefully help to reverse the existing trend while encouraging non-motorist 

activities. There will also be an increased effort to attempt to resolve some issues so 

that systemic projects could be implemented which would help to bring down the nonmotorist fatalities and serious injuries. Therefore, although our current trend line 

shows a projected increase in non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries, our goal is to 

reverse the trend and move towards zero deaths. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

targets. 

There is a performance target working group committee comprised of MassDOT Planning, Office of 

Performance Management and Innovation, Traffic and Safety Engineering, MPOs, FHWA and others. The 

committee has met numerous times to discuss and review the proposed targets. In addition, MassDOT 

regularly meets with the Highway Safety Division Office to review performance targets so that the targets are 

aligned in both the Highway Safety Plan (submitted to NHTSA) and the HSIP report. During FFY2017, FHWA 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 60

provided a face-to-face training on target setting and included the performance target committee, Highway 

Safety Division and others. Furthermore, the targets are reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation and 

published in MassDOT's Tracker system for the State Legislature and the public.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We are currently in the process of updating our SHSP. In addition to our Towards Zero Deaths goal and the 

five safety performance targets developed, targets are being developed for each of the emphasis areas. Next 

HSIP annual report will include those targets as the SHSP will be completed after this HSIP report is 

completed.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

On March 2, 2016, MassDOT received email notification that we met the High Risk Rural Road and had to 

obligate $2.27 million on rural collectors and locally functional classified roadways in Federal Fiscal Year 2017. 

Therefore, the projects selected, although having to meet the Massachusetts HSIP eligibility guidelines, had to 

be relatively low cost / systemic / fast turn around projects in order to advertise within 18 months. Therefore, 

the HSIP projects are typically signs / pavement marking type projects with no right-of-way issues or projects 

that are non-infrastructure in nature.

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 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 57 69 80 72 59 65 76

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 283 285 319 272 271 281 297

Pedestrian Serious Injuries
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 60

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Using crash costs from FHWA report and MA factor of 1.31:

K - $14,842,300

A - $860,700

B - $260,800

C - $165,000

O - $15,600

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

For Question 45, all HSIP-funded projects completed in 2013 for evaluated for this year’s report (allowing for 

three years of before and after data). Most of the projects evaluated this year were focused on improving 

intersections; with some being isolated and others along a corridor. These intersection improvements include 

improving signalized intersections and converting minor stop-control intersections to a signalized intersection 

or roundabout. Other projects include adding cable median barrier or glare screens along divided highways 

and improving an interstate-to-interstate ramp. The intersection and cable-barrier projects produced reductions 

in intersection crashes and roadway departure crashes, both of which are crash types Massachusetts’s SHSP 

is focused on.

In total, the 12 projects that were evaluated are estimated to be producing an annual benefit of $5.4 million due 

to the reduction in crashes. Over 20 years at a three percent discount rate, the projects are estimated to have 

a total benefit/cost ratio of 2.57:1. Over the three years in the after period, it is these sites are estimated to 

have seen 38.6 less fatal and injury crashes, an annual reduction of 12.87 fatal and injury crashes.

Massachusetts has also reviewed statewide trends with relation to fatal and incapacitating injury crashes.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# RSAs completed
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 60

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

HSIP Obligations 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016 

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure 197.6 694.2 0.34 1.21 0 0 0

Intersections 96.4 1,196.8 0.17 2.09 0 0 0

Pedestrians 80.4 337.8 0.14 0.59 0 0 0

Bicyclists 10.4 112.6 0.02 0.2 0 0 0

Older Drivers 43.8 236.2 0.08 0.41 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 49.2 334 0.08 0.58 0 0 0

Work Zones 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Older Driver Related 74 598 0.13 1.04 0 0 0

Younger Driver Related 

(15-20)

41 470.6 0.07 0.82 0 0 0

Trucks 33.8 192.8 0.06 0.34 0 0 0
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

"Trucks" also include buses and for the fatalities the 2008-2010 data comes from FARS and the 2011-2016 

comes from MCMIS.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 60

Work zone data for serious injuries was not compiled due to the quality of the data in this field and is listed as 0

VMTs used were taken from MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning online VMT viewer. They do not 

report VMTs in the emphasis area categories.

Fatal Data – Data is from FARS and MCMIS

Intersections – Fatalities resulting from crashes occurring at RELJCT2 = 2 (intersection) or 3 (intersectionrelated)

Roadway Departures – where the first sequence of events involved a vehicle in the crash departing the 

roadway - Fatalities resulting from crashes where SEQ1 (Vehicle file 2004-2009, VEVENT file 2010 on) = 

17,19-43,46,52,53,57,59,63,64,65,67,68,69,71.

Young Drivers – Fatalities from crashes where at least one driver was 15-20 years old - Fatalities resulting 

from crashes where PER_TYP = 1 (driver) and AGE = 15-20

Older Drivers - Fatalities from crashes where at least one driver was 65+ years old - Fatalities resulting from 

crashes where PER_TYP = 1 (driver) and AGE >= 65

Pedestrians - Fatalities of PER_TYPE = 5 (pedestrian) AND 8 (Person on Personal Conveyances)

Motorcycles - Motorcycle fatalities (driver or passenger) - Person level fatalities where PER_TYP = 1,2,9 

(driver or passenger) AND BODY_TYP = 80-89 (motorcycles)

Bicycles - Fatalities of PER_TYPE = 6 (Bicyclist) AND 7 (Other Cyclist)

Truck-Bus Involved - A large truck is defined in FARS as a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 

greater than 10,000 pounds. A bus is defined in FARS as any motor vehicle designed primarily to transport 

nine or more persons, including the driver. Data was received from MCMIS, not FARS (no specific query)

Serious Injury Data – All data is from Registry of Motor Vehicles Crash Database

Intersections - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where Roadway Junction Type = 2 Or 3 

Or 4 Or 8 (Four-way Or T-intersection Or Y-intersection Or Five-point or more)

Roadway Departures - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where the first sequence of 

events was 36 Or 35 Or 33 Or 32 Or 31 Or 30 Or 28 Or 24 Or 23 Or 22 Or 21 Or 20 Or 40 Or 41 Or 42

Young Drivers - Younger drivers, age 15-20, that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating)

Older Drivers - Older drivers, age 65-110, that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating)

Pedestrians - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where Non-Motorist Type = 1 

(Pedestrian)

Motorcycles - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where one of the vehicle configuration 

codes = 3 (Motorcycle)

Bicycles - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where Non-Motorist Type = 2 (Cyclist)
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 60

Truck-Bus Involved - Persons that had an injury severity = 2 (Incapacitating) where one of the vehicle 

configuration codes was 4 Or 5 Or 6 Or 7 Or 8 Or 9 Or 10 Or 11 Or 12 Or 13 Or 19

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: Median Cable barrier 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Cross median 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 33 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 5.2:1 (see attached study) 

File Name: Median Cable Barrier.pdf

CounterMeasures: Signalized improvements 

Description: General improvements to signalized 

intersections 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 34 

Number of Installations: 34 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 4.0:1 (see attached study) 

File Name: Signal Improvements.pdf

CounterMeasures: stop control-roundabout 

Description: Minor stop control to roundabout 

conversion 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 5 

Number of Installations: 5 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 60

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 8.1:1 (see attached study) 

File Name: TWSC to Roundabouts.pdf

CounterMeasures: minor stop control-signal 

Description: Conversion from minor stop control 

to signalized intersection 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 6 

Number of Installations: 6 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or 

Full Bayes 

Results: 2.3:1 (see attached study) 

File Name: TWSC to Signal.pdf
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 60

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)

Pittsfield - Route 7 

Corridor 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

95.00 84.00 4.00 1.00 22.00 20.00 121.00 105.00 4.82

Worcester -

Belmont Street 

East 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

160.00 112.00 3.00 2.00 42.00 23.00 205.00 137.00 2.71

Westminster -

South Street 

Reconstruction

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 7.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 9.00 0.18

Northborough -

Route 20 Signal 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

80.00 61.00 6.00 9.00 86.00 70.00 1.97

Southwick - Route 

10/202 

Reconstruction

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

73.00 53.00 13.00 19.00 86.00 72.00 0.22

Lancaster - Route 

70 at Old Union 

Turnpike 

Roundabout

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

24.00 6.00 3.00 11.00 38.00 6.00 11.58

Yarmouth - Old 

Town House 

Road/Forest 

Street Intersection 

Realignment

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

9.00 9.00 3.00 2.00 12.00 11.00 0.48

Fairhaven -

Huttlestone 

Ave/Route 6 

Intersection 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

76.00 52.00 1.00 20.00 11.00 97.00 63.00 9.53

Danvers - I95 

Median Cable 

Barrier

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 76.00 81.00 3.00 2.00 27.00 22.00 106.00 105.00 1.25

Taunton/Lakeville 

- Rt 140 Cable 

Barrier

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 28.00 82.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 17.00 35.00 50.00 124.00 -0.13

Attleboro - Ramp 

Improvements

ramps Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 10.00 14.00 3.00 4.00 13.00 18.00 -3.28

West Bridgewater 

- Rt 24 Glare 

Screen - Tangents

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation -

other

278.00 308.00 1.00 2.00 25.00 14.00 135.00 150.00 439.00 474.00 -1.98
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 60

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

The effectiveness of non-infrastructure projects (like data quality improvement projects and design projects) were not evaluated. This includes the majority of the HRRR funds for 2017.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 60

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/30/2013 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2004 To: 2011 

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

 2018 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The updated SHSP is being actively worked on with an anticipated completion date of September 30, 2018.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

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

Segment Identifier (12) 0.329805881971045 0.554902921541006 0.0146173688736028 0.000296038467058992 0.2875 0.00489847810642037

Route Number (8) 1 1

Route/Street Name (9) 0.994364734142699 0.999203772891529

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0.994975004869181 0.989973663257181

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length (13) 1 1

Direction of Inventory (18) 0.996273453223398 0.999258896306731

Functional Class (19) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Median Type (54) 0.999974031032916 0.999957126232621
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 60

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 0.13379211841849 0.00135358608440007

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

1 0.999975500704355

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0.999974031032916 0.999889753169596 1 0.999964116549447

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0.960566123482439 0.979034727751577 0.825451418744626 0.971481627673317

AADT Year (80) 0.960566123482439 0.979034727751577

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 0.996894714276964 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

1 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

1 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0.01 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0.9606 0

AADT Year (80) 0.9606 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

1 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 1 1

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 60

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0.940206481215945 0.913066954643629

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0.940206481215945 0.913066954643629

Functional Class (19) 0.99240034413536 0.125809935205184

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

Totals (Average Percent 0.91 0.92 0.87 0.00

1

0.44

1

0.36 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.80

Complete):

*Based on Functional Classification

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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.

In reviewing MassDOT’s road inventory database for MIRE FDE compliance there are two areas that need attention 1, Intersection Elements and 2, Interchange Elements.

MassDOT is currently working on developing an intersection inventory for Non Local Paved State/State and State/Local intersections. The location of the intersections have been identified through the State’s road inventory dataset. The 

current task involves collecting the required MIRE FDE’s as well as a handful of additional MIRE elements to support MassDOT’s safety analysis requirements. Completion of the intersection inventory is not anticipated until 2020, given 

the number of intersections requiring collection.

MassDOT does not currently have an interchange inventory. In late 2018/early 2019, MassDOT will begin efforts to develop a MIRE FDE compliance interchange inventory. Ramps are already included within the State’s road inventory 

database can be separated from road segments.

Minimal work is required on MassDOT’s road inventory database to bring into MIRE FDE compliance. One area that does need attention is the assignment of unique road segment identifiers for all road segments. MassDOT leverages 

Esri Roads & Highways to manage their LRS/Road Inventory file, and has the ability to generate unique segment identifiers.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Injury Status No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Injury Status No The level of injury severity for a person 

involved in the crash

No Fatal

Non-Fatal injury - Incapacitating

Non-Fatal injury - Non Incapacitating

Non Fatal injury - Possible

Non Fatal Injury - No injury

Non Fatal injury - Unknown

No
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 60

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Database Injury Status No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary N/A No N/A No N/A No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) submitted a Project on a Page to MassDOT IT describing the mandated changes to the Injury status field in the Crash Data System. The intention is to have this in place prior to January 1, 2019. In 

addition, the RMV has contacted the printer to notify them of the updates to the paper crash report form/overlay to begin the proof process. The RMV and Highway Division of MassDOT conducted a conference call with Records 

Management System vendors to explain the mandated changes that they will have to make for Massachusetts Law Enforcement Agencies to be complaint by April 15, 2019. The Law Enforcement Liaison has informed the Municipal Police 

Training Council about the definitions/ attributes for suspected serious injury and will provide outreach during the all phases of this project.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

In 2017, MassDOT performed a self-evaluation of its HSIP. MassDOT’s HSIP is primarily distributed at the MPO level; as a result, a survey was developed focusing on this aspect.

The 10-question survey was distributed to a representative from each of Massachusetts’s 13 MPOs and RPAs. The agencies were asked the following 10 questions (the percent that responded in the affirmative is provided in 

parentheses):

1. Is your agency’s HSIP program connected to the SHSP safety goals and specific strategies? If not, is there a reason? (86 percent)

2. Does your agency have someone focused on highway safety that monitors the relationship between regional safety projects and SHSP goals and objectives? If so, how so? If not, why not? (79 percent)

3. How does your agency select projects for the TIP HSIP program? Is jurisdiction (state vs local) a factor? (Zero percent considered jurisdiction a factor)

4. Are crash, roadway, and traffic data used in your agency’s screening process to identify potential HSIP project locations? If so, how so? If not, why not? (100 percent)

5. Does your agency consider a balance of spot location and systemic safety improvement projects? Why or why not? (50 percent)

6. Are Road Safety Audits used to support the HSIP design process? If not, why not? (100 percent)

7. Does your agency coordinate with other agencies during the HSIP process? If so, with whom? If not, why not? (100 percent)

8. Is HSIP funding limited to stand-alone safety projects? Or are other funding sources leveraged to support HSIP funding for projects? If yes, what other funding sources are used? (100 percent indicated other funding is used)

9. Does your agency use traffic, crash, and roadway data to evaluate the effectiveness of HSIP projects with advanced statistical methodologies? If not, why not? (Zero percent)

10. Does your agency modify its approach to the HSIP program based on the historical performance of other HSIP-funded projects? If not, why not? (21 percent)

Based on the responses, MassDOT developed a main takeaway and action item for each question. These are summarized as follows:

1. Almost all regions incorporate the state’s SHSP goals into regional goals. MassDOT will continue to encourage this cooperation and maintain communication with the agencies.

2. The regions monitor their HSIP projects, but most do not have a specific safety person. MassDOT is proposing each RPA/MPO nominate an “HSIP Safety Leader”, of which a statewide group will be made. An open exchange 

between MassDOT and these leaders can prove greatly beneficial for all parties.

3. Regions mainly focus on HSIP clusters, regardless of jurisdiction. As a result, MassDOT will focus on improving the method for identifying HSIP clusters by using HSM methodology and updated EPDO scores.

4. All regions already use these data to identify high crash locations, so MassDOT is going to provide education and support for implementing HSM methodologies to improve the use of these data.

5. Most regions do not implement systemic safety improvements because MassDOT implements so few. To change this, MassDOT will make more of an effort to implement systemic safety improvements statewide, encouraging the 

regions to adopt them as well.

6. MassDOT has an extensive RSA program driven by its districts and RPAs. MassDOT would like to improve this by using HSM methodology to provide better insights for the RSA.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 60

7. All RPAs coordinate with other agencies during the HSIP process. MassDOT will continue to encourage this coordination and suggest more stakeholders to consider.

8. All regions leverage HSIP funding with other funding sources to finance projects. MassDOT will review different funding sources used and produce a list of best practices for other regions to refer to for funding ideas.

9. Most agencies are unaware of advanced statistical methodologies for evaluating HSIP projects. MassDOT has developed a brief instructional PowerPoint using Massachusetts examples to provide to the agencies.

10. Most agencies do no perform before/after evaluations of HSIP-funded projects. MassDOT will encourage RPAs to adopt this practice to better inform future decision making.

MassDOT is in the process of implementing these solutions. Short-term goals were set for each solution to provide immediate measures of progress for this implementation.
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 60

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Criteria Updates.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Median Cable Barrier.pdf

Signal Improvements.pdf

TWSC to Roundabouts.pdf

TWSC to Signal.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 60

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

fatality rate). 

(e.g. annual 

Emphasis area means a highway safety 

collaborative process. 

priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

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 non-infrastructure 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 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

a 

Systematic refers to an approach 

system. 

where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

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.