Page 1 of 40

MASSACHUSETTS 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 40

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................13

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................13

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................15

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................18

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................18

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................24

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................28

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................29

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................29

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................29

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................34

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................35

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................39

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................40
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 40

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 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 40

Executive Summary

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

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

(Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. Criteria for HSIP projects were defined. 

But the role of the Task Force was not to select individual projects and programs. The Task Force had met 

annually or as needed. In 2019, the Task Force was updated to include additional member in an effort to help 

move HSIP projects to advertise in a timely manner. MassDOT District Project Development Engineers were 

added and additional MPO members. The guidelines for HSIP projects was updated (in draft) to emphasize 

systemic projects and projects combined with other project types to broaden the impacts of the HSIP program. 

This should help to reinvigorate the HSIP Task Force so that the project selection for HSIP can be more fluid 

and nimble and responsive to the needs of SHSP strategies and ensure project readiness and ability of 

projects to be advertised in a timely manner. This should become more noticeable with the project selection for 

next year. Furthermore, a guide is being finalized to evaluate project alternatives to improve the efficiency of 

the HSIP program.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 40

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

projects and programs. The Task Forces role was to develop HSIP guidelines not to select individual projects. 

At the time, the Task Force consisted of FHWA, MassDOT Highway, MassDOT Planning and MARPA 

(Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies)/MPOs. It was determined that an HSIP eligible 

project was defined as one that contains a hot spot crash location (a cluster in which the total number of 

“equivalent property damage only” crashes in the cluster is within the top 5% of all clusters in a specific region), 

systemic fixes or any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or 

addresses a highway safety problem. 

The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) calculations were changed in 2018 to reflect the FHWA 

methodology for crash costs. Rather than the previous system of 10 points for a fatal crash, 5 points for an 

injury crash and 1 point for a property damage only crash, the new EPDO calculations are based on weighted 

average costs of crashes. So as not to be chasing fatal crashes only, the combined weighting of fatal and 

injury crashes is 21 times that of a property damage only crash. This new weighting was used in hot spot 

selection. This is described in the Top Crash Locations Report. 

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/03/01/dot-2016TopCrashLocationsRpt.pdf. To view the HSIP 

eligible clusters, go to:

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

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

Statewide HSIP funds and HSIP funds for each of the regions under “Intersection Improvements” and “Safety 

Improvements”. HSIP projects are selected based on the HSIP guidelines, the MPO processes, priority and 

readiness (regardless of roadway jurisdiction). Once an HSIP project (hot spot) has been identified, an early 

requirement is a Road Safety Audit which helps to guide the recommended improvements. 

In late 2019, an expanded HSIP Task Force reconvened and slightly tweaked the HSIP Guidelines so that the 

project selection for HSIP can be more fluid and nimble and responsive to the needs of SHSP strategies. This 

is still a work in progress.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

The HSIP reporting responsibility sits within Traffic and Safety Engineering. However, it is a collaborative effort 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 40

and many other departments and entities contribute (like Planning, Federal Aid Office, MPOS, Office of 

Performance Management, etc). 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Formula via MPOs 

• Other-combination 

MassDOT Planning Office develops the Statewide Capital Improvement Program with input from numerous 

stakeholders to refine the process and assign budgets for project categories. Planning works with the Highway 

Division and project proponent to determine project scope funding eligibility and assigns the sources 

accordingly. Projects are selected for the regional TIPs (by the MPOs) and statewide TIPs based on the project 

category types and then Planning assigns "the color of the money" to determine how the projects are funded. 

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

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

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

allocated not only to projects that are eligible within the statewide Highway Safety Improvements Program but 

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

most of the project proponents in the Commonwealth are municipalities, these projects are locally initiated, 

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

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

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

safety investment decisions. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 

• Districts/Regions 

• Maintenance

• Operations 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Previously, the HSIP Task Force consists of seven members: 2 FHWA representatives (one from 

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

representatives from MassDOT Highway Division (Chief Engineer and Safety Engineer), one from MassDOT 

Office of Transportation Planning and two representatives from the Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs), the 

technical arm of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The initial role of the Task Force was to 

establish HSIP guidelines based on input and feedback from others. The continuing role of the Task Force is to 

meet annually or as needed, (“meetings” could be via email or in person) to review and update the HSIP 

guidelines. The HSIP Task Force does not select the individual projects / programs. However, in 2019, the 

Task Force was expanded to include additional members from MassDOT’s Project Development Engineers 

and additional MPOs as a means to move projects along more quickly and to be more nimble and responsive 

to safety needs. 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 40

Program and project selection occurs both in MassDOT HQ, MassDOT District and at the regional MPO level. 

Once projects are selected, the MassDOT Planning Office works with the MassDOT Safety Group to allocate 

the funding type to the STIP categories so that the full pot of HSIP funds are programmed.

For hot spot locations, Road Safety Audits are required and there is participation from a variety of disciplines 

both internal and external to MassDOT. MassDOT personnel include: MassDOT Safety and MassDOT District 

personnel as well as needed from MassDOT Highway Design, MassDOT Project Management, Complete 

Streets Engineer and others. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University 

• FHWA 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

• Law Enforcement Agency 

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members 

• Other-Advocacy groups 

• Other-Public Health 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

assistance from our internal and external partners. The SHSP was updated and approved in December 2018 

and involved participation from over 200 participants from more than 25 agencies (including all of those 

external partners mentioned in the response to Question 9) and entities and the strategies identified in the 

SHSP are those that can be used for the HSIP eligible projects. Furthermore, all HSIP-eligible spot 

improvement projects require Road Safety Audits which ensures coordination with external partners. Project 

selection has a significant amount of external input through the MPO public process. Some specific programs 

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

pedestrian/bicyclist safety campaign (a Statewide HSIP program), we developed a committee consisting of 

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

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

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

eligibility of HSIP projects (but does not select the specific projects).

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

On the MassDOT website are links to the HSIP Criteria that defines what is HSP eligible. 

https://www.mass.gov/service-details/highway-safety-improvement-program 

Also, on that webpage is a link for MassDOT Safety: Analyses Analysis Guide which details how to evaluate 

effectiveness of project alternatives. The guide also include MA-preferred CMFs. 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Intersection 

• Pedestrian Safety 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 40

• Sign Replacement And Improvement 

• Other-Data 

This years projects were intersection upgrades (geometry, conversion to roundabout, control upgrade), 

pedestrian improvements and sign projects. So the response to the question on HSIP programs is responding 

to this year's projects. However, generally, HSIP covers many other aspects including bicyclist crashes, 

horizontal curves, HRRR, some local safety, median barrier, roadway departure, Wrong Way driving. During 

previous years and future years, these other elements are covered. 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/3/2020

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 

• Other-EPDO

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-MPO

• Other-statewide selection based on ranking and readiness

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

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

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

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

and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 40

Relative Weight in Scoring

Other-HSIP eligibility criteria and project readiness:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/3/2020

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 

• Other-EPDO

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Selected by MPO, and others

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:12/31/2014

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

Page 10 of 40

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-cycle of sign 

improvements based on 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-cycle of sign upgrades

• Other-on secondary roads, it is systemwide per district

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

of replacements

• Other-secondary roadways are systemwide and done by district

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Other-readiness:2

Program: Other-Data

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2004

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 40

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Data quality need

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-determined need based on changes to outdated systems

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 27.2

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

• Install/Improve Signing 

The above lists the systemic projects used during this year. It should be noted that the signage upgrade 

projects are listed as systemic because they are replaced based on age/quality of signs (loosely translated to 

risk) but in fact this is really more systematic. 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 40

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 

• Stakeholder input 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

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

MassDOT definitely considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies as part of the safety solution. 

However, no HSIP funds were spent on the V2I technologies during this Federal Fiscal Year. Previously, 

MassDOT worked with WAZE to install beacons in our tunnel system to aid driver navigation where GPS is 

lost. (Although no Federal funds were used for this). As drivers have become more reliant on their GPS/smart 

phones for directions, there are more crashes occurring in our tunnels where GPS connectivity was lost and 

drivers were confused. The beacon technology is providing for an open platform seamless connection to 

navigation systems and recently Google Maps started using the beacons as well. MassDOT signed on for the 

EDC Use of Crowdsourcing in Operations. FHWA and the contractor have begun helping us to pilot this. There 

are aspects of this that will help with Safety as well. MassDOT has been implementing smart work zone 

technologies that are designed to provide real time feedback to drivers regarding travel times and congestion 

information, incidents, temporary closures and other information that will enhance the safety of road users and 

workers. This started in 2009 and has been increasing in use, where appropriate. New for this year, MassDOT 

contracted with INRIX and obtained RITIS to make use of speed and volume data to be used on our projects 

and in Planning features. We continue to look forward to other technologies that will enhance safety and 

reduce fatalities and injuries on the public roadways. We are in the process of implementing dynamic wrong 

way warning at several interchange ramps around Massachusetts. This will be implemented during the coming 

year. 

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

Yes 

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

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

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

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

methodologies and Massachusetts-specific safety performance functions. 

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

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

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

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

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

New this year, we have developed network screening level SPFs for arterials and collectors roadways and will 

begin to use top scoring locations as HSIP eligible. We are also working on risk factor identification for 

systemic type projects (which is not in HSM but will be covered in HSM2).
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 40

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $32,594,907 $32,440,556 99.53%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$43,230,525 $40,546,587 93.79%

State and Local Funds $14,429,288 $22,211,731 153.94%

Totals $90,254,720 $95,198,874 105.48%

Information contained in this response come directly from a file provided by the MassDOT Federal Aid and 

Procurement Office (FAPRO) on 6/9/2020. 

The $22,211,731 obligated State and local funds is actually State and other funds.

We did not meet the HRRR Special Rule this year.

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

safety projects?

49%

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

52%

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

0%

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

0%

Generally, we use non-infrastructure funds for SHSP updates and for data. However, because of the cycle, 

there were no non-infrastructure HSIP funds used this year.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second major impediment to obligating HSIP funds is that we are struggling to develop low cost-short term 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to the difficulties we face for systemic project, MassDOT Traffic and Safety Engineering has been meeting with 

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

with regards to low cost systemic projects. This s also a topic of discussion with our EDC FoRRRwd initiative.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 40

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

WORCESTER -

RESURFACING & 

RELATED WORK 

ON ROUTE 122 

(GRAFTON 

STREET), FROM 

WASHINGTON 

SQUARE TO RICE 

SQUARE (1.4 

MILES)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

6 Intersection

s

$1647743 $8634311.76 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,12

1

30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Incorporate 

pedestrian 

safety elements 

into 

infrastructure 

design and 

engineering

UPTON -

RECONSTRUCTIO

N OF HIGH 

STREET AND 

HOPKINTON 

ROAD (PHASE I)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersection

s

$2975252.4 $6616118.39 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,73

6

40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elementsinto 

intersection 

design 

andmaintenanc

e

NORTH 

ANDOVERINTERSECTION & 

SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT ROUTE 125 & 

MASSACHUSETTS 

AVENUE

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$451014 $5749282.73 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,14

6

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

BARNSTABLEINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT IYANOUGH 

ROAD (ROUTE 28) 

AND YARMOUTH 

ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$183028.48 $9695632.54 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,33

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

NEEDHAMNEWTONRECONSTRUCTIO

N OF HIGHLAND 

AVENUE, 

NEEDHAM 

STREET & 

CHARLES RIVER 

BRIDGE, N-04-002, 

FROM WEBSTER 

STREET 

(NEEDHAM) TO 

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

2 Miles $3133414.01 $10945645.7

1

Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Principal ArterialOther28,86

4

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Improve design 

and 

engineering of 

bicycle facilities 

on and off 

roadways
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 40

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

ROUTE 9 

(NEWTON)

NEW BEDFORDCORRIDOR 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AND RELATED 

WORK ON KINGS 

HIGHWAY, FROM 

CHURCH STREET 

TO THE KINGS 

HIGHWAY BRIDGE 

(N-06-036) OVER 

ROUTE 140

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

0.75 Miles $845310 $10396906 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,77

6

35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Incorporate 

pedestrian 

safety elements 

into 

infrastructure 

design and 

engineering

SUDBURYINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ ROUTE 20 & 

LANDHAM ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$2072693.2 $2072693.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,05

5

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

HOPEDALEMILFORDRESURFACING & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

ON ROUTE 16 

(MAIN STREET), 

FROM WATER 

STREET WEST TO 

APPROXIMATELY 

120 FEET WEST 

OF THE

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

0.5 Miles $2307781.19 $3307658.52 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,40

9

35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Improve design 

and 

engineering of 

bicycle facilities 

on and off 

roadways

CHICOPEESIGNAL & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT 13 

INTERSECTIONS 

ALONG ROUTE 33 

(MEMORIAL 

DRIVE), FROM 

FULLER ROAD TO 

ABBEY STREET

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

13 Locations $6811745.76 $6811745.76 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,878 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

PITTSFIELDINTERSECTION & 

SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT 9 LOCATIONS 

ALONG SR 8 & SR 

9

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

9 Locations $3984712.8 $3984712.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,97

9

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 40

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

ABINGTON/ 

BROCKTON - 

NORTH QUINCY 

STREET, 

CHESTNUT 

STREET, AND 

BOUNDARY 

AVENUE 

ROUNDABOUT 

AND GEOMETRIC 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop 

to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$79740 $2400179.48 Other 

Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, 

NHPP)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,174 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

SPRINGFIELDINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT BAY STREET 

AND BERKSHIRE 

AVENUE

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$1651987.65 $2537163.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,565 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety elements

into intersection 

design and

maintenance

BOURNE TO 

FALMOUTHGUIDE AND 

TRAFFIC SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

ON A SECTION OF 

ROUTE 28

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

9.6 Miles $820628.13 $820628.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther32,66

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older 

Drivers

Develop 

infrastructure 

improvements 

that 

accommodate 

the needs of 

older road 

users

BOSTONINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT MORTON 

STREET AND 

HARVARD 

STREET

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

0.4 Miles $2817608.8 $2817608.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,89

4

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Improve design 

and 

engineering of 

bicycle facilities 

on and off 

roadways

WORCESTER - 

KELLEY SQUARE 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

ON MADISON 

STREET AND 

VERNON STREET

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - no control to 

roundabout

1 Locations $12923520.5

8

$18408586.4

6

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,15

2

30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Incorporate 

safety 

elementsinto 

intersection 

design 

andmaintenanc

e

When completing this listing, the predominant type was selected (the emphasis area selected was how it was characterized in the write-up, if the jurisdiction was mostly municipally owned, then that was how it was listed, etc.)
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 40

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 374 383 351 354 344 387 348 355 335

Serious Injuries 3,577 3,587 3,197 3,031 2,931 2,983 2,573 2,554 2,725

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.645 0.649 0.589 0.581 0.569 0.639 0.555 0.532 0.516

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.169 6.076 5.365 4.977 4.848 4.926 4.106 3.825 4.199

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

76 99 86 84 93 89 84 83 81

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

478 531 451 496 449 465 432 416 430
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 40

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

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

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 20 of 40

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 21 of 40

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

2.8 10.2 0.33 1.16

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.8 3 0.91 3.27

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

3 10.4 1.12 3.42

Rural Minor Arterial 4.6 16 0.98 3.46

Rural Minor Collector 3.6 13.6 3.12 11.84

Rural Major Collector 5.6 24.4 1.07 4.72

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 22 of 40

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

6.4 23.2 1.18 4.26

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

54.8 240 0.33 1.44

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

9.4 126.6 0.15 2.04

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

104.2 862.8 0.85 7.03

Urban Minor Arterial 82.2 819.2 0.72 7.28

Urban Minor Collector 1.2 0 0.98 0

Urban Major Collector 24.6 266 0.65 7.19

Urban Local Road or 

Street

55.6 259.8 0.69 3.21
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 40

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 149.6 867.6 0.44 2.58

County Highway 

Agency

0 0 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.4 0.8 0.48 0.93

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 8 53.4 0.86 5.73

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0.4 0.2 1.68 0

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0.2 0.6 0.53 1.55

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

Local Highway Agency 187.6 1,695.2 0.72 6.53

Federal/Army/Navy/Air 

Force

0 0.2 0 0.39

Unaccepted Roads 3.4 32.2 0.27 2.59

•

Vehicle mile traveled data are taken from the MassDOT GIS VMT Viewer 

(https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/dataviewers/vmt/) for 2017 and 2018 with adjustments from the 

Planning office. Earlier years are from Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy Information 

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

used for other years) and then checked against VMT information provided by the MassDOT Planning 

Office. 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 40

• The fatality data for functional classification and jurisdiction came from FARS where available but 

updated based on updated data in the statewide system. The serious injury data for functional 

classification and for jurisdiction was obtained from IMPACT crash portal 

(https://apps.impact.dot.state.ma.us/cdp/home) from the Cross Tabulation tool. 

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

therefore, the two categories were combined.

• Non-geocoded crashes that contain no jurisdiction or functional classification were not included so 

totals may not add up.

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

distinction between these roads and the FARS data may not have been allocated to the official 

governance of the municipality type. 

MassDOT 

Code MassDOT Jurisdiction FARS Code FARS Ownership

0 Unaccepted by city or town ? 26 Private (other than Railroad) 

1 MassDOT ? 01 State Highway Agency 

2 City or Town accepted road ? 03 OR 04 Town or Township Highway Agency OR City or 

Municipal Highway Agency (use chart) 

3 Dept. of Conservation and 

Recreation ? 21 Other State Agency 

5 Massachusetts Port 

Authority ? 21 Other State Agency 

6 State Park or Forest ? 11 State Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency 

7 State Institutional ? 40 Other Public Instrumentality (i.e., Airport) 

8 Federal Park or Forest ? 66 National Park Service 

9 County Institutional ? 40 Other Public Instrumentality (i.e., Airport) 

B State college or university ? 40 Other Public Instrumentality (i.e., Airport) 

C US Air Force ? 72 Air Force 

D US Army Corps of 

Engineers ? 72 Air Force 

E Federal Institution ? 40 Other Public Instrumentality (i.e., Airport) 

F Other Federal ? 60 Other Federal Agency 

G Federal Bureau of Indian 

Affairs ? 62 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

H Private ? 26 Private (other than Railroad) OR (only if open to public 

travel, otherwise null) 

I US Army ? 74 Navy/Marines 

J US Navy ? 74 Navy/Marines 

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:339.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 40

Per FHWA guidance, our target setting process began with a trend line projection based on the most recent 

available data. However, this all changed when COVID hit and our VMTs dropped precipitously due to stay at 

home orders. The decline in VMTs is a change in trends from previous years, and dictated that we had to first 

calculate a fatality rate that would reflect a continued decrease to align with our towards zero death goals. Our 

previous safety target fatality rate for the 2020 5 year average was 0.56 and using our new VMT projections, 

we set the fatality rate to 0.55 for 2021 5 year average. We then worked backwards with the VMT projections 

we had for 2020 and 2021 to get reasonable fatal projections. Using our 2020 5 year average of 347, we 

assumed a linear 1.5% annual drop, which brings our 2021 5 year average projection to 339. Our active HSIP 

program, closely aligned work with our Highway Safety Office (NHTSA funded), joint efforts with our 

Sustainable transportation (bicyclist and pedestrian safety), commitment on several EDC programs and new 

Hands-free law (which went into effect in 2020 will help us to achieve our targets and our ultimate goal of zero 

fatalities. This target was developed in coordination with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security –

Highway Safety Division (EOPSS/HSD) (required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT Office of 

Transportation Planning (OTP) working closely with the MPOs, and the Office of Performance Management 

and Innovation (OPMI), which produces an annual performance report called Tracker that serves the public 

and State Legislature. Moreover, it should be noted that our overarching goal is towards zero deaths and we 

will continue to work towards that goal by implementing SHSP strategies. To be consistent with the HSP Safety 

Targets provided to NHTSA, we used whole numbers for our 5-year average targets.

Number of Serious Injuries:2580.0

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

FHWA guidance, our target setting process began with a trend line projection based on the most recent 

available data. However, this all changed when COVID hit and our VMTs dropped precipitously. The decline in 

VMTs is a change in trends from previous years and dictated that we had to first calculate a serious injury rate 

that would reflect a continued decrease to align with our agency goals. Our previous safety target for serious 

injury rates for the 2020 5 year average was 4.30 so our serious injury rate had to be below that. Once we had 

the serious injury rate set to 4.23 for 2021 5 year average, we worked backwards with the VMT projections we 

had for 2020 and 2021 to get reasonable serious injury projections. Using this methodology and building off of 

our serious injury target of 2869 for the 2020 5 year average, we assumed a linear 5% annual drop, which 

brings our 2021 5 year average projection of serious injuries to 2,580. Our active HSIP program, closely 

aligned work with our Highway Safety Office (NHTSA funded), joint efforts with our Sustainable transportation 

(bicyclist and pedestrian safety), commitment on several EDC programs and new Hands-free law (which went 

into effect in 2020) will help us to achieve our targets and our ultimate goal of zero fatalities and serious 

injuries. The serious injury targets were even more challenging because of the change in terminology for injury 

severity on crash reports. On January 1st, 2019, Massachusetts moved from incapacitating injuries to 

suspected serious injuries, as per Federal requirements. Some police departments have not yet fully converted 

over so 2019 is still a mix of injury severities and the full impact of moving to suspected serious injury is still not 

fully known. This target was developed in coordination with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security –

Highway Safety Division (EOPSS/HSD) (required to submit targets to NHTSA), the MassDOT Office of 

Transportation Planning (OTP) working closely with the MPOs, and the Office of Performance Management 

and Innovation (OPMI), which produces an annual performance report called Tracker that serves the public 

and State Legislature. Moreover, it should be noted that our overarching goal is towards zero deaths and 

serious injuries and we will continue to work towards that goal by implementing SHSP strategies. To be 

consistent with the HSP Safety Targets provided to NHTSA, we used whole numbers for our 5-year average 

targets.

Fatality Rate:0.550

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

Due to dramatic shifts in decreasing VMTS, we had to start with a desired reduction in fatality rates and back 

into targets for fatalities. To align with agency goals, we need a fatality rate that shows a decline over the 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 40

previous year. MassDOT’s 2021 target fatality rate had to be reduced from the 5 year average of 2016-2020 of 

0.56 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and we assumed a reduction so that the target is now 0.55 

fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for 2021 ( 2017-2021). The long term goal is towards zero 

deaths, so the long term fatality rate target is 0.0 fatalities per 100 million VMTs.

Serious Injury Rate:4.230

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

Due to dramatic shifts in decreasing VMTS, we had to start with a desired reduction in serious injury rates and 

back into targets for serious injuries. To align with agency goals, we need a serious injury rate that shows a 

decline over the previous year. To get the 2021 target, we simply took our 5 year average fatality rate from 

2016-2020 of 4.30 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and assumed a reduction so that the 

target is now 4.23 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for 2021 (2017-2021). The long term 

goal is towards zero deaths and serious injuries, so the long term fatality rate target is 0.0 serious injuries per 

100 million VMTs.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:506.0

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

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

consider external factors and planned implementation in order to set targets. Using historical data to create a 

trend line, the number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists had been going up until the past two 

years when the trend was reversed and the numbers started coming down. As with other targets, 

Massachusetts wanted to reflect on the concept that we are moving towards zero deaths and serious injuries 

so our targets would need to move in that direction. In 2020, our safety target for the 5 year average of 

pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and serious injuries was 517. To reflect a reduction, we assumed a 2% annual 

reduction in fatalities and 1% reduction in serious injuries. Overall, this translated to a 2021 5 year average of 

506 fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists. Massachusetts is actively working on strategies to 

ameliorate non-motorist fatality and injuries, while promoting and encouraging walking and cycling. The 2018 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the 2019 Statewide Pedestrian Plan and the 2019 Statewide Bicycle Plan 

identify new multi-disciplined and multi-agency strategies to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries of people 

walking and bicycling. There also may be some implementation of low-cost systemic projects related to 

pedestrian safety in an effort to further drive down fatalities and serious injuries. Therefore, we hope to see at 

least this reduction in non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries, which is working towards our ultimate goal 

towards zero deaths and serious injuries. To be consistent with the HSP Safety Targets provided to NHTSA, 

we used whole numbers for our 5-year average targets.

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

consider external factors and planned implementation in order to set targets. Using historical data to create a 

trend line, the number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists had been going up until the past two 

years when the trend was reversed and the numbers started coming down. As with other targets, 

Massachusetts wanted to reflect on the concept that we are moving towards zero deaths and serious injuries 

so our targets would need to move in that direction. In 2020, our safety target for the 5 year average of 

pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and serious injuries was 517. To reflect a reduction, we assumed a 2% annual 

reduction in fatalities and 1% reduction in serious injuries. Overall, this translated to a 2021 5 year average 

of 506 fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorists. Massachusetts is actively working on strategies to 

ameliorate non-motorist fatality and injuries, while promoting and encouraging walking and cycling. The 2018 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the 2019 Statewide Pedestrian Plan and the 2019 Statewide Bicycle Plan 

identify new multi-disciplined and multi-agency strategies to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries of people 

walking and bicycling. There also may be some implementation of low-cost systemic projects related to 

pedestrian safety in an effort to further drive down fatalities and serious injuries. Therefore, we hope to see at 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 40

least this reduction in non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries, which is working towards our ultimate goal 

towards zero deaths and serious injuries. 

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

safety performance targets. 

We work closely with the Highway Safety Division Office of EOPSS (Executive Office of Public Safety and 

Security) which sits in a different State Secretariat (our states SHSO office). Starting in March we go over the 

data and agree on the trends and start discussing targets by following trend lines and factoring in external 

factors. We then bring in the Office of Performance Management and Innovation (OPMI) within the MassDOT 

and discuss this so we all come to an agreement. The targets are then raised up the food chains to the 

Secretaries of each agency to obtain approval. This process has taken a lot longer because of the unknowns 

with COVID-19. The targets are then presented to the MPOs. The MPOs and others have access to a public 

facing dashboard with the data on all measures ( https://apps.impact.dot.state.ma.us/cdp/dashboard-view/24 ). 

The resulting targets and other performance targets are available in the MassDOT Tracker ( 

https://www.mass.gov/doc/2019-annual-performance-report/download ) which is available on our website for 

download or review.

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

Number of Fatalities 353.0 353.8

Number of Serious Injuries 2801.0 2753.2

Fatality Rate 0.580 0.562

Serious Injury Rate 4.370 4.381

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

541.0 524.4

Massachusetts met three of the five targets (fatality rate, serious injuries and non-motorist fatalities and serious 

injuries). The two targets that were not met were fatalities (353.8 vs. 353.0) and serious injury rates (4.381 vs. 

4.370) but those two targets did meet the baseline. It is interesting to note that the fatalities did not meet the 

targets but the fatality rate did and that the serious injury rate did not meet the target but the serous injuries 

did. Since the relationship to the number (fatalities and injuries) is directly related to the rate by the VMTs, one 

would expect if the fatalities target was met and the serious injuries target was met then both rates would be 

met and vice versa. Therefore, it is mostly that targets were not met because of data quality issues and time 

lag of reporting. As an example, as of the date of responding to this in July 2020, the 2018 crash file has still 

not closed so it is not finalized and subject to change. Typically, there is a 2+ year lag in finalizing the 

data. When the 2017 performance targets were set, the serious injuries for 2015 and 2016 were 2,867 and 

2,980 for the actual years. However, when preparing the HSIP report for this year and repulling the data, the 

serious injuries for 2015 and 2016 are now 2,931 and 2,983 for the actual years. Likewise, the fatal reporting 

that was used in the previous HSIP report, had 350 and 395 for the 2015 and 2016 individual years. However, 

now the fatalities are finalized at 344 and 387 for the 2015 and 2016 individual years. To complicate things 

even more is the VMTs have changed. A new process was used so the VMTs changed for previous years. We 
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 40

believe this is the reason for not consistently meeting the targets between the numbers and the rates. We are 

putting processes in pace to better improve the quality of the data to minimize these issues.

However, the one target that was met and is different than the others is the combination target for nonmotorists. Massachusetts has really been focusing multipronged efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries 

of pedestrian and bicyclists while actively promoting these modes of transportation. Between the very active 

Completes Streets program, infrastructure enhancements, Safe Routes to School, the active awareness 

campaign “Scan the Streets for Wheels and feet”, the stepped up enforcement and the updated multimodal 

design guidance with significant internal and external training, highly visible statewide Pedestrian Plan and 

Bicycle Plan, the Commonwealth has really stepped up activities in these two critical focus areas. While we are 

seeing trends moving in the right direction, we are continuing with this push and are targeting for further 

reductions as we move towards zero deaths and injuries. This is being helped and enhanced with local 

communities Vision Zero strategies and legislative changes in posting speed limits and allowing slower speed 

limit postings.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

72 59 65 75 48 78 75

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

272 271 281 297 266 275 296

2019 is still not finalized in FARS nor in the statewide system for serious injry crashes.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 40

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced) 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

State’s program level evaluations.

• MassDOT’s most recent year of completed crash data is 2018, therefore, this evaluation reflects 

projects which were completed in 2015. MassDOT performed crash-based before/after evaluations of 

10 HSIP projects completed in 2015 (additional projects, which included large scale signage 

improvements, were not able to be evaluated). The 10 projects represented $43.99 million in HSIP 

funding, with 8 projects falling under MassDOT’s Intersection emphasis area ($36.35 million) and 2 

projects falling under the roadway departure emphasis area ($7.63 million). 

• MassDOT estimates the 8 intersection projects will reduce societal crash costs by $58.98 million over 

their service lives, producing a benefit-cost ratio of 1.62. This reduction in crash costs is a result of a 

reduction of 11 KABC and 0.9 KA crashes per year for a total of 223 KABC and 18 KA crashes. At a 

total cost of $36.35 million, MassDOT is spending $2 million per KA crash prevented under the 

Intersection emphasis area. 

• MassDOT estimates the 2 roadway departure projects will reduce societal crash costs by $13.11 million 

over their service lives, producing a benefit-cost ratio of 1.72. This reduction in crash costs is a result of 

a reduction of 3.8 KABC and 0.3 KA crashes per year for a total of 42 KABC and 3.5 KA crashes. At a 

total cost of $7.62 million, MassDOT is spending $2.18 million per KA crash prevented under the 

Rodway Departure emphasis area. 

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 

• More systemic programs 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 193 645.6 0.33 1.09
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 40

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)

Intersections 88.2 1,111.4 0.15 1.88

Pedestrians 78 323.8 0.13 0.54

Bicyclists 9.4 107 0.02 0.18

Motorcyclists 48 320 0.08 0.54

Work Zones 0.6 61.2 0 0.11

Older Driver Related 66.4 529.6 0.11 0.89

Younger Driver Related 

(15-20)

40.2 411 0.07 0.7

Trucks 34.6 175.6 0.06 0.3
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 40

0

50

100

150

200

250

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

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 40

The VMTs used to calculate the rates are based on the statewide VMTS and not restricted to the VMTS of that 

emphasis area. (As an example, older drivers fatality rates are calculated by dividing the total number of older 

driver fatalities by the total statewide VMTS not just the VMTs of older drivers).. 2019 is not finalized for FARS 

nor for the serious injuries to get to this level of information 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 40

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

There weren’t any groups of projects to evaluate as a countermeasure.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 40

Project Effectiveness 

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

• MassDOT used the Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after method where possible to evaluate the projects. When EB was not possible (i.e. no SPF was available for the site), MassDOT used a naïve approach which accounted for 

changes in traffic volume using crash rate. MassDOT used a service life of 20 years for all except one project, which consisted of high-friction surface treatment. For that project, MassDOT assumed a 10 year service life. 

MassDOT used the evaluations to estimate annual property damage only (PDO), fatal and injury (KABC) and fatal and serious injury (KA) crash reductions. 

• To calculate monetary benefits, MassDOT used crash costs from FHWA’s Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis.MassDOT converted the national costs to Massachusetts-specific costs then grew them from 2016 to 2019 

following the guidance describe in the report. MassDOT also converted project costs from project year to 2019 costs. MassDOT also converted estimated annual benefits to a lump sum in 2019 using the Uniform-Series Present 

Net Worth factor assuming an annual discount rate of 7 percent. MassDOT also used average crash costs for each facility type based on the average severity distribution of crashes at those facility types between 2013 and 2017. 

• In total, MassDOT estimates these HSIP projects will produce $72.08 million in societal crash cost benefits throughout their service lives. At a total cost of $43.99 million, these projects have a total benefit-cost ratio of 1.6. This 

corresponds with the prevention of 265 KABC and 21 KA crashes throughout the service lives of the project, at a cost of $166,000 to reduce one KABC crash and $2.1 million to reduce on KA crash.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 40

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/31/2018

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2012 To: 2016

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

 2023

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]

0.9997928276947

94

0.9996637906760

75

0.03066037735849

06

0.0004441492849196

51

0.8971193415637

86

0.0002431802251562

79

Route Number (8) 

[8]

1 1

Route/Street 

Name (9) [9]

0.9977003874122

11

0.9997730587063

51

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

0.9949657129834

88

0.9994368493824

26

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) 

[20]

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

1 1 1 1

Begin Point 

Segment 

Descriptor (10) 

[10]

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point 

Segment 

Descriptor (11) 

[11]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

1 1

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

0.9989330626281

88

0.9997730587063

51
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 40

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

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1 1 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

0.9989330626281

88

0.9997310325408

6

Access Control 

(22) [23]

0.9999585655389

59

1

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) 

[93]

0.9999896413847

4

0.9999831895338

04

Number of 

Through Lanes 

(31) [32]

0.9999896413847

4

0.9999831895338

04

0.97720125786163

5

0.987830309593202

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) 

[81]

0.9679504443845

95

0.9836518216241

43

0.80267295597484

3

0.963461318827277

AADT Year (80) 

[82]

0.9679504443845

95

0.9836518216241

43

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) 

[110]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 

Crossing Point 

(122) [112]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 

Crossing Point 

(123) [113]

1 1

Intersection/Juncti

on Geometry 

(126) [116]

1 1

Intersection/Juncti

on Traffic Control 

(131) [131]

0.5417231715034

81

0.7231166384678

44

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

0.968 0.984
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 40

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

AADT Year (80) 

[82]

0.968 0.984

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) 

[129]

1 1

INTERCHANGE/RA

MP

Unique 

Interchange 

Identifier (178) 

[168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal 

(197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) 

[191]

Ramp Length 

(187) [177]

1 1

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal 

(195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp 

Terminal (199) 

[189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

0.9780451956641

56

0.960317460317

46

Year of Ramp 

AADT (192) [182]

0.9780451956641

56

0.960317460317

46

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1 1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1 1

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.45 0.45 11.87 11.88 20.78 20.60
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 40

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

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

MassDOT is in relatively good shape. Our largest deficiencies are with the intersections. To overcome that, we assembled an intersection collection tool (using HSIP funds) and two procured two contracts with University of Massachusetts 

students (using HSIP funds) to collect the intersection MIRE FDE. There are approximately 70,000 intersections to be collected and, based on recent performance measures, each intersections takes approximately 8 minutes. We are 

70% complete with the intersection collection and anticipate completion in less than one year. While AADTs are available on nearly 96% of all roadways (State owned and non-state owned), we are looking into a process in place to have 

some quality control. A committee has been established to perform this review which impacts HPMS, Safety and other.
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 40

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

hwy_HSIP_Criteria_07-2020.pdf

dot-hwy_safety_analysis_guide080220.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 40

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.