New York

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: NY
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 ..................................................................................................................................................4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................4

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................4

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

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................49

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 50

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 54

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................72

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................97
iv
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

States Code (23 U.S.C. 148) regulated under 23 CFR 924. 

MAP-21 reinforces the importance of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The 

goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. Thus, the 

HSIP remains New York State Department of Transportation’s core program to proactively 

identify and correct high accident locations and progress safety projects that facilitate the goal 

of the program. 

Emphasis Areas

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

areas outlined in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) including pedestrian safety, 

improving safety at highway intersections, decreasing the number of crashes resulting from 

lane departures and enhancing safety in work zones. Site specific projects at high accident 

locations as well as low cost safety measures implemented widely across the network such as 

Center Line Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) and Pedestrian Countdown Timers are being 

implemented to meet crash goals. 

HSIP Fund Administration

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

has essentially doubled in size under MAP-21. Approximately half of the funds have been 

provided to the NYSDOT regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The 

remaining half is administered centrally by the Statewide Safety and System Optimization Team 

(SSO) who oversee a statewide solicitation for regionally significant safety projects. The 

statewide solicitation program funds the most cost effective safety projects and directs HSIP 

funds where they are most needed regardless of ownership, mode or geographic restriction. In 

FFY13, the statewide program funded 6 local and 8 state projects for a total of approximately 

$42M. 

All Public Roads
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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

Department of Transportation and our partners, requiring a greater focus on key “priority 

result” or “emphasis” areas in order to utilize our fiscal and staff resources to greatest effect. 

The following initiatives support the “all public roads” mandate. 

• Locally owned and state owned projects complete equally for funds in the statewide 

solicitation program

• Crash data on the local system is available through New York's Safety Information 

Management System (SIMS)

• Plans are underway to build a local GIS route system

• Enhancements to the Accident Location Information System (ALIS), the Safety 

Information Management System (SIMS) and a new Enterprise Linear Referencing 

System (ELRS) will provide functionality that allows safety problem identification and 

countermeasure analysis to be done on the local system in the same way as the state 

system

• Additional traffic counts are being taken in local roads

Performance Indicators

The MAP-21 legislation integrates performance into the HSIP program. The number of fatalities 

and serious injuries appear to be on a general downward trend over the last 5 years although 

there has been minimal change in the fatality and serious injury rates as can be seen below. 

Performance Measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

# Fatalities (persons) 1,224 1,148 1,192 1,153 1,197

# of Serious Injuries (persons) 13,137 12,988 12,802 12,012 12,532

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) .92 .86 .91 .90 .94

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 9.82 9.73 9.75 9.40 9.80

Data compiled by ITSMR

Whether you look at VMT, population or lane miles, New York State has an impressive safety 

record. Through the coordinated efforts of the New York State Department of Transportation, 

the Governor’s Traffic and Safety Committee and other state and local partners, New York 

State’s fatality rate has been below the USDOT’s 2013 goal of 1.03 fatalities per MVMT since 

2005. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Safety Project Effectiveness

A report was initiated from the New York State Department of Transportation’s Post 

Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) showing the number of crashes occurring before and 

after the construction of safety projects completed in 2008 and 2009. At least 3 years of post 

construction crash data was available for all sites evaluated. The report showed that fatal 

crashes decreased by about 30 per year and injury crashes decreased by over 3,200 per year at 

safety project locations. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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 - Approximately 50% of the HSIP funds are provided to the NYSDOT Regions according to a 

safety planning target formula. Most of the the remaining funds are allocated to projects via a 

competitive application process. 

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

Safety projects on all public roads in New York State including local roads are eligible to 

receive HSIP funds. Fifty percent of the HSIP allocation for Region 11 - New York City is for local 

roads. The competitive application component of the program awarded funding to six local 

projects in FFY 2013 for a total of $20.5M and four local projects in FFY 2014 for a total of 

$6.04M. In addition, 84 Capital Projects and/or Safety Capital Projects contained a local roads 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

component. Total obligations for local projects was $1.4 million in 2012. Project improvements 

by type in 2012 are shown below. R11 allocation is to and for the local benefit in addition to the 

statewide solicitation process.

Safety Improvement Number

Pedestrian (non-SRTS) 10 

Bicycle 2 

Bridge Removal/Rehabilitation 3 

New Highway Construction 1 

Intersection Improvements

 Alignment 10 

 Reconstruction /Widening 11 

Traffic Signal Improvements 20 

Multi-course Overlay 4 

Pavement Markings 4 

Shared Path Usage 2 

Signing 5 

Skid Treatment 1 

Sight Distance Improvements 1 

RR Crossing 10 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The New York State Department of Transportation formed a Statewide Safety System and 

Optimization team (SSO) with expertise in highway safety and system optimization. The multi 

disciplinary team is comprised of members from various Division and Regional Offices including 

Safety Program Management and Coordination, System Optimization, Local Programs, 

Integrated Modal Services, Planning, Design and Transportation Maintenance. The SSO team is 

responsible for the following:

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

with program update strategies;

• Providing clarification and guidance to the 11 NYSDOT regions;

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

• Developing support materials for NYSDOT Regions in preparing safety program 

proposals;

• Reviewing safety program proposals; and

• Monitoring regional programs over the life of the program to ensure safety and 

optimization goals are met.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Other: Other- As mentioned in a previous question, a competitive application process was developed 

to allocate the additional funding provided with MAP-21. The program was established in 2012.

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

would like to elaborate.

NYSDOT is using a hybrid approach to manage the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

which has essentially doubled in size under MAP-21. Approximately half of the funds have been 

provided to the NYSDOT Regions according to existing safety planning target formulas. The 

remaining half is being administered centrally through initiatives managed by the Statewide 

Safety and System Optimization Team. The centrally managed portion allows the funds to be 

focused where the needs are greatest in the State and to use the funds more efficiently in 

support of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The purpose of this program is to facilitate 

the goals and strategies set forth in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan and to progress the best 

transportation proposals that reduce fatal and severe injury crashes, regardless of ownership, 

mode (pedestrians, motorcycle/bicycles, grade crossings, etc.) or geographic restriction within 

the statewide funds available. 

NYSDOT is using approximately $42M from FFY 13 and $40M from FFY 14 in available HSIP 

funds to solicit proposals statewide in order to select statewide and regionally significant 

projects. The statewide solicitations support safety specific projects that direct safety funds 

where they are most needed by targeting locations, corridors, or areas demonstrating an 

advantageous benefit-cost ratio to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. Funding has been 

awarded based on an evaluation of these projects to maximize investment in the most costeffective safety projects. Successful proposals are consistent with the strategies and emphasis 

areas identified in the NYS Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

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: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

selection committee

Other 

Other-Priority Investigation Locations (PILS) are identified where the crash rate is greater than the 

average for a similar road type. An annual work program is developed to investigate a percentage of the 

PILS and recommend safety counter measures.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

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-Implementing CARDS 

on rural highways with specific 

characteristics.

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Priority Investigation Other Other 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Locations (PILS)

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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- Locations are 

identified where the percentage 

of wet road accidents is twice 

the normal proportion for the 

same county and facility type.

Other Other 

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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 

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

friction tested. Tested locations which demonstrate one or more low friction test numbers (FN40R of 32) 

are treated.

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Locations with low friction test 

numbers (FN40R of 32) require 

treatment.

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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).
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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 

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

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

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

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

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

departures.

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

Local projects are usually identified when a municipality informs DOT of a safety issue or through MPO 

planning. Data that shows a safety issue is required to receive funding however a detailed analysis that 

identifies high accident locations is not.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other- Regional HSIP projects based on recommendation noted above.

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

CARDS projects are selected 

regionally based upon priority 

and availablity of funding or via a 

statewide competitive 

application process.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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)
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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 

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

Qualified staff decide upon the safety work to be done before, during and after construction to ensure 

safety is incorporated into maintenance projects.

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

investigation.

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other- Many nominal safety improvements are incorporated into maintenance work
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Many nominal safety items 

are incorporated into 

maintenance activities.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1995

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

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 

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

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

defined schedule.

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

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-Crashes involving 

pedestrians

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Other Other-Intersection features; 

crosswalk features; pedestrian 

islands etc.

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Intersection features; 

speed limit etc.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/1989

 

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-Priority Investigation 

Locations (PILS)

Lane miles Roadside features
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-The Priority Investigation Location process mentioned above.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

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

30

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

improvments?

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

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
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Improving highway safety for the traveling public is defined as a key emphasis area in New York 

State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and continues to be a high priority at NYSDOT. Safety 

objectives defined in the plan include improving safety for pedestrians, improving data analysis 

tools and capabilities, improving the design and operation of highway intersections, decreasing 

fatalities resulting from travel lane departures and improving work zone safety. 

I. Pedestrian Safety

Each year, pedestrians are involved in approximately one-quarter of the fatal motor vehicle 

crashes that occur on New York States's roadways. NYSDOT continues to look for solutions to 

improving the safety of all roadway users including pedestrians.

Safer Corridors

In the spring of 2012 and in cooperation with our local, state and federal partners, NYSDOT 

conducted a detailed study of the entire length of Hempstead Turnpike to determine how best 

to improve its safety. Those findings were the basis for many pedestrian safety improvements 

including remarking and widening crosswalks, increasing pedestrian crossing times at many 

traffic signals, reprogramming dozens of crosswalks and adding new features to pedestrian 

crossing buttons. The next round of pedestrian safety improvements on Hempstead Turnpike 

will include new crosswalks, traffic signal installations, modifications and timing changes, bus 

stop relocations and the installation of 13 raised medians at eight locations. 

In addition to Hempstead Turnpike, the department is working on studies of the entire Sunrise 

Highway (Route 27) and Route 110 corridors from a pedestrian safety perspective as well as 

Route 5/Central Avenue in the Albany Capital District. The improvements are expected to 

be very similar to what is being done on Route 24 (Hempstead Turnpike).
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

The NYSDOT also has plans to introduce a high priority pedestrian safety concept throughout 

the state in major metropolitan areas.

Complete Streets

On a statewide basis, the New York State Department of Transportation is currently applying 

Complete Street provisions in its project planning, programming and delivery processes.

Complete Street design must be considered for county and local transportation projects that 

NYSDOT undertakes or for projects that receive federal and state funding and have NYSDOT 

oversight. Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users 

including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. An 

important component of the Complete Streets framework is a "Pedestrian Generator Checklist" 

which is used by planners and designers to identify a need for current or future pedestrian 

accommodations in our projects.

II. Improving Data Analysis Tools and Capabilities

This report is based on crash data from NYSDOT's Safety Information System (SIMS) data base 

through December 31, 2012. Crash records and roadway characteristics are analyzed to identify 

Priority Investigation Locations (PIL’s). A subset of PILS are investigated every year for the 

purpose of identifying safety improvements. Crash data has traditionally included fatal, injury, 

property damage crashes over $1,000 (reportable PDO) and property damage accidents under 

$1,000 (non-reportable). Additional factors used in developing the Priority Investigation 

Locations (PIL’s) list are traffic volumes, divided or undivided and the number of travel lanes. All 

HSIP locations studied are on the “State System” with the exception of some New York City 

locations.

Status of Crash Data

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

the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, State Police and other key stakeholders to mutually 

re-engineer the accident and traffic violation records systems to address New York’s data 

information needs. The State continues to use a strategic planning approach to improve its 

various information systems as articulated in the State’s Traffic Safety Information Systems 

Strategic Plan. The status of improvements that directly affect the Department’s SIMS are: 

Crash Records 

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

2012. NYSDOT continues to work with the NYSDMV, the official repository of crash data, to 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

reduce the lag in the deferred non-reportable (property damage under $1,000) crash records 

that NYSDMV traditionally processed. Both Departments continue to contract with outside 

vendors for record imaging and data entry services. The backlog of non-reportable accidents 

will continue to be reduced this year. 

Traffic & Criminal Software (TraCS) 

New York State continues as an active participating state in the development and further 

refinement of the nationally developed software for electronic collection of ticket and traffic 

records. Use and Dissemination Agreements for use of the software have been signed by more 

than 482 different police agencies across the state. This represents more than one-third of all 

law enforcement agencies in NYS who have committed to using the software. As of March 31, 

2013, 438 agencies are transmitting data through the TraCS system. This number will increase 

steadily as the software is deployed to additional agencies in future years. Consistent funding 

will be vital to achieving this goal. The software will reduce the workload at NYSDMV 

decreasing the time it takes to process each crash report. This year the State Police expect to 

upgrade the TraCS software to improve transmittal and processing between the State Police 

and all ticket and crash data users. 

Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) 

The Post-Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) allows for actual before and after project 

evaluations. The system allows for: verification that projected accident reductions reported as 

part of the Department’s safety goal are reasonable and accurate; quantitative measurements 

of the effectiveness of the Department’s overall capital program in improving highway safety 

(reducing accidents and safety benefit cost ratio); continued development of new accident 

reduction factors for accident countermeasures (shoulder rumble strips, roundabouts, and 

pavement surface treatments); and ensures that the mandated requirements are met. 

Accident Location Information System (ALIS)

ALIS is a GIS web based accident location analysis tool that allows for geographic based crash 

analysis is available to MPO’s, counties, and local governments that have direct access to the 

New York State maps through the Office of Technology. All the MPO’s as well as New York City 

are using the analysis tool. This year the analysis tool was upgraded to allow for custom queries 

such as type of crash, time of day, and other data elements. Additional enhancements will be 

available in the Summer/Fall of 2013.

Enterprise Linear Referencing System (ELRS)

The roads and highways implementation contract was approved in July 2013. The goal of the 

project is to build a statewide linear referencing network with maintenance workflows that are 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

sustainable and integrate NYS business systems with the Enterprise Linear Referencing System. 

This will enhance the ability to perform crash analysis on all public roads. 

All Public Roads

MAP-21 requires that as part of a State's Highway Safety Improvement Program, a State 

shall have in place a safety data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification 

and countermeasure analysis to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, 

integration, and accessibility of the safety data on all public roads, including non-State owned 

public roads and roads on tribal land. A major element toward reaching this goal is the 

development of local crash rates in order to conduct equitable safety analysis for both the state 

and local systems. In addition, NY needs to address the issue of advancing the capabilities of 

our traffic records system for data collection, analysis, and integration with other sources of 

safety data. The State continues to use a number of methods to evaluate how to reach the goal 

of developing and maintaining crash data for all public roads. 

Accessing Crash Data

The Department currently has the ability to access crash data on the local system through the 

SIMS data base. The Department’s database is able to identify local jurisdiction and highway 

functional class characteristics, allowing the Department to use frequency data to identify crash 

experience on the local system. 

Traffic Counts

Traffic count AADT’s are required in order to develop crash rates for the state and local system. 

The Department has complete traffic volume data for almost 45,000 miles of the approximately 

115,000 miles of highway in New York. The remaining 70,000 miles are primarily local streets. In 

order to improve the ability to develop crash rates for the local system, data collected under 

the Department’s legacy crash data system as well as the county traffic count program have 

been analyzed to determine the sample size and number of traffic count locations needed to 

develop a statistically valid average annual daily travel (AADT) or “exposure” rate for usage on 

the local road system. A contract to collect traffic counts on an extra 10,000 local (non-state, 

non-Federal Aid) locations over the next few years is awaiting approval. If it gets approved, we 

will be able to develop a good foundation for producing statistically valid VMT estimates and 

average AADT numbers for local roads. The counts will allow the Department to establish more 

accurate crash rates for the local system similar to that for the state system.

The Department and counties continue to partner in a statewide county traffic count program 

designed to capture traffic volume data on county owned roads. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

The Department took 2,230 traffic counts on local roads in 2012 and will continue this effort for 

the next year. Also, the FHWA requirements to expand the national highway information data 

base, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) to include traffic volume and 

physical characteristic data on all roads classified as Federal Aid eligible continues to add more 

counts and data elements to local federal aid eligible roads. Count stations are currently 

assigned to 29,000 miles (centerline) of roads on the non-federal aid local system. 

A new Traffic Count System (TRADAS) has been implemented which provides enhanced 

scheduling and processing of traffic counts.

Local Highway Route System 

At this point in time, the Department does not have a complete and actively maintained 

Geographic Information System (GIS) for local roads. Without a local road based GIS route 

system, it is difficult to conduct an analysis of crash data on the local system with any parity to 

the state system. A pilot project is underway to determine the best approach to use and the 

amount of effort required to build a local GIS system. Approval has been received to hire 6 to 

10 consultants to build the local GIS once the pilot work is complete.

Compatibility of State and Local Crash Data Analysis 

The current analysis tools in the Department’s Safety Information Management System (SIMS) 

need to be redesigned to work with a uniform GIS route system covering both state and local 

highways. The new analysis tools will need to be able to handle both local and state traffic 

volume data and highway characteristic information for all highways. Funding is in place to 

build these tools (SIMS-RIS-ALIS Integration Project). The redesigned system will be an 

interoperable system able to link crash and highway information to perform safety problem 

identification and countermeasure analysis on the local system as is currently being done with 

the State system.

New Data Projects 

The New York State Department of Transportation’s Office of Traffic Safety and Mobility is 

currently initiating several new projects designed to support our Highway Safety Improvement 

Program by expanding our analysis capabilities and methods to include all public roads in the 

state and to improve the accuracy and completeness of the safety data used. Much of this work 

is being accomplished through Section 402 grants received from the Governors Traffic Safety 

Committee (GTSC). 

The first project involves modifications to the Departments existing Accident Location 

Information System (ALIS). These changes will integrate the ALIS system with the Departments 

Enterprise Linear Referencing System to provide the necessary traffic volume and highway 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

characteristics needed for the network screening analysis that identifies High Accident 

Locations (HALS). Additional functionality will be added to incorporate analysis techniques 

being developed by Federal Highway Administration to identify “systemic” opportunities for 

improving safety in addition to the HAL locations being treated. 

The second project involves the collection of up to date, accurate, reference marker and 

intersection locations and attributes. This data will be used to support the new crash querying 

and analysis processes being developed for the Accident Location Information System (ALIS). 

The third project is a long term, multi-agency effort to analyze opportunities to create a more 

complete safety dataset, accessible to all the partner agencies. This project would determine 

what data could be linked between agencies, where redundant datasets or resources could be 

eliminated, and how access for additional users could be created. This project is designed to 

establish a strategic vision for the “Safety” related programs in New York State. 

III. Highway Intersections

Approximately 40% of the crashes statewide between 2007 and 2011 occurred at intersections. 

As such, improving safety at intersections continues to be an area of focus for NYSDOT. 

According to NYSDOT’s PSS system there were 14 HSIP intersection reconstruction and signal 

upgrade projects programmed in 2012. Other than an increase in 2011, fatal and serious injury 

crashes at intersections have been declining since 2008 as shown below. 

All public roads

Year Fatal/Serious Injury 

Intersection Crashes

(All public roads)

2008 5370

2009 5207

2010 5035

2011 5066

2012 4488

The systemic safety tool developed by Cambridge Systematics was used to analyze roadway 

departures. There are future plans to do the same type of systemic safety analysis for 

intersections.

IV. Travel Lane Departures 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

With the exception of 2005 and 2010, fatal lane departure crashes have been on the decline 

over the last 10 years with a 25% decrease from 448 fatal crashes in 2003 to 332 fatal crashes in 

2012. Serious injury lane departure crashes have had more variation over the last 10 years but 

the general trend has been down with a 12% decrease. Overall there has been a 14% decrease 

in fatal and serious injury crashes from 2003-2012. 

All public roads

Year Fatal Lane Departure 

Crashes

Serious Injury Lane 

Departure Crashes

Fatal and Serious 

Injury Lane Departure 

Crashes

2003 448 3060 3508

2004 424 3118 3542

2005 457 3088 3545

2006 424 2867 3291

2007 402 3011 3413

2008 386 2862 3248

2009 319 2842 3161

2010 398 2842 3240

2011 336 2615 2951

2012 332 2716 3048

Despite the downward trend seen above, lane departure crashes still account for more than 

25% of all fatal and serious injury crashes and remains an emphasis area for the department. 

NYSDOT continues to implement counter measures and programs to prevent lane departure 

crashes such as:

• Installing Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators (CARDS) on rural 2 lane roads that 

meet specific criteria 

• Advancing shoulder improvement by incorporating the shoulder wedge joint 

requirement into Vendor Placed Paving contracts.

• Identifying and treating sections of pavement experiencing unusually high proportions 

of wet road accidents via the SKARP program 

• Implementing site specific projects to correct geometric issues; and 

• Identifying roadway characteristics that place roads at a higher risk for lane departure 

crashes with a goal of implementing additional systemic programs to prevent them. 

NYSDOT participated in a systemic analysis pilot with Cambridge Systematics. The pilot 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

identified un-divided rural roads with 2 lanes, 55 mph speed, an AADT between 3000-

6000, a shoulder width between 1-3’ and a curve radius of 100-300 as having a high risk 

for lane departure crashes. As a result New York will be considering additional systemic 

counter measures on curves such as true wet reflective pavement marking, enhanced 

chevrons and high friction surface treatments in the future.

V. Work Zone Safety

In addition to regional and project based quality control and assurance activities, the Main 

Office conducts annual work zone safety inspections in each region to assess the overall quality 

of work zone traffic control statewide. Opportunities for improvement are identified and 

implemented via new policies, guidance, specifications or increased contract enforcement.

Accident data on construction and maintenance work zones are also tracked to help identify 

any accident trends. With the exception of 2010 where there was a sizeable decrease, work 

zone intrusions on DOT projects were relatively consistent between 2007 and 2011. See the 

table below.

DOT Projects - Work 

Zone Intrusions

#

2007 45

2008 41

2009 47

2010 21

2011 45

VI. System-wide Treatments

Centerline Audible Roadway Delineators 

In 2010 the Department issued EI-10-030 - Rumble Strips - Centerline Audible Roadway 

Delineators (CARDS) - Guidance and Policy. This policy lays out the framework and criteria for 

installing centerline rumble-strips on eligible roads across the state. Any project that places at 

least 40mm of asphalt and meets the geometric/operating criteria is required to install CARDS 

as part of the project. Because of the low cost and proven effectiveness of centerline rumble 

strips, this new policy is an important tool in reducing both head-on and run-off road crashes. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

At this point, 374 miles have been installed with a goal to install 3,000 miles by 2017. 

Pedestrian Countdown Timers 

Pedestrian crashes account for about 25% of all fatal crashes in New York and remain an 

emphasis area in New York State's Strategic Highway Safety Program. The goal for pedestrian 

countdown timers is to ensure that they are installed at ALL eligible state owned signals. 

Countdown timers have been installed at approximately 2,160 (66%) of the 3,260 eligible 

signals. 

Treatment Installed Planned

CARDS 374 miles 1,615 miles

Pedestrian Countdown Timers 2,160 intersections 3,260 intersections 

VI. Other

Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP)

The SAFETAP, based on a Road Safety Audit approach, is a Department Program designed to 

ensure that roadside safety considerations are incorporated in the Department’s Preventive 

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

a project review of Preventive Maintenance Paving project sites for the purpose of deciding 

upon simple, low cost safety improvements to be implemented at the time of construction, or 

soon after construction. Over 4,400 safety recommendations were made as a result of the SFY 

12/13 reviews as is shown in the table below. 

To be completed by #

Maintenance 1,097

Deferred 507

Capital Project 44

Contract 44

Deferred to Design 113

Complete 115

Unknown/Other 2,482

Total 4,402

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP)

The SKARP program incorporates safety considerations into pavement maintenance activities. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

SKARP identifies sections of pavement experiencing an unusually high proportion of wet road 

accidents; friction tests them and schedules treatment for sections experiencing both high wet 

road accidents and low friction numbers. The treatment generally involves resurfacing with 11⁄2” 

top course (or 1⁄2” micro surfacing) containing non-polishing aggregates. The integrated 

approach used by NYSDOT in implementing SKARP involves close coordination among the 

Office of Traffic and Safety which has overall program monitoring and evaluation 

responsibilities, the Technical Services Division, which has assumed responsibility for friction 

testing and materials issues, and the Department’s eleven Regional Offices, which have 

responsibility for undertaking the remedial treatments. 

The frictional quality of NYSDOT owned pavements has improved since the programs inception. 

A summary of PIL testing from 1996 through 2008 shows a decline in the number of sites 

requiring treatment, from 91 sites in 1996 to 42 sites in 2008 to 18 sites in 2012. 

Shoulder Wedge Joints

NYSDOT has incorporated the shoulder wedge joint requirement into Vendor Place Paving 

contracts. The installation of shoulder wedge joints in paving applications provides a ramp type 

pavement edge. The wedge reduces sudden loss of vehicle control by the driver due to vertical 

drop off.

Traffic Control Signals

In addition to the Pedestrian Countdown timers noted above, NYSDOT continues to deploy 

“2070” traffic signal controllers. This allows the Department to adopt the National 

Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Standards, deploy closed loop systems 

to monitor/operate signals remotely from Transportation Management Centers as well as 

operate other communication technologies (variable message signs, radio, video cameras, etc.) 

to improve the safety and performance of the highway corridor.

Short Term Accident Reduction Program (STAR)

The STAR program allows streamlining of the design process for intersection safety 

improvements. The scope of the design is limited to correcting the safety deficiencies at an 

intersection. Targeted projects generally require six to nine months to design as opposed to 

the usual three to seven years required for a full rehabilitation.

Progress in Implementing Projects
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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) 31747990 17 % 29057932 16 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 763552 0 % 232789 0 %

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)

58241639 32 % 106378435 58 %

State and Local Funds 91310126 50 % 47947561 26 %

Totals 182063307 100% 183616717 100%
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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

$1,700,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$1,600,000.00

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

$540,000.00

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

$540,000.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Impediments to obligating HSIP funds include project delays for reasons not limited to just 

safety projects such as environmental approvals, right of way/easement issues, community 

issues, other funding needs, resource issues, historic issues, NYS permit issues etc. In 

addition, the Federal Obligation Limitation that exists on all Federal funding also serves as an 

impediment to obligating safety funds. The following describes some of the approaches used to 

overcome those obstacles for HSIP projects.

Statewide Solicitation Program

The application process for the statewide HSIP solicitation program, which currently accounts 

for 50% of the HSIP program, requires an applicant to identify all potential barriers to a timely 

implementation. The barriers are one of the factors taken into consideration during the project 

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

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

Design Services Agreement

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

department is in the process of implementing a statewide regional design services agreement 

that can be used to fund contract services to assist with design or other urgent safety project 

needs. The contract will be funded via HSIP dollars specifically set aside for that purpose.

Marchiselli

The department will continue to support programs such as the Marchiselli Highway 

Improvement Program which provides funding assistance to local municipalities for approved 

projects. The Marchiselli program requires state and local governments to share in the cost of

approved local projects. The projects are typically funded in shares of 80% Federal, 15% State 

and 5% Local. 

Low Cost Counter Measures

The NYSDOT is encouraging and implementing more low cost and systemic safety counter 

measures which typically have less impediments to a timely implementation.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

No additional information regarding HSIP funding.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See 

Appendix

See Appendix for the General Listing of Projects
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

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* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 1224 1148 1192 1153 1197

Number of serious injuries 13137 12988 12802 12012 12532

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.92 0.86 0.91 0.9 0.94

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.82 9.73 9.75 9.4 9.8

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Data Source: Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research (ITSMR) for years 2008-2011.

2012 results throughout the document are preliminary and derived from New York State DOT's Safety 

Information Management System (SIMS). All averages noted in the following tables and charts are 

straight averages as opposed to 5 year rolling averages. The preliminary 5 year rolling averages for 

2012 are shown below.

Fatalities - 1,1,83

Serious Injuries - 12,694

Fatality Rate - .9

Serious Injury Rate - 9.7
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

5 31 0.08 0.5

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

46 173 1.17 4.4

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

73 296 1.57 6.38

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

45 329 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

46 337 1.12 8.19

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

4 50 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 33 265 0.17 1.33
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

36 257 0.21 1.51

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

199 1811 1.09 9.87

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

194 2124 1.1 12.07

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

98 924 1.32 12.45

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

38 413 0 0

OTHER 239 4066 0 0

OTHER 239 4066 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

364 2403 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

157 1192 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

49 357 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

240 2994 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 4 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 0 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

6 50 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 6 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 1 4 0 0

OTHER 293 4066 0 0

OTHER 293 4066 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

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

Since 2000 the number of fatal crashes in New York State has been on a general downward 

trend. The number of fatalities dropped from 1,444 in 2000 to 1,153 in 2011, representing a 

decrease of almost 20%. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

decreased from 1.13 in 2,000 to .90 in 2011. New York’s fatality rate per 100 Million Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (MVMT) has been below the national level every year between 2000 and 2011.

Highway related injuries have also decreased. The number of injuries occurring in New York 

dropped from 292,663 in 2000 to 177,445 in 2011, representing a decrease of almost 40%. 

Preliminary crash numbers and rates for 2012 show a slight increase from 2011 levels.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.7 1.22 1.61 1.42 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

101.86 103.53 106.89 104.42 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

103.56 104.75 109.41 105.82 0

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

((# driver 65+ fatalities) + (# pedestrian 65+ fatalities)) * 100,000 / Population of NYS 

((# driver 65+ severe injuries) + (# pedestrian 65+ severe injuries)) * 100,000 / Population of 

NYS 

((# driver 65+ severe injuries + fatalities)+(# pedestrian 65+ severe injuries + fatalities)) * 

100,000 / Pop NYS

Data not yet available for 2012. Numbers shown are a straight average as opposed to a 5 year 

rolling average.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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- Decrease of Fatal and Injury Crashes

A report was initiated from the Department's Post Implementation Evaluation System (PIES) 

showing the number of crashes occurring before and after the construction of safety projects 

completed in 2008 and 2009. At least 3 years of post construction crash data was available for 

all sites evaluated. The report showed that fatal crashes decreased by about 30 per year and 

injury crashes decreased by over 3,200 per year.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

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: 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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

Program update:

Sustainability principles were introduced into the Comprehensive Program update 

(CPU) and integrated into the decision-making processes. To ensure that NYSDOT is making 

good decisions in the efforts to preserve, maintain, operate and enhance the safety and

condition of our transportation system, four guiding principles were identified: Preservation 

First; System Not Projects; Maximize Return on Investment; and Make It Sustainable. A 

common theme integrated into all four principles and inherent in all of our investment 

decisions is stewardship of safety for the traveling public.

Local Roads:

The majority of the additional HSIP funding provided with the MAP-21 legislation was allocated 

to a centrally administered HSIP Project Application program where state and local projects 

complete equally for the additional HSIP funds. Applications are reviewed and scored with the 

objective of funding the best safety projects in the state regardless of region, location or 

ownership. Local projects were awarded funding for the FFY 2013 and FFY 2014 program. While 

local roads were eligible for HSIP funding in previous years, most funding was allocated to state 

projects. The HSIP application program provides a mechanism for projects on locally owned 

roads to compete for funds equally with projects on state owned roads. 
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

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

Year - 2012

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

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

All crash types 

where driver < 21

173 1997 0.14 1.56 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

All crash types 

where driver was 

speeding, 

following/passing 

too close, 

changing lanes 

unsafely or drivng 

aggressively

349 2804 0.27 2.19 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

All crash types 

where impaired 

driving was a 

contributing 

factor

148 1182 0.12 0.92 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

vehicle/pedestrian 312 2067 0.24 1.62 0 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Vehicle/bicycle 44 624 0.03 0.49 0 0 0

Improving 

motorcycle safety 

and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

motorcyclerelated

169 1268 0.13 0.99 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

Truck-related 98 414 0.08 0.32 0 0 0

Reducing vehicletrain crashes

vehicle-train 1 100 0 0.08 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

Run-off-road 329 2657 0.26 2.08 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway 

intersections

Intersectionrelated

364 4215 0.28 3.3 0 0 0

Reducing head-on 

and across-median 

crashes

Head on 85 372 0.07 0.29 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

Construction work 

zones

8 32 0.01 0.03 0 0 0

Enhancing 

emergency medical 

ambulance- 2 10 0 0.01 0 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

capabilities to 

increase survivability

related
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Groups of similar project types
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

Systemic Treatments
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

92
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

93
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No additional information to add.
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

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)
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing the Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

Question # 23 General Listing of Projects(1).xlsx
2013 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

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.