Page 1 of 49

NEW YORK 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................28

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................28

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................30

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................31

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................31

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................36

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................38

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................40

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................40

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................40

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................44

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................45

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................48

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................49
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 49

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. 407 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.” 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary

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

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

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

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. 

Emphasis Areas 

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

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

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

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

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

implemented to meet safety goals. 

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

provided funds to improve pedestrian safety in urban areas. The PSAP added pedestrian locations to the 

state's annual regional work program; implemented pedestrian improvements at approximately 2,400 

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

pedestrian corridors. The PSAP also included statewide pedestrian education and enforcement initiatives. The 

PSAP was a 5 year program and was completed earlier this year. 

Roadway departures are another emphasis area for New York State. To address this issue, NYSDOT is in the 

process of developing a Roadway Departure Safety Action Plan. Data analysis and countermeasure evaluation 

have been completed. It is anticipated that this plan will be completed in the next fiscal year. 

The New York State Department of Transportation is developing a new safety system called CLEAR (Crash 

Location Engineering, Analysis and Reporting). The CLEAR system will replace the existing legacy systems 

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

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

Evaluation System (PIES). The new system will be available by by the end of 2022. 

The State is in the process of updating the NYS Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This process is supported by a 

consultant and stakeholder workshops will begin this fall. It is anticipated that the updated plan will be 

completed in 2023. 

HSIP Fund Administration 

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

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

crashes, population and center line miles. The remaining funds are administered centrally and used to fund a 

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

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

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

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

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

improve pedestrian safety at locations in New York State. 

All Public Roads 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 49

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

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

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

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

· A local GIS route system was developed.

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

· Additional traffic counts are being taken on local roads.

· The PSAP program funded approximately $40M in local pedestrian projects.

Safety Performance Management

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

progress towards achieving the safety performance targets.

· The FHWA assessment of the 2019 safety targets found that New York State did not make significant 

progress towards achieving the safety performance targets.

· The FHWA assessment of the 2020 safety targets found that New York State did not make significant 

progress towards achieving the safety performance targets.

The required HSIP Implementation Plan was submitted to FHWA in June 2022.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 49

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

the implementation of statewide safety programs. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Formula via Districts/Regions 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-Periodic Call for Safety Projects 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan also provided $40M in HSIP funding for local municipalities to implement 

systemic treatments that improve safety for pedestrians. 

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

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

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

analysis capabilities to identify high crash locations and perform systemic analysis on local roads. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 

• Districts/Regions 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 49

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

expertise in highway safety and system optimization. The multidisciplinary team is comprised of members from 

various areas within the Department. SSO teams are responsible for the following: 

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

update strategies;

• Providing clarification and guidance to the 11 NYSDOT Regions; 

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

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

• Prioritize capital program projects; and

• Monitoring programs and projects to ensure safety goals are met.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Tribal Agency

• Other-New York State Department of Health

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

federal, tribal and private organizations throughout the state.

• NYSDOT coordinates with the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee on safety target setting. 

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

Working Group to coordinate and communicate ongoing safety efforts.

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

NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, NYSDOH and the MPOs.

• The Roadway Departure Safety Action Plan team currently in development also includes members from 

NYSDOT, FHWA, GTSC, DOH, local governments and the MPOs.

• The GTSC, FHWA, MPOs, local agencies and law enforcement are participating in the design of a new 

safety management system called CLEAR.

• External partners will be involved in the development of the next Strategic Highway Safety Plan due 

August 2022.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 49

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

CLEAR.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Pedestrian Safety

• Right Angle Crash

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Safe Corridor

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume • Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations

• Volume

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 49

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume • Functional classification
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 49

• All crashes • Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1999

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Volume • Median width

• Horizontal curvature
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 49

• Other-Priority Investigation

Locations (PILS)

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

construction to ensure safety is incorporated into maintenance projects.

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

investigation.

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

process.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:11/1/1989
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 49

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Crashes involving 

pedestrians

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Risk factors

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

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

under this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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).
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 49

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Other-Intersection features; 

speed limit etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 49

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1989

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

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

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

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

roadway departures.

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

treatments.

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

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

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

mile established for the region' 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1995

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume • Functional classification
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 49

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

replaced on a defined schedule.

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/1995

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 49

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Other- Locations are identified 

where the percentage of wet 

road accidents is twice the 

normal proportion for the same 

county and facility type.

• Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

(FN40 of 32) are treated.

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Locations with low friction test numbers (FN40 of 32) require treatment.:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:4/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Benefit Cost Analysis > 1
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 49

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-new minimum standards for exit ramp termini

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Incremental B/C:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 38

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Other-Pedestrian Countdown Timers 

• Other-Pedestrian Improvements identified in Pedestrian Safety Action Plan 

• Rumble Strips 

• Wrong way driving treatments 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York State strategies noted in the 2017 SHSP include:

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

best practices, including the National Pooled Fund Study Group.

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

utilizing 5.9 GHz dedicated short range communications for light vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

framework.

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

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

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

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

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

increase the vehicle's situational awareness.

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

Yes

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

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

on the state system every year.

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

investigations and conducting evaluations.

• The CLEAR application, once in production, will be consistent with HSM methods.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 49

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

elaborate.

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

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

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

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

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

emergency medical service activities.

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

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

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

Intersections

2020 data shows that intersection related fatalities were 40.3% of total fatalities. New York will take a 

multifaceted approach to solving intersection-related issues that considers the intersection design, 

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

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

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

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

Roadway Departures

2020 data shows that roadway departure fatalities were 34.8% of total fatalities. To address the wide array of 

contributing factors to lane departure crashes, New York will take an approach that considers both site-specific 

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

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

implementation of systemic improvements that decrease the number and severity of lane departure crashes. 

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS)

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

eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at least 0.75" of asphalt and meets the 

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

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

and run-off road crashes. As of March 2022, approximately 5,101 miles of CARDS have been installed.

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP)

SKARP incorporates safety considerations into pavement maintenance activities. SKARP identifies sections of 

pavement experiencing an unusually high proportion of wet road accidents; friction tests them and schedules 

treatment for sections experiencing both high wet road crashes and low friction numbers. The frictional quality 

of NYSDOT-owned pavements has improved since the program’s inception. A summary of PIL testing from 

1996 through 2021 shows a decline in the number of sites requiring treatment, from 91 sites in 1996 to 4 sites 

in 2021.

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP)
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 49

SAFETAP is designed to ensure that roadside safety considerations are incorporated in the Department's 

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

project review of preventive maintenance paving project sites to decide upon simple, low-cost safety 

improvements to be implemented at the time of construction, or soon after construction. Over 10,200 safety 

recommendations have been made since SFY16/17 and over 3,188 of the recommendations were completed 

during SFY20/21. The State is currently running a pilot in one of the regions to change the methodology for 

SAFETAP reviews.

Vulnerable Users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements can be made to improve pedestrian safety.

Safer Corridors for Pedestrians:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) US 11, Village of Malone, Franklin county

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

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

Complete Streets

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

provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes.

Pedestrian/Bicycle Unit

The Pedestrian Bicycle Unit has two main areas of responsibilities. The first one is coordination and outreach 

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

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

• Development of Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Protocol guidance has been issued on how to 

conduct counts, guidance is being developed on when and why counts should be conducted.

• Update of the NYS Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Active Transportation Plan, coordination on 

how the plan will be developed and the scope of the plan is ongoing.

• Updating the complete streets checklist to ensure bike/ped concerns are being addressed during the 

design process.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 49

• Considering revisions to Chapter 18 (pedestrian facility design) of the Highway Design Manual for a full 

update.

• Collecting comments for a future revision of Chapter 17 (bicycle facility design) of the Highway Design 

Manual.

• Identify types of active transportation users and their safety needs and develop effective 

countermeasures for safety concerns.

• Implement and evaluate innovative programming procedures, training techniques, and facility 

treatments.

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

the older driver group. Data from 2020 show that 26.90% of fatal and serious injury crashes involved a young 

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

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

education and enforcement initiatives.

Road User Behavior and Speed

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

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

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

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

centerline and edgeline rumble strips as well as improvements that influence driver speed such as signing and 

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

most important to build awareness and promote safer driving habits.

Emergency Response and Traffic Incident Management

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

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

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

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

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

(TIM) Program. A TIM Steering Committee was formed to guide the advancement of the statewide TIM 

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

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

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

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

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

efforts in the future.

Improvements to Data

Status of Crash Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

travel lanes. All PILs studied are on the State system with the exception of some New York City locations.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 49

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

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

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

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

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

Management System (SIMS) are:

Crash Records

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

12/31/2021. The policies surrounding the processing of PDO crashes have changed from year to year. 

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

The change in the MMUCC definition of serious injuries has affected the serious injury trend in New York 

State.

Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS)

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

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

agencies in NYS who have committed to using the software. As of April 2022, 521 agencies are transmitting 

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

to process each crash report.

CLEAR (Crash Location Engineering and Analysis Repository)

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

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

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

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

roads. Implementation is planned for the end of 2021 but has been delayed by a few months. CLEAR DATA 

VIEWER is online now, the other elements of CLEAR will hopefully come online in 2022.

Traffic Counts

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

complete traffic volume data for almost 44,000 miles of the approximately 117,000 miles of highway in New 

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

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

2021, the Department took 3,040 traffic counts on 3,400 miles of non-federal aid roads.

Local Highway Route System

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

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

State LRS.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

We exceeded the obligatory requirement of $95,682,088 in our Federal Fiscal Year 2022. $112,344,588.00 

was obligated. 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $88,436,847 $84,712,176 95.79%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$97,257,657 $96,418,761 99.14%

State and Local Funds $46,008,501 $45,082,802 97.99%

Totals $231,703,005 $226,213,739 97.63%

Although some program funds were 100% obligated, not all were, thus the 95.79% rather than 100% of HSIP 

funds obligated ...$84,712,576/88,436,847=.95788779% 

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

safety projects? 

$22,088,173

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

$20,637,923

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

$1,500,000

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

$1,500,000
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 49

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

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

the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

projects.

Statewide Call for Projects

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

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

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

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

Design Services Agreement

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

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

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

purpose. HSIP funded design services agreements are also being used for Highway Safety Investigations, 

PSAP field assessments, and design.

Marchiselli

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

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

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

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

Low Cost Countermeasures

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

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

implement.

Toll Credits

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

governments that don't have access to funds for the required federal match.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 49

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Project List 

is attached 

via an excel 

file

$0 0
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 49

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 1,202 1,041 1,136 1,041 1,006 964 934 1,046 1,103

Serious Injuries 11,609 10,874 11,077 11,501 11,148 10,996 11,712 10,634 11,174

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.967 0.840 0.933 0.853 0.815 0.781 0.752 1.021 0.964

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.335 8.770 9.102 9.427 9.028 8.903 9.425 10.381 9.769

Number nonmotorized fatalities382 314 353 357 297 298 322 278 340

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

2,696 2,378 2,240 2,407 2,261 2,309 2,540 2,247 2,328
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

10000

10200

10400

10600

10800

11000

11200

11400

11600

11800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 49

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

The fatalities data source for 2017 through 2020 is FARS. 

The fatalities data source for 2021 is the New York State Traffic Safety Statistical Repository (TSSR) system. 

FARS data for 2021 is not available at the time this report was written. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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

14.4 111.4 0.01 0.1

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

3.2 31.2 0 0.03

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

39.2 301 0.03 0.26

Rural Minor Arterial 43 292.4 0.04 0.25

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 49

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 Minor Collector 49.2 340.6 0.04 0.31

Rural Major Collector 51.4 418.4 0.05 0.34

Rural Local Road or 

Street

56.4 483.8 0.05 0.41

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

61.8 622.8 0.06 0.53

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

76.6 585.8 0.07 0.5

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

191.8 2,123 0.17 1.81

Urban Minor Arterial 202 2,324.6 0.17 1.99

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 83.6 1,101 0.07 0.94

Urban Local Road or 

Street

137.8 2,026.4 0.12 1.73
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 49

Year 2021

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

379.6 3,272.6 0.33 2.79

County Highway 

Agency

205 1,667.2 0.18 1.42

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

119.6 1,195.2 0.1 1.02

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

279.8 4,356.2 0.24 3.73

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

1 7 0 0.01

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0.2 3 0 0

Other State Agency 0.8 6 0 0.01

Other Local Agency 0.2 1.8 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 22 222.6 0.02 0.17

Local Toll Authority 1 15 0 0.01

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation 1 9.2 0 0.01

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:988.2

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

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

which is a clear, straightforward method and recommended by FHWA. The 5 year moving averages were used 
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 49

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

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 1% cap. The 

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

Number of Serious Injuries:11086.2

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

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

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

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

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 1% cap. The 

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

Fatality Rate:0.836

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

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

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

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

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 1% cap. The 

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

Serious Injury Rate:9.337

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

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

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

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

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 1% cap. The 

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

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:2633.4

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

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

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

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

3) The forecast was adjusted for reasonability by reviewing external factors and applying a 1% cap. The 

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

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

process used to set them.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 49

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 1012.7 1010.6

Number of Serious Injuries 10896.8 11132.8

Fatality Rate 0.824 0.867

Serious Injury Rate 8.865 9.501

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

2583.5 2644.0

New York State did not make significant progress towards meeting the serious injury or serious injury rate or 

non-motorized fatality and serious injury targets in 2020. The State submitted the 2022 HSIP Implementation 

Report. Below is some information from the report related to the targets that were not met.

• Rates were negatively impacted by an 18% decrease in VMT due to COVID-19 between 2019 and 

2020.

• While it's not possible to determine how much of the increase in serious injuries was due to a change in 

the serious injury definition, several factors related to the definition of serious injuries and the 

processing of crash data had the potential to negatively affect the serious injury trends in NY beginning 

in 2018.

o The following changes were made to the police report in 2018 to be compliant with the new 

MMUCC definition of serious injuries:

▪ Severe lacerations, crush injuries, and paralysis were added to the ‘type of physical 

complaint’ attribute

▪ The definition of "Fracture - Dislocation" was changed to include "Fracture / Distorted / 

Dislocation"

▪ Eye injuries were removed from the serious injury definition 

o 1,160 serious injuries were coded to the changed values above in NYC alone in 2019 and 3,196 

serious injuries were coded to the changed values statewide. It is not known how the crashes 

would have been coded before the change to the police report.

o An unexplained increase in crashes coded as internal injuries occurred resulting in a serious 

injury level crash. Training has been provided to ensure internal injury crashes are coded 

correctly.

o New York City began processing cases electronically during this 5 year timeframe.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Calculated Rule does not apply since the rate for 2020 is less than the rate for 2018.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 49

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

201 217 200 213 213 203 183

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

1,036 1,090 1,095 1,068 1,208 1,246 944
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Other-target crashes 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

From 2007 until 2020, New York fatality rate was under 1.0 per 100M VMT. The number of fatalities and the 

fatality rate were on a downward trend at a time when many states were experiencing an increase. The 

number of serious injuries and serious injury rates were on a downward trend but increased in 2019. Some of 

the increase in serious injuries was due to a change in the MMUCC definition of serious injuries which was 

implemented in New York State at the end of 2018. 

The Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic also affected safety results in NY due to the unprecedented 

changes in both traffic volumes and the number and severity of crashes during calendar year 2020. While the 

impacts of this public health crisis have been experienced nationwide, New York State has endured a 

disproportionate impact of these changes in travel patterns and behavior that still continue. 

NYSDOT is waiting for final Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) projects to be completed to evaluate that 

program. When the new system CLEAR goes live, New York State will be able to evaluate projects and 

programs on multiple levels. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # miles improved by HSIP 

• # RSAs completed 

• HSIP Obligations 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• More systemic programs 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 324.4 2,596.2 0.28 2.22

Interections 417 5,687.4 0.36 4.86
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 49

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)

Pedestrians 262.6 1,722.8 0.23 1.46

Bicyclists 43.2 612.2 0.04 0.53

Motorcyclists 162.2 1,058 0.14 0.91
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Lane Departure Interections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Lane Departure Interections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 49

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Lane Departure Interections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Lane Departure Interections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

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

The new system CLEAR will have updated crash costs that should help the regions identify safety projects with a B/C greater than 1.0.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 06/13/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

99.5 86.2 18.8 17.2

AADT Year (80) [82] 99.4 85.3

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

90 83

AADT Year (80) [82] 90 83

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 49

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

93.1 40.4

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

93.1 40.4

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.94 98.42 60.00 58.25 98.75 89.16 90.98 90.80 100.00 100.00

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

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

identifying official sources of data, data fields needed by different program areas, and version control. The intersection and ramp data reported in question #49 has been collected and will be available in the production environment when 

the CLEAR application goes live in mid 2022. 

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

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

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

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

and up to date data.
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

RED BOOK Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program Procedures__Techniques.pdf

Project Implementation:

HSIP Project List_220603 FINAL.xlsx

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 49

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

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

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

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

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