Pennsylvania

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: PA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................6

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

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

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 36

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................................................................54

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................54

Application of Special Rules....................................................................................................................69

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................71

SHSP Emphasis Areas..............................................................................................................................73

Groups of similar project types...............................................................................................................78

Systemic Treatments...............................................................................................................................83

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................90

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................92
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

progress with the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

In 2014, 1,195 people lost their lives on Pennsylvania's roadways - a new low since record keeping 

began in the 1920s. But we have miles to go to reach our ultimate goal of zero deaths on our roads, and 

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

to improve our highway infrastructure.

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

released updates to several publications that incorporate the concepts of the Highway Safety Manual 

into our policies and practices. We have also piloted a Highway Safety Manual training course and have 

begun sessions open to Department personnel at large. As shown later in this report, many of our 

engineering districts are planning and completing projects associated with the Intersection Safety 

Implementation and Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plans. There has also been a significant 

improvement in the quality of applications for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding from the 

engineering districts as a result of our regional meetings in 2013.

While there remains much work required to reach our goal of reducing highway fatalities by half in the 

next two decades - a stepping stone on our way to zero deaths - we remain encouraged by the progress 

that has been made and the opportunities for the future.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other Central and District

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

Previously, we had incorporated a new funding formula in response to the increased funding from the 

MAP-21 legislation:

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

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

Safety Implementation Plans
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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

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

and 50% on reportable crashes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This initiative is currently on-going.

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

Lists. An updated list has been published for 2015 that includes state road locations; this list will be 

updated shortly after publication of this Annual Report to include local roads. These high crash locations 

are typically among the highest priorities for safety funding.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

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

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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

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

This process was designed to improve highway safety using data-driving project development methods 

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

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

Section 148 (HSIP) projects:

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

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

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

- OR -

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

Safety Implementation Plan (RDIP)

- OR -

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

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

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

Organization.

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

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

information:

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

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

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

fatality goals.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-MAST Team - See Question 8 for description
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-MAST meets quarterly to track SHSP implementation and discuss highway safety 

related topics including the HSIP. MAST includes PennDOT, FHWA, State Police, Liquor Control Board, 

Dept of Health, Dept of Education and Dept of Drug-Alcohol Programs. 

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

would like to elaborate.

The HSIP Program fully aligns with the 2012 Pennsylvania Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Within 

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

Key components of this effort are to:

• Reduce Head-On and Cross-Median Crashes

• Improve Intersection Safety

• Reduce Run-Off-Road Crashes

• Reduce the Severity and Frequency of Hit Fixed Object Crashes

Note that the SHSP is scheduled for a revision in 2016. The results of the planning process and the 

impacts of the revised document will be discussed in the 2016 Annual Report.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index
2015 Pennsylvania 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

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Local Safety
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Potential for Improvement 

based on Crash History

1

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

25

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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

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
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Last year, we described the implementation efforts related to the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). All 

three of the initiatives have been advanced significantly:

 1) Pennsylvania-specific SPFs were developed through a research contract with Penn State University.

The next step of the process is to develop regionalized SPFs to account for the differences in driving 

habits and roadway characteristics across the Commonwealth - SPFs related to two lane rural roads in 

the farmlands of Lancaster County may not always be applicable to two lane rural roads in the 

mountains of Cameron County. The regionalized SPFs will therefore provide more accurate results. This 

project - also performed in conjunction with Penn State - has been initiated.

2) The Pennsylvania-specific HSM worksheet has been developed in draft format and has been 

introduced through the HSM training sessions. While not yet a formal requirement for projects, staff in 

the engineering districts have been using the worksheet and providing feedback.

3) Several publications have been revised to include language related to the HSM. The most important 

of these is our Publication 638, the District Highway Safety Guidance Manual.

While the HSM initiatives have not yet reached the level of implementation that will allow us to realize 

direct results, we are optimistic that in the coming years we will begin to see an improvement in safety 

numbers and the types and quality of safety projects coming through the programs.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 92485000 90 % 43091467 82 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 115130 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)

State and Local Funds 10000000 10 % 9070059.58 17 %
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Totals 102485000 100% 52276656.58 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

0 %

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

0 %

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

0 %

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

period?

0 %
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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

period? 

0 %

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

overcome this in the future.

A continuing concern from the previous HSIP Annual Reports is the difficulty ensuring that funds are 

being properly obligated towards safety projects with the greatest potential of improving safety 

conditions. As will be seen later in this report (in the section related to the benefit-cost ratio), there are 

many projects still coming through the project design and construction funnel that have been 

grandfathered into the HSIP program. These projects would not meet current selection criteria for a 

variety of reasons - limited numbers of fatal or serious injury crashes, countermeasures not directly 

related to crash history, maintenance-type improvements, etc - but due to historic obligations are still 

eligible for HSIP funds. We encourage our engineering districts to find other sources of funding for 

these projects, but this is a request rather than a requirement. It will take some time for the remaining 

projects to progress through to completion.

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

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

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

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

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

help provide additional high-level control of funding and project selection. Last year's HSIP meetings 

were used to thoroughly educate Planning Organization staff about the intent and priorities of the HSIP 

program and should lead to more effective project and funding choices.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

In the 2014 Annual Report, we mentioned that the engineering districts were beginning to release 

projects related to the FHWA Intersection Safety Implementation and Roadway Departure Safety 

Implementations Plans (ISIP and RDIP, respectively). As will be seen in the project listing later in this 

report, there are a large number of these projects being released for construction. We hope to continue 

this momentum and perhaps begin incorporating the countermeasures from these plans at other 

locations, as well.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outp

ut 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundi

ng 

Categ

ory

Function

al 

Classifica

tion

AAD

T

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

Dunmore Signal 

Network

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - general 

retiming

1.22 

Miles

18400

62

7394090 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

182

86

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Goshen @ DarbyPaoliRd(F)

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0.29 

Miles

3000 1522577 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

693

8

25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

PA 68/Dolby 

Street Inters

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.81 

Miles

45000

0

3750000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

106

49

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA 28/US 322 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.66 

Miles

33372

0

1500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

423

7

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

West Carson St. 

Viaduct

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Install sidewalk

2.04 

Miles

17565

2

4671707

8

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

115

81

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

Clairton 

Blvd/Saw Mill Rn

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

1.84 

Miles

53750

0

1756000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

422

33

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

I-376/I79 - Fort 

Pitt Tun

Interchange design 

Acceleration / 

deceleration / merge 

lane

12.7

1 

Miles

53691

5

8709100

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

794

00

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Torchlight 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.48 

Miles

47411

73

8084950 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

883

0

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA 519/SR 1055 

Intersect.

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

0.2 

Miles

15040

85

5700000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

106

81

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

US 30 Corridor 

Impvmts

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

15.0

9 

Miles

18000

0

1200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

198

78

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Safety 

Studies
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Nyes/Dvnshre 

Hts Safety

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

0.18 

Miles

10000

0

400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

116

71

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

N Pensyl Hollow 

Rd Intrsn

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.46 

Miles

70693 2000000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

463

2

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 322/119 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.49 

Miles

40951.

24

1610952 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

731

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 183/4016 

(Schaeffers)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.88 

Miles

10404

46

3107160 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

127

23

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Cape Horn Rd 

Improvements

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

1.21 

Miles

52000

0

6056268

.9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

147

02

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Exit 7 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

0.61 

Miles

70000 2228041 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

948

5

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Other Agency

Hardies Road 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.77 

Miles

60000 3066028 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

253

90

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Wrong Way 

Ramps

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs and traffic control -

other

21.8

1 

Miles

48000 1089848 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Wrong 

Way 

Prevention

CCIP Palmyra to 

Cleona

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

8.93 

Miles

86284 3666171 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

156

47

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 222 - 863 

Early Action

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

1.15 

Miles

30000

0

300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

279

86

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 322 Safety 

Improvement

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1.84 

Miles

44000

0

6326490 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

106

52

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Bigelow/Bloomfi

eldBr-Baum

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

1.81 99917 1457500 HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

160 35 State 

Highwa

Intersectio
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

Miles 0 0 n 148) Arterial -

Other

99 y 

Agency

ns

222 & Shantz & 

863 Improv

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

traffic control - other

1.15 

Miles

16000

0

6000000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

279

86

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA 100 Crdr Sfty 

Imprv

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

9.34 

Miles

62800

0

4500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

151

82

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Martins 

RdtoChristians 

Rd

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

1.77 

Miles

60000 1100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

227

65

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 118 & 

Idetown Rd.

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.08 

Miles

82818.

79

1139258 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

648

1

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Olney:BroadRising Sun(C)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

1.61 

Miles

34951

60

3842998 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

110

34

30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Erie Av: Broad St. 

- K St

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists Pedestrian 

signal

2.47 

Miles

47500

0

4500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

982

0

30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

PA 116 and 

Oxford Ave

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.43 

Miles

22500

0

1000000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

646

4

25 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

RATS 

CableGuiderail 

Replc

Roadside Roadside -

other

59.6

1 

Miles

200.68 1493101

.47

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US11 & PA997 

Intersection

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

2.08 

Miles

15322

6

2255384 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

993

6

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Weigh Scales to 

Paxinos

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

5.41 

Miles

23600

0

1760000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

119

50

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA31 W Somrst 

Corridr Imp

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

0.86 

Miles

15780

09

4320000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

756

7

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

US 6 Center Turn 

Lane

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

0.67 

Miles

55000

0

2515860 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

108

21

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA 68 Clarion 

Curve

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

0.63 

Miles

37185

0

4360000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

106

49

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Post & Cable 

Guide Rail

Roadside Roadside -

other

6.92 

Miles

13700

0

1500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

United High 

School Curve

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

1.36 

Miles

40033

30

8382001 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

483

9

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Yellow Crk Park 

Intersect

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

0.68 

Miles

30861

00

3415000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

731

5

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

PA 272 

Intersection 

Impvt

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1.78 

Miles

45000 2800000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

153

55

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

SR54/3009 Int 

Improvement

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.37 

Miles

42320

0

423200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

150

98

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

US22 

Frankstown 

Intrsctns

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

- realignment to align 

offset cross streets

0.93 

Miles

30000 9160000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

599

3

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 248/946 

Intersctn Impr

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

0.15 

Miles

35500

0

842920 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

860

2

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Bridgeville Rd 

Shoulders

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

0.84 

Miles

13175

97

1317597 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

167

4

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mount Zion Rd 

Improvement

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

2.48 

Miles

17550

0

657392 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

224

80

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Bull Road 

Improvement

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

0.37 

Miles

21600

0

766467.

85

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Minor 

896

6

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Lane 

Departure
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

n 148) Arterial Agency

Philipsburg Add 

Center Ln

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

1.43 

Miles

50000 6421000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

110

34

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 66/948 Intchg 

Improve

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

1.38 

Miles

36879

4

2500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

259

3

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Wmspt. to Jersey 

Shore

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

12.8

9 

Miles

70000

0

1650000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

227

65

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

US220/SR4018 

Intersection

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.26 

Miles

52500

0

1241200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

145

66

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Auction Road 

Phase II

Interchange design 

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

1.56 

Miles

27886

16

1441234

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

625

9

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Union Deposit 

Road Safety

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

1.53 

Miles

10980

27

1098026

.1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

279

43

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Basin Street 

Safety Imprv

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

0 1399 753494 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Safety 

Studies

422 & Ramona 

Rd Intersect

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

1.07 

Miles

29000

0

1035000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

146

02

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Safety 

Studies

51 

Safety/MidwoodEdgebro

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

two-way left-turn lane

1.84 

Miles

13600

00

1360000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

422

33

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Colebrook Road 

Improvemt

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

3.55 

Miles

50000 3000000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

767

0

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Safety 

Studies

Cameron St Low 

Cost Safe

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signal6.1 

Miles

35000

0

722001.

97

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

813

5

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

controlled n 148) Other Agency

US220 & PA199 

Int

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.22 

Miles

25000

0

1196600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

145

66

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR220/SR2027 

Intersection

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

1.1 

Miles

15000

0

1500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

935

7

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR 5: GrngardenChestnut

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

3.59 

Miles

55500

0

1355000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

138

80

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

SR 5: ChestnutBayfront

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

2.47 

Miles

50000

0

1103000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

192

58

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Rock Fall Barrier Roadside Fencing 0.16 

Miles

18965

2

240000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

140

74

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadside 

Safety

D10 Systemic 

Safety

Miscellaneous 0 28800

0

1941113

.18

HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Systemic 

Improvem
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

n 148) Agency ents

District Wide 

Rumbles

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

12.8

6 

Miles

10018

92

997254.

59

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Lycoming 

Median Guiderail

Roadside Barrier - cable 43.8

5 

Miles

67900

0

679000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

129

00

0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

D9 HSIP CMB Roadside Barrier - cable 18.3

4 

Miles

46003

2

750000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

207

62

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Erie ISIP/RDIP 

Systematic

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 10000

0

500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Mercer 

ISIP/RDIP 

System

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 10000

0

500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

NW ISIP/RDIP 

Systematic

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 10000

0

500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Agency

Intersectn Safety 

Imp.(C)

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - stopcontrolled

0 24038

40

2403840 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Wrong Way 

Entry Signs (C)

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs and traffic control -

other

0 22516

0

300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Wrong 

Way 

Prevention

2013-14 Centre 

Reg ISIP

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - stopcontrolled

0 10000 15000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Roadway Depart. 

Safety(C)

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 15000

0

1700000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR2016 at 

RiverAve Signal

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

0.09 

Miles

80000 250000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

836

6

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

ISIP SYSTEMATIC Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - stop0 64400 169400 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

controlled n 148) Agency

RDIP 

SYSTEMATIC

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 50600

0

889950 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

15th Street 

Corridor

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

0.7 

Miles

55600 1175000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

174

03

30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

US322/Murray 

Rd/VoTech Rd

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics 

-

miscellaneous/other/un

specified

0.09 

Miles

31800

0

353334 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

253

1

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

W Phila Intrsc 

Upgrdes(C)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

5.21 

Miles

19733

90

1973390 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

149

10

30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Brewery Hill to 

Clfd Crk

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

4.33 

Miles

31500

0

2400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

738

3

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Lycoming Cable 

Guiderail

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 60000 400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

NTIER Cable 

Guiderail

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 61550 400000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR 54 Corridor 

Study

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

2.43 

Miles

25000

0

250000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

195

46

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Safety 

Studies

D9 2015 HSIP 

HFS

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

0 53864

2

658642 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

D10-2015 

Systematic RDIP

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 50000

0

716159 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Wrong Way 

Ramp Updates

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs and traffic control -

other

0 10000 490000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Wrong 

Way 

Prevention
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

2015 Systematic 

Sig Safe

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

0 25000

0

250000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

RDIP-2015 

GuideRail Upg

Roadside Barrier - other 0 10000

00

1591559 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Tioga US15 

MCGR

Roadside Barrier - cable 21.2

8 

Miles

10000 1200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

842

5

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

D3 CGR 

Replacement

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 40000 529000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Lyco US15 MCGR Roadside Barrier - cable 28.3

3 

Miles

30000 650000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

683

7

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

US15 Wrong Way 

Ramps

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Roadway 

signs and traffic control -

other

0 30000 205000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Wrong 

Way 

Prevention
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

D3 RDIP Roadside Roadside -

other

0 80000 270000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

DW ISIP Signal 

Impr-2015

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

0 45000 1200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

DW Systematic 

Impr 2015

Roadside Roadside -

other

0 11000

0

2325000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-80 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 6 

Miles

16714

0

1000000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

292

52

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-380 Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 7 

Miles

11143

0

1350000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

247

14

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

District Signal 

Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

modernization/replace

ment

0 50000 700000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

SR 10-ReadingFlashingWrn

Intersection traffic 

control Intersection 

flashers - add overhead 

(continuous)

0.24 

Miles

39100 74750 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

970

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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 1413 1365 1329 1277 1265

Number of serious injuries 3858 3693 3556 3432 3340

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.34 1.31 1.3 1.27 1.27

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.65 3.55 3.48 3.4 3.35

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

55
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

56 110 0.06 0.11

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

101 192 0.1 0.19

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

166 332 0.17 0.33

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

54 144 0.05 0.14

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

124 279 0.12 0.28

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

26 75 0.03 0.08

URBAN PRINCIPAL 70 152 0.07 0.15
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

36 83 0.04 0.08

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

211 592 0.21 0.59

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

139 391 0.14 0.39

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

65 189 0.07 0.19

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

7 31 0.01 0.03

OTHER 211 780 0.21 0.78

RAMP 0 1 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 1045 2555 1.05 2.56

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 6 17 0.01 0.02

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 196 719 0.2 0.72

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 7 0 0.07

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 17 49 0.02 0.05

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

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

Please note that the 2014 Vehicle Miles Traveled data is not available at the time of publishing this 

report. The 2014 values have been estimated using the 2013 values.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

1.434 1.386 1.306 1.268 1.258

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

1.722 1.624 1.54 1.552 1.572

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

3.162 3.012 2.846 2.82 2.832

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

The methodology used is based upon the guidance provided by on the FHWA website under the heading 

Section 148: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance 

Older driver fatalities and older pedestrian fatalities were gathered from the NHTSA FARS database.

Serious injury data was taken from our state records. The number of older persons per 1000 population 

was taken from the same FHWA website.

Fatality rate per capita was taken as the sum of older driver and older pedestrian fatalities divided by 

the number of older persons per 1000 population. Serious injury rate was calculated in a parallel 

operation. The fatality and serious injury rate was performed as a third calculation rather than a simple 

sum of the components; rounding therefore accounts for the 0.01 differences in the data presented.

Five year averages were calculated from the annual data.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

There have been no significant program changes since the last reporting period. Much of our work has 

been focused on advancing the initiatives and changes reported in the 2014 Annual Report. There was 
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

also a small turnover in staffing in the Safety Section during the 2015 reporting period; we are hopeful 

that the experiences of the new personnel will lead to new ideas and new focus areas.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 612 1493 0.61 1.5 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 270 998 0.27 1 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 156 329 0.16 0.33 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 16 60 0.02 0.06 0 0 0

Older Drivers Older Driver 273 476 0.27 0.48 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle 200 535 0.2 0.54 0 0 0

Work Zones Work Zone 21 45 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Intersection Intersections 270 998 0.27 1 0 0 0

Median Barrier Cross median 44 67 0.04 0.07 0 0 0

Shoulder 

Improvement

Run-off-road 612 1493 0.61 1.5 0 0 0

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

All 1265 3340 1.27 3.35 0 0 0

Horizontal Curve Curve Driver Error 170 306 0.17 0.31 0 0 0

Local Safety Local Road (Only) 204 749 0.2 0.75 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 612 1493 0.61 1.5 0 0 0

Bicycle Safety Vehicle/bicycle 16 60 0.02 0.06 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety Vehicle/pedestrian 156 329 0.16 0.33 0 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

83

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Pavement/Shoulder Widening Run-off-road 612 1493 0.61 1.5 0 0 0

Traffic Control Device 

Rehabilitation

Intersections 270 998 0.27 1 0 0 0

Install/Improve Signing All 1265 3340 1.27 3.35 0 0 0

Rumble Strips All 1265 3340 1.27 3.35 0 0 0

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Intersections 270 998 0.27 1 0 0 0

Cable Median Barriers Cross median 44 67 0.04 0.07 0 0 0

Upgrade Guard Rails Hit Guide Rail 132 244 0.13 0.24 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

and/or Delineation

All 1265 3340 1.27 3.35 0 0 0
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Please note that the 2014 Vehicle Miles Traveled data is unavailable at this time; 2013 data has been 

used for this reporting.

The overall HSIP benefit cost ratio for projects completed in 2011 – the most recent set for which we 

have three years of complete before and after data – is -0.96:1. This indicates that for each dollar we 

invested in the HSIP program, we lost that dollar and an additional $0.96. Our overall HSIP benefit-cost 

ratio has been reduced to 0.73:1.

While these results are outwardly negative, they are not entirely in line with our overall statewide 

fatality statistics. 2011 lies in the middle of a recent decline in fatalities; the 25% decline since 2005 has 

resulted in record lows in highway deaths not seen since the 1920s.

Similar to the previous annual report, a closer examination of the data was performed to identify the 

cause for the negative ratio. Several key examples were identified:

Project 70367 was a corridor safety improvement project near Sunbury. A $861,000 HSIP investment 

went towards signal upgrades, ADA-compliant ramps and sidewalks, and pedestrian signals. There was 

a 7% reduction in crashes the after project was completed, but the fatalities and serious injuries both 

increased from 0 to 2. An analysis of the individual crashes revealed that 2 fatalities occurred in a headon crash on a bridge, 1 serious injury was a pedestrian running into the street mid-block and being 

struck by a slow-moving vehicle, and 1 serious injury was a pedestrian struck by an ambulance making a 

careless turn. None of these events were impacted by the HSIP-funded improvements in the corridor.

Project 84566 was a signing replacement project along various interstates and arterials in Lackawanna 

and Luzerne counties. $190,000 on HSIP funds were spent. Fatalities did not change (from 1 to 1) but 

there was an increase in serious injuries from 0 to 3. All of the fatalities and major injuries after 

construction were the result of vehicles operating on slippery roads in winter conditions and hitting 

fixed objects, and would not have been prevented by the signing replacements.

Project 80103 was a roadway betterment project in Philadelphia. $4.4 million in HSIP funds were 

expended for pavement overlays, barrier reconstruction, guide rail upgrades, and crashworthy end 

treatments. Shoulder rumble strips and new pavement markings were also included. In the three years 

after completion, there was a small reduction in crashes, but an increase in fatalities from 1 to 3 and an 

increase in serious injuries from 2 to 5. Two of the fatalities were from a motorcycle losing control at 

high speed; the third was similarly the result of a driver losing control of their vehicle at an excessive 

speed. The serious injury crashes had a variety of causations including wrong way and rear end events. 

The vast majority of the fatalities and injuries would have occurred regardless of the project’s

improvements.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Project 73468 was a bridge replacement and intersection improvement project in Columbia County.

$4.6 million in HSIP funds were used on the project, but there were no fatal, serious, or moderate 

injuries in the three years before the completion date. This project would not meet our current 

selection criteria for HSIP projects and was likely grandfathered through a previous approval.

If these four projects were eliminated from the calculation, the HSIP benefit-cost ratio for the projects 

completed in 2011 would be 1:1. It is likely that further analysis of the crash histories would yield 

further adjustments to the final result. However, a thorough examination of all 3,400 crashes that 

occurred in the project areas would be a difficult proposition for the annual report given the current 

timeframes for analysis and submittal. We are further limited by some of the location data provided: our 

engineering districts often provide locations in entire roadway segments (typically 2000-3000 feet long)

rather than the actual locations of improvements. Therefore, it is possible that we are providing analysis 

on sections of roadway that are not impacted by our HSIP projects. Correcting this issue will require 

coordination with our district personnel and implementation of more standardized reporting.
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

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 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Pennsylvania Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

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.