Pennsylvania

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

Prepared by: PA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

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

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

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

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

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

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

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

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 33

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 33

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 37

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 46

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 46

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 61

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................64

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 66

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 71

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 76

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 84
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

with the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

In 2013, 1,208 people lost their lives on Pennsylvania's roadways - the lowest number since we began 

tracking these statistics in 1928. Despite this achievement, we acknowledge that even one death on our 

roads is too many. We remain committed to pursuing our aggressive highway safety goals that aim to 

reduce fatalities and serious injuries in half by 2030.

Several key initiatives are underway to help us maintain our progess towards meeting these goals. On 

the project planning side, we have begun incorporating the Highway Safety Manual into our project 

selection processes and design publications. We've met with each of our Engineering Districts to explain 

the priorities of the HSIP program and how to effectively choose projects and expend safety funds. And 

we've released two large planning reports, provided by FHWA, that recommend low-cost safety 

countermeasures at over 14,000 locations within the Commonwealth to address intersection and runoff road crashes. The first projects to implement these countermeasures were started this year.

While there remains much work required to reach our 2030 goal, we are optimistic that the variety of 

programs currently underway and those in the future will provide great benefits to the Commonwealth's 

travelers and enable us to easily realize our goals.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other Central and District

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

We recently incorporated a new funding formula in response to the increased funding from the MAP-21 

legislation:

1) $500,000 base funding for each planning organization

2) $35 million reserved for statewide initiatives, such as the Intersection Safety and Roadway Departure 

Safety Implementation Plans
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

3) The remaining amount - approximately $45.5 million - is to be distributed to the planning 

organizations by a weighted formula. This formula places 50% weight on fatalities and serious injuries 

and 50% on reportable crashes.

The funds from all three of these categories are applicable to local road problems.

Local road issues are also directly addressed through our Local Technical Assistance Program 

(LTAP) reports. Upon a request from a municipality, LTAP engineers will perform an engineering study 

free of charge and recommend safety countermeasures based on their findings. The Walkable 

Communities Program focuses on pedestrian safety, while the Local Safe Roads Communities Program 

focuses on local road safety in general. The safety improvements suggested by these two program 

reports are eligible for HSIP funding. To encourage implementation of the countermeasures, we are 

advancing a State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) initiative to combine some of these 

completed municipalities into regional groups and emplace the countermeasures in a single project.

Finally, we will continue to incorporate local road locations onto our Statewide High Crash Location Lists, 

the next of which will be published in 2015. These locations are typically among the highest priorities 

for safety funding.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Engineering Districts, Planning Organizations, Program Center

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

PennDOT Engineering Districts utilize a data-driven analysis process to identify eligible projects and 

collaborate with local Planning Organizations to develop a program of safety infrastructure projects.

This process was designed to improve highway safety using data-driving project development methods 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

and to fulfill the requirements of Section 148 of MAP-21. Each District, in coordination with area 

planning partners, is required to utilize the following three step selection process in programming 

Section 148 (HSIP) projects:

1. Select projects that contain locations listed on the Statewide High Crash Locations (SHCL) priority 

ranking. Low cost improvements at these locations can be considered.

2. Deployment of systematic implementation of proven low cost countermeasures.

- OR -

A project location listed in the Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (ISIP) or Roadway Departure 

Safety Implementation Plan (RDIP)

- OR -

A District may program locations identified on the Planning Organization lists. The Planning Organization 

Lists are developed from the same methodology as the Statewide High Crash Location Lists but with 

lower crash thresholds to allow for the identification of 25 locations overall in each Planning 

Organization.

3. Projects not meeting the above criteria may be programmed, but first must be approved by the 

Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration. Such approval requests must include the following 

information:

 1) General Project Information, including scope, costs and estimated completion dates.

 2) District strategy for exceeding its fatality goal, with the consideration of this project.

 3) Justification and safety benefit of programming a non-SHCL/Systematic project, related to 

fatality goals.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-MAST Team - See Question 8 for description
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-NONE

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

Response: The HSIP Program fully aligns with the 2012 Pennsylvania Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Within this Plan, Infrastructure Improvements are identified as the third of seven "Vital Safety Focus 

Areas". Key components of this effort are to:

• Reduce Head-On and Cross-Median Crashes

• Improve Intersection Safety

• Reduce Run-Off-Road Crashes

• Reduce the Severity and Frequency of Hit Fixed Object Crashes

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Bicycle Safety
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

25

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

In 2013, Pennsylvania began an effort to integrate the Highway Safety Manual into it's project planning 

processes. Three major initiaves have come from this effort:

1) Creation of Pennsylvania-specific Safety Performance Functions (SPFs), which are currently in 

development through a research contract with Penn State University.

2) Development of a Pennsylvania-specific Excel-based HSM Worksheet, which is currently in 

development through a consultant contract.

3) Integration of HSM principles and practices into our design manuals and publications, which is 

currently underway through a consultant contract.

While the benefits of these efforts will not affect safety projects reported in this Annual Report, they are 

worth noting here since each initiative will soon be reaching completion.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 93741572 88 % 98299699.14 89 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 2197524 2 % 2383419.94 2 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 10000000 9 % 9714478 9 %
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Totals 105939096 100% 110397597.08 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

0 %

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

0 %

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

0 %

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

period?

0 %
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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

period? 

0 %

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

In last year's HSIP Annual Report, we discussed the difficulties with ensuring that funds are being 

properly obligated towards safety projects with the greatest potential of improving safety and helping 

us meet our safety goals. We had many projects that were grandfathered into the HSIP program that 

required large blocks of funding to address areas with little safety deficiencies. However, the majority of 

those projects have been passed through to completion and the internal approval rate for HSIP funds is 

approaching 90%.

Additionally, we conducted visits to each of PennDOT's eleven Engineering Offices as mentioned last 

year. Attendees included Central Office safety personnel, District engineering staff, and representatives 

from the transportation planning organizations. Our explanation of the priorities of the HSIP program 

were well-received and we were able to clear up several issues that District staff members were facing.

A continuing impediment is the distribution of funds to the Planning Organizations by formula without 

maintaining a centralized control over the monies. While approval to use HSIP funds on a project is 

retained at a high level, the projects and funding proposals are all generated from the Planning 

Organizations. We have recently adjusted the funding distribution formula (in response to the increased 

funding levels through the MAP-21 legislation) to reserve $35 million for statewide initiatives, which will 

help provide additional high-level control of funding and project selection. It is also hoped that last 

year's HSIP meetings were able to thoroughly educate Planning Organization staff about the intent and 

priorities of the HSIP program and will lead to more effective project and funding choices.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

In 2012, FHWA provided PennDOT with an Intersection Safety Implementation Plan (ISIP) and a 

Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan (RDIP). These two plans recommended a variety of 

low-cost safety countermeasures at over 14,000 locations. After a review of the materials and meetings 

with each of the Department's eleven Engineering Districts, ISIP and RDIP projects are being started 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

through the design and implementation processes. The first of these projects are included in this 

report's Project Listing.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AADT Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strateg

y

Ginger Hill 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 Miles 18000 400000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5327 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Intersection 

SR 0088 & 

0837

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn 

lane

0 Miles 2743 862000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7407 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

PA475 

Hustontown 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify 

intersection 

corner 

radius

1 Miles 239153 100214

8

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2626 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

US522 Gem 

Curve

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

1 Miles 411055 142700

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1440 20 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 183/4016 

(Shaeffers)

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 Miles 148500 310716

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1261

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Remove 

Weave 

Condition

Interchange 

design 

Acceleration 

/ 

deceleration 

/ merge lane

0 Miles 50000 176157

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Interstate 

Ramp

2058

4

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

PA 27/North 

St. Connector

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0 Miles 346495 780000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1368

9

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

222 & Shantz 

& 863 

Improvement

s

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

0 Miles 495000 600000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2798

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

control -

other

Strasburg Pk 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn 

lane

0 Miles 129107

1

161041

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

9190 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Belmont Rd 

Intersection

Alignment 

Vertical 

alignment or 

elevation 

change

0 Miles 556252 562515 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

6303 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

PA26/PA305 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 Miles 12202 730000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2309 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Montour 

Street to US 

11

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

acceleration 

lane

1 Miles 28601 841363 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2233

9

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

SR 1004 

Curve 

Alignment 

Horizontal 

1 Miles 690694 193000 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural Major 2018 45 State 

Highway 

Roadway 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Realignment curve 

realignment

0 148) Collector Agency Departure

US 6 Center 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way 

left-turn 

lane

0 Miles 176000 270000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

9349 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

PA 68 Clarion 

Curve

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

1 Miles 32490 436000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1096

4

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 0307 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strips

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

1 Miles 525000 525000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1043

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

United High 

School Curve

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

1 Miles 584550 680000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4931 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Yellow Creek 

Park 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn 

1 Miles 207000 341500

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7315 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

lane

Mount Zion 

Rd 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 Miles 112500 650000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2229

7

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

SR 739 

Shoulder / 

Widening

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

2 Miles 474000 112125

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1011 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 11 

Shoulders / 

ELRS

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

3 Miles 349000 862500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2205 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 11 

Shoulders / 

ELRS

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

3 Miles 67760 862500 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2837 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

94 & 394 

Intersection 

Improvement

s

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control -

two-way 

2 Miles 120021 103500

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8170 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

stop to 

roundabout

SR2012 Mt. 

Tom to 

Airport

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 Miles 53506 240000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1081

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Colebrook 

Road 

Improvement

Roadway 

delineation 

Roadway 

delineation -

other

4 Miles 30000 300000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

7117 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Market St 

Road Safety 

audit

Noninfrastructur

e Road 

safety audits

5 Miles 30000 30000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2589

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Road Safety 

audit which 

will 

recommend 

improvement

s in many 

areas.

Lycoming 

Median Guide 

Rail

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

44 Miles 67000 679000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

1314

9

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

s

Mercer Tree 

Removal

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

9.15 

Miles

60000 60000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Erie Tree 

Removal

Roadside 

Removal of 

roadside 

objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

14.87 

Miles

90000 90000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

2013-14 

Centre Reg 

ISIP

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0.02 

Miles

58950 150000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Group 2-14 

NC 

Rumblestrip

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

0.02 

Miles

100000 700000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

2013-14 

Centre RDIP

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Curverelated 

warning 

signs and 

flashers

0.02 

Miles

135810 150000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

ISIP 

Systematic

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0 Miles 155000 105000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections

RDIP 

Systematic

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 Miles 67000 370000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

DW 

Systematic 

Improvement

-2014

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

742 

Number

s

86000 403000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 1471 1413 1365 1329 1277

Number of serious injuries 4022 3858 3693 3556 3432

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.38 1.34 1.31 1.3 1.27

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.76 3.65 3.55 3.48 3.4

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

53 111 0.05 0.11

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

104 192 0.1 0.19

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

169 349 0.17 0.35

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

55 155 0.05 0.15

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

127 283 0.13 0.28

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

27 77 0.03 0.08

URBAN PRINCIPAL 67 154 0.07 0.15
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

34 78 0.03 0.08

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

213 608 0.21 0.6

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

137 396 0.14 0.39

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

70 206 0.07 0.2

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

7 30 0.01 0.03

OTHER 212 794 0.21 0.79

RAMP 1 7 0 0.01
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 1058 2628 1.05 2.61

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 4 19 0 0.02

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 198 735 0.2 0.73

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) 0 9 0 0.01

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 17 48 0.02 0.05

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
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

Please note that 2013 vehicle miles traveled data is not available at the time of publishing this report.

The 2013 values have been estimated using the 2012 values. These values will be updated in next year's 

report.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

1.682 1.594 1.556 1.538 1.544

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

2.894 2.772 2.636 2.556 2.542

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

4.576 4.366 4.192 4.094 4.086

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

Data was obtained from the following sources:

1. Fatality and serious injury data was taken from the state crash database

2. Population figures were obtained from the US Census Bureau and from official State publications

3. The ratio of older persons per 1000 population was obtained from FHWA

From the latter two pieces of data, a number of older persons in the Commonwealth was calculated for 

each year. NOTE: the 2013 ratio of older persons was not yet available from FHWA; 2013 values were 

estimated using the 2012 ratio.

The older pedestrian (age 65+) fatalities and fatalities in crashes involving and older driver (age 65+) 

were added together. The same was performed on the serious injuries.

A rate of fatalities and serious injuries per 10,000 was then calculated. The 10,000 mark was set by 

FHWA in order to yield workable numbers for the rates. The rates were then added to get a net Fatality 

and Serious Injury Rate.

A five year average of this rate was calculated and rounded to the nearest tenth. The 2007-2011 value is 
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

4.2 and the 2009-2013 value is 4.1. Therefore, the Special Rule does not apply for Pennsylvania.

However, recognizing our aging population and increasing trends in highway fatalities for our older 

citizens, we will continue our efforts at improving older driver safety.

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Change in Funding Distribution Formula

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

The formula for the distribution of safety monies has been adjusted in response to the increase in 

funding in the MAP-21 legislation. The formula is as follows:
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

1) $500,000 in "base funding" for each planning organization

2) $35 million reserved for statewide initiatives, such as implementation of the Intersection Safety and 

Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plans as well as the systematic implementation of additional 

proven low cost safety improvements.

3) The remainder - $45.5 million - will be distributed to the planning organizations using a weighted 

formula based 50% on fatalities and serious injuries and 50% on reportable crashes

It is hoped that this new funding formula will provide for a greater return on our safety investment and 

continue our great progress in achieving our aggressive highway safety goals. The base funding 

will provide smaller planning organizations with the ability to perform medium-sized improvement 

projects as needed. The $35 million reserved for statewide initiatives provides for some centralized 

control over safety monies and will ensure the implementation of high-level safety efforts. And finally, 

the revision of the formula for distributing the remaining funds - approximately equal to our safety 

funding levels from previous years - will focus those funds of areas with distinct safety problems.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 626 1552 0.62 1.54 0 0 0

Intersections Intersection 

Crashes

271 1015 0.27 1.01 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 150 334 0.15 0.33 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 15 68 0.01 0.07 0 0 0

Older Drivers Older Driver 

Crashes

268 467 0.27 0.46 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 

Crashes

203 549 0.2 0.54 0 0 0

Work Zones Work Zone Crashes 20 47 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

All 1277 3432 1.27 3.4 0 0 0

Intersection Intersection 271 1015 0.27 1.01 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve Curve Driver Error 167 306 0.17 0.3 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 626 1552 0.62 1.54 0 0 0

Local Safety Local Road (Only) 203 777 0.2 0.77 0 0 0

Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 15 68 0.01 0.07 0 0 0

Median Barrier Cross median 54 70 0.05 0.07 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 150 334 0.15 0.33 0 0 0

Shoulder 

Improvement

Run-off-road 626 1552 0.62 1.54 0 0 0
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Install/Improve Signing All 1277 3432 1.27 3.4 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

and/or Delineation

All 1277 3432 1.27 3.4 0 0 0

Traffic Control Device 

Rehabilitation

Intersection 271 1015 0.27 1.01 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Cross 

median

54 70 0.05 0.07 0 0 0

Rumble Strips Head on 167 441 0.17 0.44 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Hit Guide 

Rail

139 256 0.14 0.25 0 0 0

Pavement/Shoulder Widening Run-off-road 626 1552 0.62 1.54 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Intersection 271 1015 0.27 1.01 0 0 0
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

Please note that 2013 vehicle miles traveled data is not available at the time of publishing this report.

The 2013 values have been estimated using the 2012 values. These values will be updated in next year's 

report.

The most updated version of our HSIP program benefit-cost ratio is 0.85:1. This indicates that only 

$0.85 of economic benefit is realized for each safety dollar spent. This indicator is negative despite our 

recent safety successes, which include a record low number of highway fatalities since record keeping 

began over 80 years ago. However, a closer analysis of the data used to generate this ratio reveals two 

items worthy of consideration:

1) One project location in Lycoming County, completed in 2009, is the cause of a 0.16 reduction in the 

benefit cost ratio by itself. If this single project is removed from the analysis, our benefit cost ratio would 

be a positive 1.01:1. After the intersection improvements, which included acceleration lanes for traffic 

turning onto a major highway, were completed, a series of four fatal accidents occurred. These involved 

a pedestrian being struck, a large truck rolling over for unknown causes, a DUI crash, and an 

inexperienced driver making an entry onto the highway without clearance. None of these accidents 

would have been affected by the work paid for with HSIP funds.

2) Several projects, including ones in the most recent 2010 set of data, had minimal crash history prior 

to the completion date. For example, a project in Adams County which cost over $600,000 had no 

crashes in the three years prior to construction. Another project in Washington County had a pair of 

property damage only crashes in the three years before completion, but was provided with an 

intersection upgrade that cost almost $800,000.

The first item is difficult to address; fatal crashes are very random in nature, and their high cost to 

society cannot be disputed. Our excellent progress in reducing fatalities in the Commonwealth is a 

much better indicator of the effectiveness of our safety programs.

The second item, however, is one that we are continuously working to correct. As mentioned previously 

in this report, safety staff from PennDOT's Central Office made visits to each Engineering District office 

this past fall to present a refresher course on the HSIP program, it's priorities, and the proper ways to 

obtain the most benefit from safety investments. Many of these seemingly poor project choices were 

grandfathered into the HSIP program, and therefore not subject to our improved project selection

methodology. To combat this, we instituted a policy change in January 2011 that removed projects with 

limited crash history or limited potential for safety improvement for consideration. Based on the 

inclusion of the large number of project eligible for HSIP funds under our new guidelines on this year's 

new Transporation Improvement Program, we feel strongly that the adverse effect of these 

grandfathered projects will soon be negated.
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2014 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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. 

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.