Page 1 of 73

PENNSYLVANIA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 73

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology .......................................................................................................................9

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

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

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................35

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

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

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

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

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................53

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................53

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................53

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................58

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................68

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................72

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................73
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 73

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data.

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

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

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

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

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

surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning 

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

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

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

not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for 

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

such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 73

Executive Summary

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is pleased to present this 2020 Annual Report of our progress 

with the Highway Safety Improvement Program. In 2020, 1,059 people lost their lives on Pennsylvania's 

roadways. This is a record low in Pennsylvania. This was a decrease of 131 fatalities from the 1,190 fatalities 

in 2018. Some areas where fatal crashes decreased drastically are lane departures, unrestrained, alcohol 

related, and signalized intersection crashes. To reach our ultimate goal of zero deaths on our roads, our 

journey includes ongoing work on both the behavioral side of crash causations as well as continuing to improve 

our highway infrastructure.

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

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

increase our evaluation abilities PennDOT worked with Penn State University to develop new Safety 

Performance Functions (SPFs) for suburban/urban collector roads. PennDOT has also completed calibration 

for the AASHTO 2014 HSM supplement for freeways, ramps and ramp terminals. Now that the freeway and 

ramp calibrations are completed these new analysis options will be included in PennDOT’s highway safety 

network screening in 2021. Safety analysts in PA can now use a calibrated ISATe tool for location analysis. 

PennDOT will begin its next round of network screening in late 2020 into 2021. PennDOT currently has 

spreadsheets and maps that plot our highway safety network screening locations based on excess expected 

yearly crash frequencies also referred to as Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI). These network screenings 

were last completed in 2017. The network screening tools were updated to include the new urban and 

suburban collector road SPFs. The network screening will include a weighting of locations based on costs per 

crash based on 2019 crash severities. 

The Pennsylvania regionalized SPFs are the main analytical part of the Pennsylvania specific HSM analytical 

tool. Over the last several years PennDOT has provided several Pennsylvania specific HSM trainings. The 

PennDOT HSM classes cover not only the Highway Safety Manual, but also different tools to use and when to 

use them. This class gives practical examples and then allows attendees to use the PennDOT HSM analysis 

tool to perform safety analysis. With the new crash prediction models for urban collectors, freeways and ramps, 

these trainings will need to be updated for future offerings. PennDOT is currently updating several 

Pennsylvania specific HSM analysis tools with these new SPFs.

PennDOT is currently in the process of updating its Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis 

Methods Manual or P-SPAMM. The updates will include the new urban-suburban collector roads SPFs, the 

new calibration factors for PA freeways and ramps, include the new part D CMF analysis methods for 

combining CMFs which include multiplicative, additive, dominate effect, and dominant common residuals. 

There will be new example problems. The expanded network screening process will be also be explained. 

PennDOT will also update its Publication 638, The District Highway Safety Guidance Manual, to include new 

guidelines for local force account use of HSIP funds. By creating these guidelines PennDOT will encourage 

more low cost safety countermeasures on municipality owned roads. These updates to the HSIP policy should 

reach completion at the end of 2021.

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

Implementation Plan. The final report was submitted to the FHWA on June 30, 2020. PennDOT hired a 

consultant team to help review the HSIP program. This involved a detailed data research project that showed 

many strengths and areas for improvement in the Pennsylvania HSIP program. One area for improvement is 

PennDOT’s HSIP project tracking. PennDOT continues to use the Department’s SharePoint application 

website to process HSIP project applications from the engineering districts and the regional planning partners. 

Since the adoption of the HSIP Share Point site there have been a few MPO/RPOs that have submitted 

projects for approval. The HSIP SharePoint application program went live in January 2017. PennDOT has 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 73

continually updated the site for best performance. However, this HSIP share point site has reached its 

maximum potential. One aspect pointed out by the HSIP Implementation Plan was the need for a better HSIP 

project tracking system. Currently the share point project applications webpage and the Department’s MPMS 

system do not communicate and do not adequately track project scope, cost, and project milestone date 

changes. The Department is assessing ways to move forward with a better project tracking system. The HSIP 

Implementation Plan also provides many other quality assessments that can be read in the final report.

While a lot of work remains to reach our goal of reducing highway fatalities to zero by 2050, we remain 

encouraged by the progress that has been made in certain areas and the opportunities for the future.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 73

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

and Management for funding and fiscal review. Then projects receive final approval from the FHWA Division 

office. Projects are selected for implementation based on the projected safety benefit of the safety 

countermeasures and the allowable funding. Projects are then developed and designed by the Engineering 

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

received for the project and the lowest bidder is shown), provide construction inspection and oversight. As part 

of the annual HSIP report, HSTOD evaluates projects before and after the project was constructed to 

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

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

treatments, and High Tension Cable Median Barrier. A network analysis of these systemic improvements is 

completed when there is enough data in a given time span. PennDOT has also implemented a minimum BCR 

of 1.0 for spot location safety projects. 

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

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

must use a systemic safety approach and include a HSM analysis and benefit cost analysis. Every year $35 

million is set aside and every competitive set aside period covers $70 million HSIP funds. Pennsylvania's local 

municipalities may apply for a project through their MPO/RPO. This set aside program is now a policy in 

PennDOT Publication 638. 

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

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

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

PennDOT's Publication 638. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Engineering and Planning

This includes the central office Highway Safety section, District Highway Safety Units, as well as the District 

and central office planning groups. 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 73

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

 Formula via MPOs 

More information about the allocation of HSIP funds in Pennsylvania can be found in PennDOT's Publication 

638 Chapter 6. The HSIP funds are broke down annually as follows: 

- $35 million for competitive statewide set aside projects 

-$500K provided to each planning region (MPO/RPOs) 

-The remaining funds are distributed by a weighted equation based on regional total crashes and total fatal and 

injury crashes. 

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

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

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

across the state. In 2019 18% of highway fatalities occurred on the local road network. Local highway fatalities 

decreased from 202 in 208 to 186 in 2019. Local road fatalities have hovered above or below 200/year over 

the past two decades with the highest total of 279 in the year 2007 and the lowest count of 163 in the year 

2002. 

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

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

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

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

local roads. Soon local roads will be segmented to help pin point crash locations through ARNOLD. PennDOT 

has already started to collect more local road traffic volumes to help expand HSM based network screening 

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

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

districts to determine better locations for local safety improvements. 

PennDOT is currently working with LTAP and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors 

(PSATS) to conduct technical reviews on local roads which can result in a low-cost safety project. PennDOT 

provides direction for the studies which are conducted by LTAP staff. The studies result in a safety analysis 

report that has an itemized list of safety countermeasures ready for a construction contract or force account 

work. Other local safety studies have been conducted while others are in process in other parts of the state for 

future local safety projects. LTAP also provides training to municipalities for a variety of subjects including 

highway safety. 

PennDOT plans to work closely with the FHWA PA Division office over the next year to implement force 

account safety work on local roads using HSIP funds. PennDOT will update their Publication 638 to include the 

new HSIP local force account guidelines. The policy updated should be completed by late 2021. 

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

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

submitted to NHTSA every year. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 73

 Districts/Regions 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

 Other-Engineering Districts, Planning Organizations, Program Center 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

Districts – Districts implement highway safety projects selected for construction 

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

efforts with Safety Engineering efforts 

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

Pennsylvania Highway Safety falls under the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations 

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

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

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

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Academia/University 

 FHWA 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Law Enforcement Agency 

 Local Government Agency 

 Local Technical Assistance Program 

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

PennDOT works with Universities (Academia) to produce research into safety programs. Some recent work 

involved the development of urban collector roadway SPFs and research into the effectiveness of adaptive 

traffic signal control. 

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

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

topics. 

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

supports the NHTSA grant funded programs. 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 73

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

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

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

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

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

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

contract with PSATS. 

Regional Planning Organizations help to implement HSIP funded projects. 

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

elaborate. 

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

PennDOT will update its network screening in all 67 counties in starting in late 2020 into early 2021 expanding 

to urban collector roadways and Freeways and Ramps. The network screening is discussed in more detail in 

other parts of this report. Network screening is typically accomplished using HSIP funds from District safety 

projects that have fallen behind on their delivery schedules and now require funds in later years. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

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

PennDOT's website. 

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Bicycle Safety 

 Horizontal Curve 

 HRRR

 HSIP (no subprograms) 

 Intersection 

 Left Turn Crash 

 Local Safety 

 Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

 Median Barrier 

 Pedestrian Safety 

 Roadway Departure 

 Rural State Highways 

 Safe Corridor 

 Shoulder Improvement 

 Skid Hazard 

 Wrong Way Driving 

 Other-Older Drivers 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 73

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Horizontal curvature

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 73

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:6/19/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Horizontal curvature

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 73

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:6/26/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-FAST Act Penalty

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Other-Number of crashes

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 73

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:7/11/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Intersection

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

Page 14 of 73

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

 Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 73

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-ISIP 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Local Safety

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

Page 16 of 73

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:3/2/2020

What is the justification for this program? 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 73

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:2

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:5/29/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 73

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Median width

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

 Other-median slopes/crosssection

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 73

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-HSIP funds and State 715 safety funds
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 73

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

Streets. 

 Other-MUTCD Table 2C.05

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-Old surface Transportation Act
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 73

What is the funding approach for this program? 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology:5/20/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Program set up by PA Act 229

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 73

 All crashes  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-Maintenance and Highway Safety 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 73

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 73

 All crashes

 Other-Wet road, SVROR and 

HFO

 Roadside features

 Other-Skid testing

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:5/27/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 73

 All crashes

 Fatal crashes only  Other-none  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Other-Older Drivers

Date of Program Methodology:5/13/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-(FAST) Act Special Rule

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

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

Page 26 of 73

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-Potential for Improvement based on Crash History:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 26

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

 Cable Median Barriers 

 High friction surface treatment 

 Horizontal curve signs 

 Install/Improve Lighting 

 Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

 Install/Improve Signing 

 Rumble Strips 

 Wrong way driving treatments 

HSIP Funds Obligated for SFY 19-20 which matches our Project Listing (question #29). Projects were sorted 

into this category based on the countermeasure’s role in reducing safety concerns. Systemic improvements 

focus on addressing crashes that are often spread across the network (e.g., lane departure, intersection). 

Systemic projects account for 26% of all HSIP projects according to our funds distribution assessment in the 

HSIP Implementation Plan. That includes projects from from 2002 to 2015. The analysis shows the cost per 

fatal and suspected serious injury reduction for a spot location project was $7.92 million while systemic 

projects resulted in a $690K cost per fatal and suspected serious injury reduction. Systemic improvements 

were 11 times more cost effective than spot improvement projects between 2002 to 2015. 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 73

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

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

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 SHSP/Local road safety plan 

 Stakeholder input 

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

barriers and wrong way crash lists 

 Other-Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP) 

Would like to update the RDIP and ISIP soon since these were completed in 2012. 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

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

surprise that Pennsylvania is at the very epicenter of the rise in Automated Vehicles (AVs). 

Pennsylvania’s world-class research universities have continually served as a breeding ground for 

technological advances, with Carnegie Mellon University known as the “birthplace of self driving 

vehicles.” Since 2011, Pennsylvania has emerged as a leading location for on-road testing of AVs as 

they steadily advance toward practical use. As of August 2020, there are nine authorized AV testers in 

Pennsylvania – Aptiv, Argo AI, Aurora, Carnegie Mellon University, Locomotion, Nvidia, Plus AI, 

Qualcomm, and Uber. Base on the information the testers provided PennDOT, testing is expected to 

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

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

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

Roadside Units (RSUs) at select signalized intersections to enable communications between the 

vehicles and the infrastructure. Currently, there are 54 connected intersections, including 8 in 

Harrisburg and 24 in Pittsburgh, with plans to install an additional 200 in the coming years. In 2016, 

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

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

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

government, law enforcement, technology companies, higher education, manufacturers, motorists and 

trucking groups, and academic research institutions. The Smart Belt Coalition is a first-of-its-kind 

collaboration between PennDOT, PTC, Ohio DOT, the Ohio Turnpike, and Michigan DOT and 

universities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan with a focus on automated and connected vehicle 

initiatives across jurisdictional boarders. 

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

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

Secretary Yassmin Gramian, P.E. is challenging PennDOT to take action to sustain Pennsylvania’s 

leadership in automated vehicle research, while simultaneously ensuring that public safety remains 

the paramount priority as AVs are tested on the roadways. PennDOT recently completed a 7-month 

effort to update Pennsylvania’s Highly Automated Vehicle Testing Guidance. This nationally 

recognized guidance focuses on the human safety driver, training, and safety culture of a tester rather 

than the technical aspects of the vehicle. 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 73

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

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

transportation safety and operational needs of Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic Region. PennSTART 

will address safety training and research needs in six key areas: traffic incident management (TIM); 

connected and automated vehicles; tolling and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology; 

work zones; commercial vehicles; and transit vehicles. The PennSTART team completed the systems 

engineering, including Concept of Operations, Facility Requirements, Business Plan, and Market 

Analysis Study, in summer 2020.

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

Grant to explore the safe integration of automated vehicles in work zones. Through the department’s 

oversight, it has become clear that AVs do not perform well in the work zones and routinely require 

human intervention. In many cases, testers try to avoid work zones altogether. Unlike other AV 

challenges, such as variable weather conditions, work zones offer a unique opportunity for industry 

and the public sector to collaborate to resolve this issue and safely advance ADS technology. Through 

the ADS grant, PennDOT plans to develop a consistent approach to allow for AVs to safely operate in 

work zones. Knowing that there is unlikely single solution, the PennDOT is looking as variety of 

methods including (i) Connectivity between AVs and work zone artifacts using connectivity equipment 

(DSRC and C-V2X radios), (ii) innovative coating for pavement marking and work zone artifacts, (iii) 

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

Ranging (LIDAR) and cameras, and (iv) integration of simulation-based analysis of traffic impacts with 

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

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

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

working to educate key stakeholders and the public about the impact and benefits of this emerging 

technology. PennDOT has arrange for connected and automated vehicle demonstrations to key 

transportation and Legislative officials. Over 200 riders had an opportunity to experience first-hand the 

capabilities of connected and automated vehicles, including Governor Tom Wolf, members of the 

Pennsylvania House and Senate Transportation Committees, several cabinet-level secretaries, and 

various local officials. The demonstration allowed participants to develop an understanding of how 

technological advances are being adapted and implemented in this rapidly advancing field here in 

Pennsylvania. PennDOT continues to organize the Pennsylvania Automated Vehicle Summit. The 2019 

Summit had 400+ attendees and discussions focusing on a variety of themes including safety, 

infrastructure planning, workforce & economic development, equity, system validation, and data. The 

two overarching goals were to encourage interchange and collaboration between stakeholders and 

provide a foundational understanding of automate vehicles.

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

Yes

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

In May 2017 PennDOT published Publication 638A, Pennsylvania Safety Predictive Analysis Methods Manual, 

orSPAMM. This new publication is available on PennDOT’s website for anyone to view. The manual is 

intended to be a reference for someone that attended a PennDOT HSM class and is now ready to perform 

safety analysis. The SPAMM covers most of Pennsylvania’s regionalized SPFs. PennDOT, in conjunction with 

Penn State University, completed the development of suburban-urban collector road SPFs. PennDOT just 

completed the process of calibrating the AASHTO 2014 HSM supplement for Freeways and ramps. These new 

analysis options will be included in a first revision to Publication 638A which is currently underway. The update 

will also include the part D CMF combination methods which include multiplicative, additive, dominate effect, 

and dominate common residuals. The Manual provides clear definitions for common HSM terms and then 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 73

displays every PA regionalized SPF Formula separated by highway facility type in easy to use tables. We are 

currently in the process of calibrating the NCHRP research report 888 SPFs for Pennsylvania. PennDOT is 

also in the process of updating our HSM prediction tools.

In March 2018 PennDOT released its first HSM based County Network Screening Analysis spreadsheets and 

GIS maps. These spreadsheets evaluated segments and intersections located in all 67 counties. There are two 

spreadsheets for each county. One covers intersections and the other covers segments. Each spreadsheet 

has two tabs. One for “Rural” segments or intersections and one for “Urban” segments or intersections. While a 

fair number of counties have a balance of rural and urban segment and intersection locations, some counties 

may only have urban (Philadelphia) and others only have rural (Forest) locations based on demographics. The 

goal was to have about 120 segments and 160 intersections evaluated in each county (Urban & Rural 

combined). Some counties due to their rural nature will be below that number. Other counties due to their vast 

highway network will be above the 120 and 160 number. Currently the County Network Screening Analysis for 

segments and intersections does not include freeways, ramps, ramp terminals and roundabouts since 

Pennsylvania does not have Freeway SPFs or calibration factors for the AASHTO HSM SPFs. Starting in late 

2020 PennDOT will expand the network screening to include urban collector roadway segments and 

intersections and the newly calibrated freeways and ramps. At this time, roundabouts will likely be left out of 

our next network screening since we just started the roundabout SPF calibration process. The segment and 

intersection locations have been sorted to show the locations’ “Excess” value based on total yearly crash 

frequency, also known as Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI). This value is the “Expected crash frequency 

value” minus the “Predicted crash frequency value”. Any location above zero shows the location has a higher 

crash frequency than the predicted models for a similar roadway facility type. A higher positive PSI value 

shows a location has more potential for safety improvement than a location with a lower value. Any location 

with a value below zero shows the location has a crash frequency below the predicted model. In 2020 we will 

expand the network screening to assess F&I crash frequencies along with PDO crash frequencies. PennDOT 

will assign a weight to those F&I and PDO excess values for a weighted excess value based on costs per 

crash of the predicted average annual crash frequencies.

The Network Screenings do not show what countermeasure(s) should be used for any specific segment or 

intersection location. A more in-depth traffic engineering and safety study is required to determine the crash 

trends and the suitable safety improvements. The Intersection and segment network screening lists and maps 

should be used when evaluating highway locations for safety. These network screenings are not limited to only 

aiding in HSIP and LCSIP project selection. The network screening lists and maps can and are used the same 

way a location’s crash rate is compared to Homogenous crash rates for studies, HOPs, standard design 

projects safety assessments, and other such uses. This is a big step forward in highway safety for 

Pennsylvania. 

PennDOT developed a new ICE policy in 2018. With this development, a tool similar to the national SPICE tool 

was developed for Pennsylvania. The ICE tool utilizes the HSM in other phases of the project development 

process including Design Exceptions, Point of Access studies, and Purpose & Need Statements. 

The new HSIP project application process added a new HSM analysis requirement for all spot location 

projects. Systemic projects must reference applicable CMFs for the specific countermeasure. The details of 

this new requirement are in the May 2019 Publication 638 Chapter 6. 

Finally, PennDOT continues to offer a PennDOT specific HSM class. The class is 1 1⁄2 days long. The class is 

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

models and provides an entire afternoon of hands on use of PennDOT’s HSM analysis tool. 

PennDOT will continue to encourage and enhance the use of the Highway Safety Manual.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 73

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

elaborate.

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

Implementation Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

examples include:

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

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

preparing any HSIP application.

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

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

in Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

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

conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

they have the greatest impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

safety and mobility at these crossings, PennDOT has developed an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 73

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

either new intersections or modifications to existing intersections.

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

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

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

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

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

resulted in an itemized list of safety countermeasures ready for a construction contract or force account work.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 73

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $101,343,103 $109,071,309 107.63%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$26,897 $26,897 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

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

Totals $111,370,000 $119,098,206 106.94%

We track HSIP/HRRR Programmed amounts by federal fiscal year and Obligated amounts by state fiscal year 

(same as question #29). This resulted in an obligation rate of over 100% since the federal/state fiscal years do 

not line up exactly. 

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

obligated fund numbers can be found in those respective reports. 

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

tools. 

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

safety improvements on state highways. 

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

safety projects? 

$1,039,157

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

$1,039,157
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 73

$635,000 for new traffic signals, pedestrian accommodations and equipment, new signing and pavement 

markings on Liberty Ave from Grant Street to Herron Ave in the City of Pittsburgh. (MPMS 106773) 

$404,157 to the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) contract tasks for PennDOT Directed Technical 

Assistance and Local Safe Roads Program for the delivery of local road low-cost safety improvements. 

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

$2,131,007

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

$2,131,007

$26,850 for Traffic Incident Management Responder Training 

$50,000 for a Roadside Safety Audit on Interstate 80 in Mercer County 

$150,000 for a Safety Audit of the SR 8/SR 62 Intersection in Venango County 

$404,157 to the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) contract tasks for PennDOT Directed Technical 

Assistance and Local Safe Roads Program for the delivery of local road low-cost safety improvements 

$750,000 for HSM Analysis Tool Updates & the HSIP Implementation Plan 

$750,000 for the I-79 S-Bends Study in Allegheny County 

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. 

There are a few Engineering Districts that have struggled in the project development of HSIP funded safety 

projects. This results in several projects missing let dates and HSIP funds not being used for those projects in 

the planned years. To overcome these project delivery issues, the Highway Safety Section is working with 

PennDOT's Bureau of Project Delivery to track the milestones of HSIP projects to ensure design project 

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

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

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

competitive safety needs. 

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

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

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

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

Implementing systemic projects on local levels usually results in very low cost projects that are hard to bid and 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 73

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

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

development. PennDOT is exploring options to better address safety concerns on local roads where there are 

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

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

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

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

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

for local roads. 

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

years. Any new projects submitted for a spot location must now have a BCA completed that show a 1:1 or 

better B/C ratio. This will also allow HSIP funds to be used on other projects where partial funding can be used 

to implement safety improvements. We are also updating our HSIP project selection policy through our 

updates to PennDOT Publication 638. The changes will force more predictive analysis when selecting projects. 

At a minimum, CMFs will need to be used to show the expected benefits. 

The Department will begin updating our network screening for all 67 counties in Pennsylvania in 2020 These 

highway safety priority lists will be developed using the Highway Safety Manual's analysis method of Excess 

Expected Average Crash Frequency with Empirical Bayes (EB) adjustments also known as Potential for Safety 

Improvement (PSI). This method will use the calculated Expected crashes for a location and subtract the 

Predicted crashes for that same location to produce a value. All locations will have that calculated difference 

value ordered highest to lowest. Any value above zero shows a potential for safety improvement over the 

state’s predicted annual crashes for that category of roadway or intersection.

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

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

screenings only used SPFs for all crashes. The next round of network screening will include fatal and injury 

crash excess values along with PDO excess values. These values will be weighted based on crash costs for 

the crash severities. 

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

current network screening covers about 20,000 locations and the next round will greatly increase the number 

of screened locations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

PennDOT. The Noteworthy Practices have been grouped around the following issues: 

1. Funding for Local Road Projects 

2. Increase Number of Local Applicants 

3. Identifying Project Needs on Local Roads 

4. Developing Viable HSIP Projects 

5. Administering Work to Complete HSIP Projects 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 73

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

US222/322 

Interchange Imp

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 5.12 Miles $1239815 $14011326.8

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 27,98

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 90491

222 & 100 Ramp 

Pre-emptn

Interchange 

design

Ramp metering 0.36 Miles $1400 $37851 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,09

3

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 104431

Nyes/Dvnshre Hts 

Safety

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.23 Miles $4095696 $5186203.67 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 10,97

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 47521

SR 26/45 

Shingletown 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.62 Miles $311555 $6415144 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,400 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 76136

PA 68/Dolby 

Street 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1.79 Miles $288999 $17013036 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,31

6

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 24890

PA 28/US 322 

Brookville 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.53 Miles $1000000 $8992208 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,319 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 26064

N Waterford 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.55 Miles $197662 $6253605 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,94

7

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 91394

SR 115 Corridor 

Impr - Effort

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.5 Miles $601425 $7619091 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 10,26

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 102167

PA 

98/Sterrettania 

Rd Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

0.2 Miles $3000 $709000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,717 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 105776

SR 64/550 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

1.04 Miles $937038 $4576000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 8,037 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106034

PA997 & SR2015 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1.68 Miles $530000 $3650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,617 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106709

Route 145 Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify left-turn 

lane offset

1.15 Miles $424360 $8255880 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,51

2

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 109971
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Horseshoe Pike 

@ Manor Rd.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.98 Miles $116723 $804460 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,958 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110949

University Ave. 

Safety (C)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to increase cross 

street offset

0.8 Miles $2622606 $2761549 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,35

7

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

111062

Kennedy 

Drive/County 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.05 Miles $665000 $4101750 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,584 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 57706

PA 272 

Intersection Impvt

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

5.07 Miles $7459892 $5940568.37 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,986 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 90490

US220&SR 405 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.56 Miles $1100382 $5136045 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 9,752 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93016

Lock Haven 

Signal 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

0.16 Miles $85000 $1932319 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,44

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93343

PA 287 to West 

Fourth Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

12.14 Miles $2513788 $56127000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 13,36

7

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 93732

Mount Hope 

Intrscn Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.51 Miles $2631602.7

3

$4384533 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,788 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 96506

Lewistown Safety 

Corridor

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

0.81 Miles $1201000 $4415344 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,449 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 101959

Hamot Rd/Oliver 

Rd Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.22 Miles $1111716 $4811716 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,369 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 102069

US 62/State St 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1.33 Miles $3739576 $5984400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,795 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

105775

SR 18 & SR 518 

Intersection 

(Bobby's Corner)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

0.27 Miles $3450 $782184 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,760 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106765

Liberty Ave Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0 Miles $635000 $6605556 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

18,50

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Enhancing 

Safety on 

Local Roads

106773
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

5th Street Signal 

Improvements (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0.27 Miles $520372 $995372 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,50

1

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

106991

SR 150 Lock 

Haven Signals

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

1.81 Miles $558300 $4247000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,65

4

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

109872

Castor Ave. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.2 Miles $496000 $1603900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,870 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110958

Old Skippack Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.82 Miles $422900 $1432500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 3,891 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110961

Manor Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1.29 Miles $545000 $1763000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,692 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110963

Old 

Lincoln/Hulmevill

e Int Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.94 Miles $384434 $939949 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,491 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110966

Bethel Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Miles $646000 $2212500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,029 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 111021

Low Cost Safety 

Improvments 6-0 

(C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0 Miles $5523209 $6220000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 112524

Municipal Safety 

LTAP

Noninfrastructure Outreach 0 Miles $404157 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Outreach Enhancing 

Safety on 

Local Roads

106544

2019 SHRP 2 

Traff Incdnt Mgmt 

Responder 

Training

Noninfrastructure Training and workforce 

development

0 Miles $8400 $23200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Training Data 113174

AlleghnyAv:Ridge

-Aramingo (F)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 7.33 Miles $226000 $9400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,73

2

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 85417

PA 837/33rd St to 

Smithfield

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

4.65 Miles $105880 $19508217 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,23

2

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 

and 

Pedestrians

98085

New Falls Rd 

HSIP

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 2.72 Miles $220000 $1800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 12,93

7

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 104365
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Post & Cable 

Guide Rail

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.18 Miles $1970136 $3113173.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 10,26

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

90318

I-176 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 21 Miles $1498886 $3062710 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate10,54

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

104435

Districtwide Long 

Term UBE

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 Miles $3000 $875000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 1,189 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106885

CMB I-70 Town 

Hill to Tpike 

Ramps

Roadside Barrier - cable 15.01 Miles $496887 $2650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate7,823 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110863

Philipsburg Add 

Center Ln

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.47 Miles $459000 $12744596 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,12

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

93329

SR 11 Shoulder / 

ELRS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.59 Miles $462616.11 $3338000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,190 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

94740

Atherton Street 

Phase II

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

2.76 Miles $252337 $19717914 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,95

2

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

98126

Fed Aid Paving 4-

18-FP2

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

3.41 Miles $160568 $1865456 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

10,93

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

102555

10-2 SR 3021 

Corridor 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.01 Miles $400000 $9127696 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,974 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110783

PA 68 Zelienople 

Curve

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.22 Miles $415000 $2201999 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,307 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

110826

SR 191 High 

Friction Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.6 Miles $490000 $499591 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,287 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

112162

SR61 / 209 

Intersection

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 3.65 Miles $162000 $3559955 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,56

1

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

72466

234 & 3001 

Improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0.37 Miles $158776 $2273359.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,512 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

73602
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Colebrook Road 

Improvemt

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

3.55 Miles $906752 $7515242.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 9,155 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

96783

SR 6 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

2.17 Miles $406154 $535000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 17,56

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

101991

SR 12 Elizabeth 

Avenue

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.66 Miles $250000 $11630000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 18,93

9

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

79467

SR 322 Safety 

Improvement

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.84 Miles $5339.27 $10468477 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther13,33

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

78994

222 & Shantz & 

863 Improv

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - all-way stop to 

roundabout

1.98 Miles $5837301 $23066829 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther24,79

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 79554

Henry Ave 

Congested Corr1

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 7.94 Miles $1000000 $9713000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,55

1

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 80104

Olney:BroadRising Sun(F)Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Crosswalk 1.61 Miles $21310 $5838998 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther2,531 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 85415

PA 34 & PA 850 

Intersect.

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.14 Miles $1568000 $5277581.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 12,22

5

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 85655

SR 896 Safety 

Project

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

5.75 Miles $855000 $13800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,982 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

85949

US11 & PA997 

Intersection

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.08 Miles $126000 $5218652.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,18

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

86970

US 30 Bypass 

Upgrades

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 10.25 Miles $2783200 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

17,55

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

88436

PA56/SR4028 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.84 Miles $3124700 $7345500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,247 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 88524

209/115 Int. Imp - 

Phase2

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1.52 Miles $1652558 $32088953 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,34

8

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 88935
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-81 Carlisle West Roadside Barrier - cable 22.23 Miles $1600000 $17659694.0

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate34,70

4

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

91015

SR 222_73 & 

Genesis Dr

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

2.61 Miles $2852461 $43016015 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,30

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 92414

SR 0739 Shld 

Widen / ELRS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.36 Miles $250000 $6252033 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,897 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

92900

US 15 Safety 

Improvements - 

York

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

acceleration lane

10.39 Miles $3236593 $7677016.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther15,00

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 92920

248/946 Intersctn 

Impr Berlinsville

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - replace 

existing indications 

(incandescent-to-LED and/or 8-

to-12 inch dia.)

0.14 Miles $1000 $2390033 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,651 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93116

Howard 

Intersection

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.56 Miles $281250 $2694561 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 4,699 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 93262

SR 29/3003 

Sugar Hollow

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.34 Miles $530000 $1908000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,613 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 94688

Drinker St NB Exit 

Signal

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.72 Miles $715020 $3001975.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate23,83

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 95263

209 Holy Cross 

Road to Hollow 

Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.56 Miles $37675 $4229393 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 13,88

6

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

95398

US 522 - Franklin 

Co Line

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

3.83 Miles $630000 $5920000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,065 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

96544

SR4022 ov 

US220

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.04 Miles $294519 $2110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,109 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 99076

Wonder View 

Lane to Sugar 

Creek

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

2.17 Miles $200000 $4495000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,216 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

99418

Henry Ave 

Congested Corr2

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

3.23 Miles $700000 $5660000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,825 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

102134
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Lycoming Cable 

Guiderail

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $878.79 $658200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

102876

Ridge Avenue 

ISIP (C)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 1.63 Miles $27150 $2322250.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 8,298 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians 104385

D3 CGR 

Replacement

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $108.39 $508638 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

104404

Constitution 

Boulevard - B51

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

7.47 Miles $489659 $13144471 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther4,503 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

105454

Gordon Mountain 

Road Truck 

Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

2.26 Miles $7217 $193539 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 1,951 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Commercial 

Vehicle 

Safety

106123

NTIER Cable 

Guide Rail 

Upgrade

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $200000 $935000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

106267

Port Allegany 

Safety 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

0.86 Miles $2015600 $2192490 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,628 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106371

Meck's Corner 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

2.27 Miles $250000 $4130000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,764 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106551

PA 21 Fayette Co 

Corridor HSIP

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 0.81 Miles $2400144 $2679652.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,764 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Study Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

106559

Rising Sun 

Avenue Signal 

Imp. (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1.15 Miles $4938157 $2633616 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,341 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 106994

Castor 

Ave:AramingoErie (C)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1.42 Miles $4891866 $3433463 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,11

1

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 106995

SR 1009 - SR 

1021 to PA 36

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

1.46 Miles $992211 $3416236 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,166 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

108201

SR 2005 TwoWay Left Turn 

Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.48 Miles $475000 $2400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,573 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

108985
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

D12 Mountain 

Signage

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 29.78 Miles $1277625 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 5,390 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109870

2020 District 12 

HFS Contract

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

2.71 Miles $507074 $1105000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 10,97

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109965

RATS High 

Friction Surface 

2019

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.57 Miles $514780 $514790 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 3,818 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

109992

LVTS High 

Friction Sites - 

2019

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.76 Miles $244531 $244532 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 15,70

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110038

NEPA High 

Friction Surface2019

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.5 Miles $157502 $157502 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 4,405 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110039

Districtwide Cable 

Guide Rail 

Upgrade

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $1159000 $1384000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

110771

Upgrades to the 

PA 38 Crash 

Avoidance 

Systems

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Congestion detection / traffic 

monitoring system

4.39 Miles $112000 $122000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,768 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110827

Main St. Safety 

Improv

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1.45 Miles $25000 $5403000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,64

7

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 110971

Easton Rd. 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

0.53 Miles $1145000 $4028000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther4,984 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 111024

I-78 & SR 309 

Diamond 

Grooving

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

12.97 Miles $50000 $2057391 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate17,96

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

111188

I-79 S-Bends 

Study

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 6.51 Miles $750000 $80750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate29,45

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Study Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

112402

SR 6 High Friction 

Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3.4 Miles $965000 $973937 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,213 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

112763

SR 22 High 

Friction Surface 

HSIP

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.58 Miles $882060 $926000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,599 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

113429
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 73

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPU

T TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

SR 191, 

3031,3042 

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.38 Miles $325000 $2325000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,268 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 113894

HSM Analysis 

Tool Updates & 

HSIP-IP Report

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records 0 Miles $750000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety Tools Data 113973

SR 255 

Signal/ITS Project

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

6.88 Miles $109351 $2095530.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,06

9

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 114189

I-180 HTCMB Roadside Barrier- metal 11.53 Miles $1617000 $1632000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate10,93

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114725

D9 2021 HSIP 

HFST

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

2.91 Miles $1221019 $1306104 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 2,271 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

114781

Interstate 80 

Roadside Safety 

Audit - Mercer 

Count

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 29.49 Miles $50000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate15,63

1

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

114908

SR 8/SR 62 

Intersection 

Safety Audit - 

Venango

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 2.41 Miles $150000 $210000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,783 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

Audit

Infrastructure 

Improvement

s

114909

This list includes all of the projects that had any HSIP/HRRR funds obligated between 7/1/19 and 6/30/20.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 73

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 1,286 1,310 1,208 1,195 1,200 1,188 1,137 1,190 1,059

Serious Injuries 3,402 3,455 3,248 3,040 3,030 4,397 4,227 4,504 4,675

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.284 1.316 1.225 1.196 1.189 1.175 1.119 1.165 1.031

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.396 3.471 3.293 3.044 3.002 4.349 4.160 4.411 4.549

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

160 184 166 187 172 192 176 221 170

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

427 432 408 341 406 556 573 596 646
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 73

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 46 of 73

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 73

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

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

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

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

47.8 126.6 0.44 1.17

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

88.2 207.8 2.14 5.03

Rural Minor Arterial 138.6 345 2.18 5.44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 48 of 73

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 44.2 150.6 2.44 8.3

Rural Major Collector 96 289.6 2.36 7.13

Rural Local Road or 

Street

118.6 417.8 2.18 7.72

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

63.4 182.8 0.4 1.16

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

33 107.2 0.45 1.45

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

228.8 844.8 1.41 5.2

Urban Minor Arterial 125 544.4 1.04 4.52

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 59 274.6 0.77 3.57

Urban Local Road or 

Street

95.4 624.2 1.2 7.89
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 73

Year 2019

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

947 3,166 1.21 4.05

County Highway 

Agency

6 19.8 0.04 0.12

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

184.2 935.4 1.11 5.68

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

1.8 10.4 0.02 0.06

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 15.8 49.4 0.25 0.78

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

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

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

"Urban Major Collector" field.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2009 

peaking in 2019. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

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

still the 3rd highest number on record. This age group’s highway fatalities decreased by 49 in 2019. People 

age 65 and older account for approximately 18.7% of Pennsylvania’s population based on US census data.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 73

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

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

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

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

are now considered suspected serious injuries.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1088.2

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

In October 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) committed to eliminate traffic 

deaths within 30 years. Pennsylvania’s 2017 SHSP has adopted a goal to support this national effort. This 

ambitious timeline will rely heavily on the implementation of autonomous vehicle technology, anticipated 

between 2025 and 2030. Pennsylvania’s current target is to reduce 2019 fatalities by two percent per year 

through 2021. The target shown above (1,088.2) is the five-year rolling average for 2017-2021. This goal was 

established in conjunction with our Federal partners based on a combination of reviewing Pennsylvania’s 

historical data and observations of national trends and reduction in fatalities over the next 30 years will not be 

linear. This is based on actual fatal crash data from 2017 to 2019 and estimated fatal crash data in 2020 and 

2021 assuming a 2% reduction each year.

Number of Serious Injuries:4551.2

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

Pennsylvania’s current target is to hold 2019 serious injuries level through 2021. The target shown above 

(4,551.2) is the five-year rolling average for 2017-2021. This goal was established in conjunction with our 

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

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

by the required definition change in suspected serious injuries per the FAST Act. PA's first year using the new 

Suspected Serious injury criteria was 2016. In 2020 we will have the first year where all suspected serious 

injury crash data will be under the same definition rule.

Fatality Rate:1.059

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

The target shown above (1.059) is calculated using the 2017-2021 five-year rolling average for fatalities shown 

in the first metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle miles traveled in 2020 and 2021.

Serious Injury Rate:4.431

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

The target shown above (4.431) is calculated using the 2017-2021 five-year rolling average for serious injuries 

shown in the second metric and applying an estimated growth rate of .5% for vehicle miles traveled in 2020 

and 2021.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 73

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:800.8

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

Pennsylvania’s current target is to reduce 2019 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries by reducing 

fatalities by two percent and holding serious injuries level each year through 2021. The target shown above 

(800.8) is the five-year rolling average for 2017-2021. This goal was established in conjunction with our 

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

national trends.

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

safety performance targets. 

The Southwest Pennsylvania Commission is using shapefiles to develop maps that overlay our Network 

Screening lists with our CDART year end cluster lists to assist them in selecting potential Road Safety Audit 

locations and safety projects. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission has used GIS mapping for 

several years to identify locations for possible safety improvements. The DVRPC's use of GIS is highlighted in 

the PennDOT HSIP Implementation Plan which was submitted to the FHWA on June 30, 2020. 

Every SHSP cycle PennDOT works with dozens of safety partners across Pennsylvania. During this process 

MPOs are involved in setting strategies and action items. During the SHSP the safety partners and PennDOT 

establish targets based on the FHWA 148 regulations. After statewide targets are set, PennDOT contacts the 

MPOs & RPOs about setting the planning partners’ targets and goals. This is accomplished by having many 

different in person, webinar, and conference calls to explain the HSIP program and the federal target 

requirements. After these meetings there is a letter sent to every MPO and RPO that details the State goals 

and how that would break down to each planning partner. The planning partners are then given a chance to 

adopt the statewide goals or develop their own. In 2020 the SPC MPO has decided to create their own safety 

targets separate from PennDOT's statewide targets. It is likely in coming years a few more planning partners 

might start to set their own highway safety targets and goals. For now, most MPOs and RPOs have simply 

adopted the PennDOT safety targets. 

The planning partners also work with PennDOT engineering districts to develop safety projects. The MPO/RPO 

can nominate locations for safety improvements and/or take a list the Districts develop and study options to 

improve safety. The projects are then entered into PennDOT’s HSIP application portal and reviewed. Projects 

that meet safety merits are added to MPO/RPOs’ transportation plans. The intention is that these projects will 

drive down the fatal and injury crashes and help the state and its planning partners reach our targets.

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

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

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

engineering units. The Highway Safety Section Chief ensures all three units are working toward the same 

goals.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 73

Number of Fatalities 1146.3 1154.8

Number of Serious Injuries 3971.2 4166.6

Fatality Rate 1.121 1.135

Serious Injury Rate 3.883 4.097

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

698.4 741.6

Based on the 2015-2019 data, we made significant progress on two of the five targets (Number of Fatalities 

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

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

34.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

214 226 207 194 216 238 213

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

271 284 252 420 422 475 500

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

214 226 207 194 216 238 213

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

271 284 252 420 422 475 500

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

the crash. 

The number of Pennsylvania licensed drivers ages 65 and over have increased consistently since 2009 

peaking in 2019. This increase has a significant impact on the number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

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

still the 3rd highest number on record. This age group’s highway fatalities decreased by 49 in 2019. People 

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

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

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

"Suspected Serious Injury".
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 73

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Benefit/Cost Ratio 

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

 Lives saved 

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

 Other-Implementing proven systemic safety countermeasures 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Lives saved: 131 

Overall BCR: 3.50:1 

Total Miles of Rumble strips added: 

CLRS: 6,376 ELRS: 4,828 

Total Miles of HTCMB: 465 miles 

HFST: Pennsylvania continues to add new HFST locations every year. However due to a shortage in staffing 

we do not have updated numbers for the total locations for this annual report. 

Other countermeasures were also evaluated in the Pennsylvania HSIP Implementation Plan which was 

submitted to the FHWA on June 30, 2020 as required by the FAST Act. The details of the countermeasures 

are provided on several different tables in the final HSIP IP report. We did not attach the HSIP IP report since 

the FHWA already has a copy. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 # RSAs completed 

 HSIP Obligations 

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

 Increased focus on local road safety 

 More systemic programs 

 Policy change 

 Other-Reduced Fatal and serious injuries 

 Other-Projects that result in a BCR over 1.0 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

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 615.4 1,792.2 0.61 1.76
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 73

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)

Roadway Departure 0 0 0 0

Intersections 268.4 1,389 0.26 1.37

Pedestrians 166 444.6 0.16 0.44

Bicyclists 17.4 89.2 0.02 0.09

Older Drivers 285.4 752.6 0.28 0.74

Motorcyclists 178.8 632.2 0.18 0.62

Work Zones 19.6 55 0.02 0.06

Data 0 0 0 0

Impaired Driver 350.6 978.8 0.35 0.96

Seat Belt Usage 385.4 913.6 0.38 0.9

Speeding and 

Aggressive Driving

465.4 1,238 0.46 1.22

Distracted Driving 65 343.6 0.06 0.34

Young & Inexperienced 

Drivers 

136.2 612.8 0.14 0.6

Local Roads 196.8 973 0.19 0.95

Commercial Vehicles 169.6 356.8 0.17 0.35

Vehicle-Train 3.4 2.6 0 0
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 73

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 56 of 73

These numbers include all persons in the crash. 

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

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

drastically change. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 57 of 73

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

drug use suspicion to provide additional accuracy.

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

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

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

fast for conditions, or police chase) crashes.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: ATSC 

Description: ATSC 

Target Crash Type: Intersections 

Number of Installations: 342 

Number of Installations: 342 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

Multiple CMFs for ATSCs were developed 

for Pennsylvania. Most CMFs were above 

1.00. Overall the research did show a 

decrease in rear-end crashes, but an 

increase in angle crashes. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 73

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

28397-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 101.00 119.00 3.00 3.00 11.00 88.00 91.00 195.00 221.00 54.42:1

29949-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 -0.01:1

30949-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - all-way stop to 

roundabout

1.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 13.00 -0.04:1

47081-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 11.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 8.00 25.00 22.00 5.36:1

62969-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Fencing 36.00 53.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 45.00 33.00 86.00 87.00 6.41:1

75045-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Drainage improvements 4.00 7.00 11.00 2.00 15.00 9.00 0.19:1

78556-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 20.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 12.00 31.00 28.00 -27.87:1

82887-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 4.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 11.00 8.00 -13.83:1

85652-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

7.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 10.00 6.00 0.18:1

89102-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing -

signal coordination

409.00 418.00 4.00 8.00 7.00 19.00 381.00 323.00 801.00 768.00 -35.06:1

89231-3 Urban Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 11.00 14.00 1.00 12.00 9.00 24.00 23.00 0.55:1

93139-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

9.00 13.00 9.00 10.00 18.00 23.00 -0.09:1

93172-3 Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

7.00 6.00 5.00 3.00 12.00 9.00 0.25:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

94746-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 8.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 17.00 5.00 14.02:1

94759-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

42.00 24.00 35.00 30.00 77.00 54.00 -1.08:1

96593-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Roadway - other 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 -6.04:1

97030-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

49.00 24.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 21.00 27.00 72.00 55.00 13.47:1

97406-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

110.00 114.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 13.00 91.00 84.00 208.00 213.00 -18.79:1

98250-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

75.00 88.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 106.00 85.00 186.00 177.00 28.73:1

102086-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

24.00 24.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 16.00 38.00 41.00 31.46:1

102097-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

57.00 53.00 2.00 4.00 35.00 26.00 94.00 83.00 -4.69:1

102098-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

58.00 65.00 3.00 2.00 20.00 31.00 81.00 98.00 -6.57:1

102121-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

133.00 68.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 88.00 63.00 226.00 136.00 18.99:1

102152-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

36.00 7.00 2.00 19.00 8.00 57.00 15.00 8.97:1

102329-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

6.00 10.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 13.00 13.00 2.68:1

104349-3 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 36.00 34.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 23.00 26.00 63.00 62.00 10.92:1

104378-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 1075.00 1131.00 20.00 21.00 55.00 41.00 639.00 577.00 1789.00 1770.00 -24.00:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

104384-3 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 0.18:1

104391-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 49.00 59.00 2.00 1.00 18.00 20.00 69.00 80.00 -0.96:1

104392-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

33.00 40.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 35.00 42.00 70.00 85.00 -64.18:1

104396-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

67.00 50.00 2.00 3.00 42.00 48.00 111.00 101.00 -5.24:1

104401-3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

46.00 56.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 55.00 43.00 106.00 103.00 -42.76:1

104404-3 Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 0.94:1

104406-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 64.63:1

104407-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

64.00 37.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 51.00 35.00 121.00 75.00 56.67:1

104421-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 73.00 89.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 81.00 85.00 166.00 179.00 140.37:1

104422-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

8.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 18.00 13.00 27.00 26.00 -0.07:1

104423-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 13.00 13.00 1.00 2.00 13.00 8.00 27.00 23.00 -0.33:1

104426-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier- metal 74.00 94.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 51.00 29.00 131.00 125.00 25.60:1

104440-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - cable 27.00 41.00 2.00 1.00 17.00 14.00 46.00 56.00 27.30:1

104441-3 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

50.00 49.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 50.00 56.00 105.00 108.00 79.46:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

104679-3 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 32.00 60.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 43.00 38.00 81.00 105.00 -33.02:1

106599-3 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Rumble strips - center 135.00 135.00 3.00 7.00 18.00 6.00 107.00 90.00 263.00 238.00 -195.40:1

89104-4 

(0140-0173)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.09:1

95568-4 

(0140-INT)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

6.00 12.00 1.00 15.00 6.00 22.00 18.00 1.00:1

96355-4 

(0120-0197)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

5.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 12.00 8.00 -31.72:1

102176-4 

(0120-0090)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 115.00 152.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 86.00 76.00 206.00 234.00 -29.97:1

78994-4 

(0210-0322)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

15.00 9.00 1.00 11.00 2.00 26.00 12.00 0.13:1

104380-4 

(0220-0080)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

7.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 14.00 8.00 47.69:1

104382-4 

(0230-0080)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

34.00 13.00 2.00 3.00 24.00 12.00 61.00 27.00 -46.44:1

104387-4 

(0230-0220)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 5.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 11.00 9.00 0.55:1

104389-4 

(0270-0322)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 14.00 13.00 -107.28:1

82203-4 

(0370-INT)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 4.00 3.00 7.00 11.00 3.00 0.79:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

87670-4 

(0320-0015A)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - concrete 2.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 5.00 0.05:1

87905-4 

(0340-0061)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway - other 12.00 23.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 15.00 19.00 31.00 44.00 102.04:1

88623-4 

(0380-1004)

Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 2.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 4.00 0.12:1

98240-4 

(0320-0015B)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 0.00:1

104405-4 

(0320-

0015C)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - cable 90.00 103.00 1.00 50.00 48.00 140.00 152.00 -3.37:1

80694-4 

(0840-0074)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 -0.34:1

93168-4 

(0840-0425)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 8.93:1

21630-4 

(0920-2007)

Urban Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

6.00 7.00 11.00 5.00 17.00 12.00 0.20:1

102063-4 

(1240-GDRL)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 148.00 141.00 7.00 4.00 12.00 6.00 130.00 90.00 297.00 241.00 22.71:1

91643-4 

(0330-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

7.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 14.00 16.00 -19.88:1

98251-4 

(0800-RMBL)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips - center 82.00 114.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 6.00 52.00 79.00 142.00 200.00 28.79:1

98253-4 

(0800-HFST)

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

108.00 59.00 2.00 5.00 79.00 43.00 189.00 107.00 31.96:1

99375-4 

(0300-HTCB)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 130.00 149.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 70.00 70.00 202.00 222.00 9.14:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

102078-4 

(0300-HFST)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

13.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 13.00 28.00 22.00 -0.02:1

102081-4 

(0900-RDIP)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

326.00 240.00 7.00 6.00 15.00 20.00 316.00 254.00 664.00 520.00 16.77:1

102120-4 

(0600-HTCB)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 180.00 305.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 80.00 114.00 268.00 431.00 -33.08:1

102572-4 

(0600-HFST)

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

181.00 127.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 4.00 222.00 158.00 412.00 290.00 3.68:1

104361-4 

(0900-HFST)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

32.00 19.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 38.00 4.00 72.00 25.00 -12.69:1

102122-4 

(0210-HSIP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway - other 125.00 98.00 8.00 4.00 9.00 9.00 135.00 66.00 277.00 177.00 133.02:1

102128-4 

(0280-RMBL)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

1372.00 1396.00 52.00 44.00 94.00 103.00 1260.00 1031.00 2778.00 2574.00 125.56:1

104362-4 

(0920-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

18.00 15.00 1.00 2.00 18.00 5.00 37.00 22.00 3.59:1

69056-4 

(1100-RAMP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

258.00 272.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 13.00 228.00 224.00 496.00 510.00 -6.75:1

10951-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 13.00 17.00 1.00 13.00 11.00 27.00 28.00 13.73:1

31067-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

6.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 9.00 4.00 0.15:1

76191-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

12.00 8.00 13.00 6.00 25.00 14.00 1.20:1

79405-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 7.00 18.00 14.00 -11.60:1

89177-4 Urban 

Principal 

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration / 

merge lane

138.00 197.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 115.00 135.00 261.00 335.00 5.01:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

94831-4 Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

69.00 33.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 66.00 53.00 141.00 89.00 5.04:1

98252-4 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

408.00 285.00 15.00 4.00 17.00 17.00 301.00 152.00 741.00 458.00 202.66:1

102079-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 70.00 131.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 32.00 37.00 105.00 173.00 -22.14:1

102135-4 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add basic 

advance warning

158.00 148.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 8.00 182.00 157.00 346.00 319.00 -191.25:1

102136-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

337.00 274.00 18.00 5.00 33.00 19.00 295.00 216.00 683.00 514.00 187.56:1

104355-4 Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 3.00 4.00 0.98:1

104388-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00:1

104402-4 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 75.00 79.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 61.00 61.00 143.00 149.00 -11.21:1

786-5 (0120-

INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

101.00 80.00 1.00 1.00 129.00 51.00 231.00 132.00 -0.13:1

67183-5 

(0150-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 6.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 9.00 9.00 -0.41:1

50985-5 

(0220-INT)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 8.00 3.00 2.00 10.00 4.00 18.00 9.00 -0.16:1

76150-5 

(0230-INT)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 6.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 15.00 1.00 4.12:1

89922-5 

(0420-0307)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or shoulder 8.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 15.00 19.00 27.00 -27.15:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

95190-5 

(0530-0378)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 40.00 100.00 1.00 6.00 3.00 42.00 57.00 89.00 160.00 14.40:1

82418-5 

(0820-0696)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

7.00 9.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 13.00 14.00 0.50:1

86503-5 

(0830-0997)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

45.00 48.00 3.00 5.00 45.00 42.00 93.00 95.00 -45.21:1

87156-5 

(0880-0072)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

14.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 14.00 24.00 30.00 -12.10:1

89187-5 

(0870-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 14.00 30.00 1.00 2.00 31.00 25.00 46.00 57.00 -23.18:1

48045-5 

(0910-INT)

Rural Major 

Collector

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 2.00 0.19:1

48054-5 

(0940-0522)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 5.00 8.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 14.00 -0.88:1

23662-5 

(1010-0422)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 12.00 5.00 8.09:1

96696-5 

(1050-INT)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

10.00 8.00 1.00 17.00 5.00 27.00 14.00 6.99:1

68596-5 

(1110-0008)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

35.00 23.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 31.00 15.00 68.00 40.00 -2.64:1

91698-5 

(1120-0051)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

39.00 49.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 45.00 71.00 86.00 132.00 -9.84:1

4722-5 

(0270-BRDG)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

10.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 18.00 8.00 29.20:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

11237-5 

(0530-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

91.00 92.00 2.00 2.00 81.00 104.00 172.00 200.00 -2.45:1

27179-5 

(1110-

WDNG)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

64.00 78.00 2.00 1.00 61.00 49.00 127.00 128.00 9.14:1

37266-5 

(0940-INT)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 0.55:1

75790-5 

(0880-0422)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

217.00 270.00 6.00 3.00 10.00 13.00 282.00 227.00 515.00 513.00 25.49:1

78528-5 

(0510-0183)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 4.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 20.00 9.00 27.00 24.00 1.45:1

82327-5 

(0870-INT)

Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

5.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 3.00 14.00 7.00 0.98:1

84565-5 

(0430-0118)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 7.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 12.00 5.00 7.31:1

85654-5 

(0820-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

41.00 47.00 28.00 32.00 69.00 79.00 -0.97:1

85656-5 

(0870-0741)

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 4.00 6.00 1.00 14.00 5.00 19.00 11.00 1.82:1

88168-5 

(1050-INT)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

16.00 9.00 1.00 8.00 11.00 24.00 21.00 -0.65:1

94890-5 

(1110-0008)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

90.00 89.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 120.00 93.00 217.00 188.00 14.48:1

96716-5 

(1110-INT)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 85.00 41.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 78.00 43.00 166.00 86.00 19.24:1

98241-5 

(0400-HFST)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

25.00 16.00 2.00 2.00 36.00 17.00 63.00 35.00 6.03:1
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 73

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

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)

102125-5 

(0210-0099)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 16.00 19.00 1.00 6.00 8.00 22.00 28.00 -14.77:1

98242-5 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

230.00 200.00 11.00 5.00 12.00 15.00 217.00 142.00 470.00 362.00 73.19:1

Projects utilizing HSIP funds follow the subsequent naming structure for the benefit/cost analysis in this annual HSIP report: AAAAA-B (CCCC-CCCC);A represents the PennDOT MPMS or ECMS number for the project, B is the number 

of years of crash data pulled for the benefit/cost analysis, and C is the designation given to the project in previous submissions of the benefit/cost analysis. New projects included in this ORT do not have the (CCCC-CCCC) designation 

and by 2022 all projects will follow just the AAAAA-B format. Crash data analyzed to calculate benefit cost across project limits was total crashes and was not filtered for specific safety improvements such as wrong way ramp treatments 

or high tension cable median guiderail installation. Wrong way projects evaluate total crashes, not specifically wrong-way crashes. HTCMB projects evaluate total crashes, not just cross median crashes.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 68 of 73

Compliance Assessment

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

 02/17/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2021

We just started the process of creating a new SHSP. 

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 80 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 80

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 80 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 80 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 69 of 73

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 74

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 10

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 70 of 73

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 0.00 87.50 0.00 90.91 0.00 100.00 78.22 100.00 100.00

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

These percentages are reflected by Function Class and not Jurisdiction. 

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

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

August 2020, 19 counties are complete through segmentation. There are currently 14 counties in the QA/QC process. 

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

Intersection/ Junction Traffic Control - PennDOT's Traffic Signal Asset Management System (TSAMS) currently stores all signalized intersections in PA including the city of Philadelphia. 

AADT/AADT Year - This is collected for 100% of the state roads. We have collected approximately 10% of this information for local roads. 

Ramp AADT (191) – The majority of PA ramps are categorized as 8,000 routes (100% ADT collected). The remaining are 9,000 routes (approx 55% complete). 
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 71 of 73

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

PennDOT has used HSIP set-aside funds and consultant support to help meet the requirement including the collection of traffic volumes at approximately 4,000 local-state road intersections. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LTAP and TRCC funding will be considered. Additional funding will likely be needed to accelerate the schedule to meet the 9-year deadline.
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 72 of 73

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Pub638_Final_signed.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 73 of 73

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.