Massachusetts

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: MA
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.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 23

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 23

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 36

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 36

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 51

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................53

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 54

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 59

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 64

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 70

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 72
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

after an HSIP Task Force was developed and HSIP guidelines were implemented. HSIP projects and 

programs must have been identified through our Strategic Highway Safety Plan and consisted of a 

combination of high crash locations and systemic projects. The HSIP program consisted mainly of 

infrastructure projects but there have been some programs that involved enforcement, education and 

awareness. The HSIP is a much needed program to bring down our fatalities and injuries in order to 

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

Massachusetts as well as describing the selected HSIP programs and projects.
2015 Massachusetts 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 The STIP provided for approximately $33 million in 2015 HSIP funds. $18.7M administered in 

HQ and $14.6M was allocated to the regions (by MARPA formula) through MPO project selection 

process. 

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

The HSIP project selection criteria were based on locations being identified as top crash locations (based 

on the number and severity of crashes) regardless of road ownership. Additionally, programs were 

established to reduce injuries and fatalities based on several key focus areas based on our Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan, regardless of roadway jurisdiction. There is an ongoing Bicycle - Pedestrian safety 

program that works at the community level to address enforcement, education, awareness and 

infrastructure and in most cases, these areas are focused on locally owned roads. Finally, other eligible 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

projects / programs were selected based on HSIP-eligible criteria such as statewide improvements to 

data or assistance with SHSP. These programs impact safety on all roadways regardless of roadway 

jurisdiction

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

to establish HSIP guidelines based on input and feedback from others. Once the guidelines were 

finalized, the role of the Task Force is to meet annually or more frequently, (“meetings” could be via 

email or in person) and to confirm the selection of HSIP projects and update the guidelines as needed.

The HSIP Guidelines were updated based on MAP-21. Program and project selection occurs both in 

MassDOT HQ and at the regional MPO level (MassDOT District and MassDOT Planning sit on the MPOs).

There is funding set aside for each MPO. The statewide HSIP, administered through MassDOT HQ, 

involves systemic projects and high crash locations as well as programs and strategies based on the 

SHSP. The programs and strategies from the SHSP are developed through the SHSP Emphasis Area 

teams with input from many.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-FHWA

Other: Other-SHSP Emphasis area team members

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 known

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

would like to elaborate.

None

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

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

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-CRASH SEVERITY 

WEIGHTING

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)
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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-MPO

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 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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 

PROJECT READINESS

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

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-truck crashes and State 

Police feedback on places 

problem corridors and where 

enforcement can easily and 

Lane miles Roadside features
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

safely take place

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-police feedback on locations

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
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

selection committee

Other-MassDOT worked with State POlice for this program to identify corridors 

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 

where variable message 

boards can be visible and police 

can enforce

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-percent commuting by 

biking

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-proportion of non-motorist crashes, EMS non-motorist crashes, percent commuting by bike

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

Yes

No
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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-participating communities based on data driven process

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 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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-pavement condition 

could accommodate HFST

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-combination of horizontal curve with crash history and pavement condition
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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-The District Office selected the locations

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 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

 

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-SYSTEMATIC 

APPROACH NOT BASED ON 

CRASHES

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
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Other-ALL SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAYS

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-ALL SECONDARY ROADS

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 

ALL SECONDARY ROADS
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

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-ratio of ped crashes to 

all crashes by town

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-commuting by walking 

(journey to work census data)

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
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-EMS data on pedestrians, ratio of pedestrian crashes to all crashes, commuting rates of 

pedestrians by towns

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-based on priority of towns selected by above criteria

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
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

number of communities 

invovled in programs is based on 

available funding

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2014

 

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 

Other-Systemic approach for 

all State signals with left turn 

lanes and protected-permissive 

phasing to install FYA

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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-using systemic approach for all eligible state signals

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-SHSP emphasis area strategy

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).
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

working on all state signals 

where the flashing yellow arrow 

can be added easily (no new mast 

arms, no R-O-W, etc)

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

18

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-bicycle and pedestrian safety

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: Other-We have increased our systemic approach

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

would like to elaborate. 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

None
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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) 29958730 44 % 27955925.78 43 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 17399.22 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

27269255.2 40 % 25904952.31 39 %

State and Local Funds 10146062 15 % 11813363.48 18 %
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Totals 67374047.2 100% 65691640.79 100%

Please note that there are a few projects that have not yet been obligated for this Federal Fiscal Year 

but are planned to be obligated during the months of August and September. Therefore, the 

"obligated" amount, includes those projects and programs.

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

20 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

15 %

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

7 %

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

7 %

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

period?

0 %

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.

MassDOT is very interested in having more low cost systemic approach projects on local roads, to 

address the safety concerns based on the data. However, many local communities do not have roadway 

layouts so that the specific rights-of-way are not defined. FHWA Division Office has asked us to perform 

surveys on each of the roadways for the systemic projects. This would push systemic low cost projects 

into a more costly program. We are working with our division office to enable us to do what many other 

states do (having locals certify that all signs and markings will occur within the local public right of way) 

or on another solution so that Massachusetts can fully utilize and implement low cost systemic 

approaches to safety for locally owned roadways

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

The first HSIP project was obligated in 2009 and completed in 2011. The Registry of Motor Vehicles just 

closed the 2013 crash file in June 2015. Therefore, in the coming year or two, MassDOT will be able to 

begin performing an evaluation of the effectiveness of the HSIP projects by using 3 years of preimplementation crash data and comparing to 3 years of post-implementation crash data.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total Cost Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

605657- MEDWAY 

-

RECONSTRUCTION 

ON ROUTE 109, 

FROM HOLLISTON 

STREET TO 100 FT. 

WEST OF 

HIGHLAND 

STREET, INCLUDES 

REHAB OF M-13-

012

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

1.501 

Miles

3000000 13382439.

6

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2080

0

35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

605146- SALEMRECONSTRUCTIO

N ON CANAL 

STREET, FROM 

WASHINGTON 

STREET & MILL 

STREET TO 

LORING AVENUE 

& JEFFERSON 

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

1.339 

Miles

2000000 10835675.

66

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1900

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

AVENUE

606394-

BARNSTABLEINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT FALMOUTH 

ROAD (ROUTE 

28) AND 

BEARSES WAY

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

4237130 8052365.3 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1554

2

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

606485-

MILLBURYSUTTONMEDIAN 

BARRIER 

REPLACEMENT 

ON ROUTE 146, 

FROM ROUTE 

122A TO 

BOSTON ROAD

Roadside 

Barrier -

other

2.742 

Miles

2250000 6091525 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4420

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

606347-

STURBRIDGERESURFACING 

AND RELATED 

WORK ON 

ROUTE 20, FROM 

ROUTE 49 TO I84

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface -

high friction 

surface

0 Miles 1000000 2836751.7

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1920

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

607072-

DISTRICT 1-2 -3 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE III) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

RES

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

9 

Numbe

rs

1170000 1300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

608269-

DISTRICT 4 -6 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE III) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

13 

Numbe

rs

450000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

RES

607222-

GREENFIELDINTERSECTION 

IMPROVMENTS 

AT ROUTE/5/10 

& CHAPSIDE 

STREET

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

300449 629039.75 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1100

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

604035-

HADLEY- SIGNAL 

& INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT 

AT ROUTE 9 

(RUSSELL 

STREET) & 

ROUTE 47 

(MIDDLE 

STREET)

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Numbe

rs

1201102 4319150.1 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2500

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

606729-

TAUNTONCOUNTY STREET 

(RTE 140) 

RECONSTRUCTIO

N FORM RTE 24 

TO MOZZONE 

BLVD TO WIDEN 

RR TRACKS 

AREA

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.262 

Miles

1560000 3634748.1

4

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

3000

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

608024-

STATEWIDECONVERSION OF 

INTERSTATE 

AND FREEWAY 

EXIT NUMBERS 

TO MILEPOSTBASED

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

0 3555556 5995280 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SHSP- PROJECT 

HSI-002S(361), 

Statewide, 

MassDOT / Mass. 

State Police 

Work Zone 

Safety 

Enforcement 

Program

Work Zone 1 

Numbe

rs

449585.

18

499439 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

mostly on 

controlled 

access 

roadways: 

interstates 

and 

principal 

arterials

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Work 

Zones

SHSP- HSI002S(678), 

StatewidePedestrian &

Bicycle Traffic 

Safety Prog. w/ 

seven 

RPAs,Pittsfield 

Police, MA Bike 

Coalition & 

Noninfrastructu

re 

Enforcemen

t

19 

Numbe

rs

631463.

4

701626 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads

0 0 this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads

Pedestrian

s
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

WalkBoston

SHSP- HSI002S(809), 

Statewide -

Agree. #87077 

with City of 

Boston for Crash 

Data Reporting 

System 

Improvements

Noninfrastructu

re 

Data/traffic 

records

1 

Numbe

rs

69667.2 77408 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads in 

Boston

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Data

SHSPSTATEWIDE -

DESIGN 

CONSULTING 

SERVICES FOR 

LOCAL 

COMMUNITIES 

ON BICYCLE 

PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY ISSUES

Noninfrastructu

re Road 

safety 

audits

1 

Numbe

rs

315000 350000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads in 

local 

communiti

es involved 

in this 

program

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

SHSPSTATEWIDE -

DESIGN 

CONSULTING 

SERVICES AND 

Noninfrastructu

re 

Transportati

1 

Numbe

rs

450000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

0 0 this is a 

noninfrastruct

ure project 

Data and 

general 

SHSP help
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

SAFETY 

ENGINEERING 

FOR HSM AND 

OTHER SAFETY 

PLANNING

on safety 

planning

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads

and the 

work will 

pertain to 

all roads

608152-

DISTRICT 4 -

HIGH FRICTION 

SURFACE 

TREATMENT 

AND RELATED 

WORK AT 3 

LOCATIONS

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface -

high friction 

surface

3 

Numbe

rs

2052000 2280000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

608110-

DISTRICT 1-2 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE II) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

RES

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

52 

Numbe

rs

517770 575316.75 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

608111-

DISTRICT 3 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE II) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

RES

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

59 

Numbe

rs

482886 536556 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

608112-

DISTRICT 4 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE II) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

88 

Numbe

rs

1012716 1125258 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

RES

608113-

DISTRICT 5-6 -

IMPLEMENT 

(PHASE II) OF 

THE FLASHING 

YELLOW ARROW 

AT SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTIONS 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

ONE OF THE 

FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEASU

RES

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic signal 

- add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

70 

Numbe

rs

653985 726662.5 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

608087-

BROCKTONPEDESTRIAN 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists 

Miscellaneo

us 

pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists

1 

Numbe

rs

506616 625000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies 0 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

SHSP -

STATEWIDE -

SUPPORT FOR 

TRAFFIC 

Work Zone 1 

Numbe

rs

90000 100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

varies for traffic 

incident 

manageme

nt on all 

Work 

Zones
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

INCIDENT 

MANAGEMENT

roads in 

which 

State 

Police 

respond
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 382.8 371.8 361.6 354 0

Number of serious injuries 5050.4 4833.6 4710.6 4548.2 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.64 0

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.22 8.84 8.59 8.24 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

The fatality information came directly from the FARS website (7/21/15) and may reflect draft numbers 

only. The serious injury data was provided from Department of Public Health for MA Hospital Inpatient 

Discharge and MA Outpatient Observation Stay Databases, MA Center for Health Information and 

Analysis.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

4 21.8 0.36 2.15

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 5.2 0 2.59

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

7.8 12 2.38 3.02

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

8.2 25 1.83 5.1

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

1.6 9.6 1.16 6.9

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

3.8 44 0.76 8.33

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

12.4 37.8 1.96 6.27

URBAN PRINCIPAL 49.8 255 0.32 1.65
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

60 119.6 1.05 2.1

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

36.6 884.4 0.33 8.01

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

34.8 942.2 0.39 10.56

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

124.4 486.4 1.63 6.38

OTHER 8.4 223.8 0 0

URBAN COLLECTOR 

(COMBINED MAJOR + 

MINOR)

2.2 371.2 0.07 12.99
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 136.6 942.6 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0.4 0.8 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 7 76.4 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 2.8 33 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 2.2 14.6 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0.6 0 0

CITY OR TOWN HIGHWAY AGENCY 191.8 2143.6 0 0
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

The rates for jurisdiction were not available because VMT per jurisdiction is not calculated or known in MA. The rates for functional classification 

use the fatality and injury data as well as the VMTs of that particular functional classification. The fatality and serious injury data for jurisdiction 

came from the Statewide Crash Data System (not FARS). The data included in the tables does NOT include those crashes which were not able to 

be located or are on a roadway in which there is not a data element (like Federal Park land). The fatality functional classification data came 

directly from FARS (queried on 7/20/15) although note that the 2013 data are only draft/preliminary.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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

None

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)

0.46 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.44

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

4.82 4.69 4.54 4.45 4.34

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

5.27 5.12 4.98 4.91 4.79

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

See attached
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

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: Other-We are working with CDC and Public Health to evaluate our Bike / Ped Safety program 

using DPH's contracted evaluator

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-WE can shortly begin to perform evaluations of our HSIP programs

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

None
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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 181.8 888.2 0.33 1.61 0 0 0

Intersections 104.4 1560.8 0.19 2.83 0 0 0

Pedestrians 68.8 702 0.12 1.27 0 0 0

Bicyclists 8.4 166.4 0.02 0.3 0 0 0

Older Drivers 71.4 550.8 0.13 1 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 47.6 646 0.09 1.17 0 0 0

Work Zones 6 0 0.01 0 0 0 0
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Fatality data comes from FARS website, except for 2013 which comes from a combination of FARS website and MA FARS analyst. Older driver 

serious injury data comes from Crash Data System. Pedestrian, bicyclist and motorcyclist serious injury comes from Department of Public 

Health. Serious injury data for work zone crashes was not a reliable field in the State's Crash Data System and is therefore not presented.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

65.4 311.2 0.12 0.56 0 0 0

Intersection 104.4 1560.8 0.19 2.83 0 0 0

Bicycle Safety 8.4 166.4 0.02 0.3 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety 68.8 702 0.12 1.27 0 0 0
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

2013 Intersection fatality data is based FARS from the public facing website which is based on preliminary information only and is not the final 

number.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

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 Pavement 

Marking and/or Delineation

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-bicycle and 

pedestrian safety

77.6 868.4 0.14 1.57 0 0 0

Install/Improve Signing 65.4 311.2 0.12 0.56 0 0 0
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

As noted earlier, the first HSIP project was obligated in 2009 and completed in 2012. The Registry of 

Motor Vehicles just closed the 2013 crash file in June 2015. Therefore, in 2017, MassDOT will be able to 

begin performing an evaluation of the effectiveness of the HSIP hotr spot projects by using 3 years of 

pre-implementation crash data and comparing to 3 years of post-implementation crash data.
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance 

Targets: Application of Special Rules

Attachment for Q27.docx
2015 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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.