New York

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 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 .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 51

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 51

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 55

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 56

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 56

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 72

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................74

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 76

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 81

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 86

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 94
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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 and FFY14 , the statewide program funded 10 local 

and 27 state projects for a total of approximately $82M. The FFY15-17 Statewide program is funding 14 

local projects and 23 state projects for a total of about $80M for the 3 federal fiscal years.

All Public Roads

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

• 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 on local roads

Performance Indicators

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

serious injuries and their associated rates have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 years 

as can be seen below. 

Annual - Number of Crashes and Crash Rates

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number of Fatalities 1,495 1,434 1,454 1,332 1,238 1,158

Number of Serious Injuries 14,466 14,120 13,660 13,689 13,370 13,561

Fatality Rate 1.08 1.03 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.87

Serious Injury Rate 10.52 10.14 9.66 10.01 10.00 10.16

5 yr rolling average - Number of Crashes and Crash Rates

2009 2010 2011

Number of Fatalities 1,323 1,277 1,220

Number of Serious Injuries 13,680 13,531 13,300

Fatality Rate .96 .94 .92

Serious Injury Rate 10 10 10.03

Data Sources: 

Fatality Data 2004-2012: FARS 

Fatality Data 2013: SIMS (preliminary)

Injury Data 2004-2013: SIMS

Fatality Data for 2012 and 2013 is preliminary throughout the report

Injury Data for 2013 is preliminary throughout the report
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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 were provided to the Regions according to a safety 

planning target formula. Most of the remaining funds were allocated to projects via a competitive 

application process administered by the central office.

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. In FFY13 approximately 50% of the available HSIP funds were allocated to the 11 regions in 

New York state based on a formula that included VMT, population and crashes. Fifty percent of the 

Region 11 allocation was provided to New York City for safety projects on local roads owned by New 

York City. The competitive application component of the HSIP program in New York States awarded 

funding to 24 local projects to be let between FFY 2013 - FFY 17 for a total of about $51M in HSIP 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

funding. In addition, 111 Capital Projects and/or Safety Capital Projects contained a local roads 

component. Approximately $4.5 million was spent in local funds on safety projects in 2013. Project 

improvements on local projects by type in 2013 are shown below.

Safety Improvement Number of Projects

Pedestrian (non-SRTS) 2

Bicycle 2

Highway Reconstruction/Widening/Overlay/New Construction 5

Intersection Improvements 5

Traffic Signal Improvements 12

Pavement Markings/Resurfacing 1

Shared Path Usage 1

Signing 3

Clear Zone/Median barrier 2

Sight Distance Improvements/Drainage Rehab 2

RR Crossings 7

Projects included above are those that utilized the E09, Local Government Unit funds.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-A competitive application program was established in FFY13. The program is continuing 

for projects let through FFY 17 assuming MAP 21 funding remains available.

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. In June 2014, approximately $79.3M of the HSIP funds managed centrally was awarded to 

projects which are scheduled to be let between FFY15 to FFY17. The projects were selected via a 

competitive statewide application process. 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

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: 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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 

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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.

Local road projects are typically identified via local municipalities and the MPO planning process.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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: 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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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 

Locations (PILS)

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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? 

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 

Other Other 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

of wet road accidents is twice 

the normal proportion for the 

same county and facility type.

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

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

Other 

Locations with low friction test 

numbers (FN40R of 32) require 

treatment.

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1989
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

 

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)

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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.

Other-New York is currently working on a Lane Departure Action Plan. The plan will identify specific 

countermeasures for implementation under specific roadway conditions to decrease the number of lane 

departure crashes.

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 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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1999
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

 

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)

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

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

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

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? 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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?

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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?

Yes
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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 roads are always eligible for HSIP. Local roads are typically identified via local authorities or 

municipalities.

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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)
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Other: Other-We continue to conduct road safety audits on PILS during the year. We continue to 

implement both systemic and location specific counter measures to decrease fatal and serious injury 

crashes.

Other: Other-New York City implemented a Towards Zero Death action plan in 2014.

Other: Other-New York State is in the process of developing 3 action plans that incorporate specific 

plans to decrease Pedestrian, Intersection and Lane Departure crashes. 

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 State roadways. NYSDOT continues to look for solutions to 

improving the safety of all roadway users including pedestrians.

Safer Corridors

In 2012 NYSDOT began developing a process to evaluate corridors to improve pedestrian safety. 

To maximize effectiveness, the process emphasizes coordination among the Department and 

other local, state and federal partners. Solutions involve not only engineering measures, but 

also enforcement campaigns and educational efforts. 

The first project conducted was on the Hempstead Turnpike on Long Island. After a detailed 

study, improvements included: remarking and widening crosswalks, increasing pedestrian 

crossing times at signals, adding new crosswalks, adding latching pedestrian buttons, adding 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

new signals, signal timing changes, bus stop relocations and the installation of raised medians.

These improvements were done in conjuction with an enforcement blitz and education 

campaign targeting the contributing behaviors determined in the crash data review.

Building on this success, 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 and Hoosick Street (Route 7) in the Albany Capital District. The improvements 

and action plans are expected to be very similar to what is being done on Route 24 (Hempstead 

Turnpike).

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 the Fatality Accident Reporting System (FARS), 

NYSDOT's Safety Information System (SIMS) and NYSDMV's Accident Information System 

(AIS). 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 (nonreportable). 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
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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 

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, 459 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. An upgrade was implemented to the 

"Spider" process which improves the data transmittal and processing between the State Police 

and all ticket and crash data users. In addition, there is an ongoing upgrade to the TraCS 

software which should help to improve data quality and reduce errors.

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. 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Accident Location Information System (ALIS)

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

analysis. This tool is available to all DOT employees, MPO’s, and county and local governments. 

All the MPO’s as well as New York City are using the analysis tool. This year the analysis tool 

was upgraded to improve performance and update the reporting functions to better align with 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program process. 

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 

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 and analyze the crash experience

on the local system through the SIMS data base.

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 42,000 miles of the approximately 

115,000 miles of highway in New York. The remaining 73,000 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, 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

non-Federal Aid) locations over the next few years was approved. The goal is to count 10% of 

the local mileage in every municipality in New York State. The sample will provide 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. 

The Department took over 5,300 traffic counts on locally owned roads in 2013 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 19,000 miles (centerline) of roads on the non-federal aid local system. 

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 project is currently underway to build a local GIS system. 

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). 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

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 

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 2008 and 2012 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. New York is also in the process of developing an 

Intersection Safety Action Plan with the goal of completing the plan in 2014. As can be seen 

from the graphic below, fatal and serious injury crashes at intersections have been on a general 

decline over the past 5 years.

All public roads

Year Fatal/Serious Injuries 

-Intersection Crashes

2008 6,101

2009 5,922

2010 5,662

2011 5,688

2012 5,686

2013 5,332
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

IV. Travel Lane Departures 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries resulting from lane departure crashes have been on a general 

downward trend over the last 10 years as can be seen from the chart below. 

Year Fatalities – Lane 

Departures

Serious Injuries – Lane 

Departures

2004 451 3,381

2005 486 3,318

2006 463 3,110

2007 434 3,227

2008 401 3,080

2009 343 3,037

2010 428 3,052

2011 357 2,850

2012 365 2,971

2013 378 2,707

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 

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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

chevrons and high friction surface treatments in the future.

• Developing a Lane Departure Action Plan with the goal of completing the plan in 2014.

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. Work Zone Intrusions have varied over the last 5 years as shown in the 

table below.

DOT Projects - Work 

Zone Intrusions

#

2009 47

2010 21

2011 45

2012 51

2013 67

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. 

As of February 2014, approximately 1,075 miles of CARDS 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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

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

February 2014, countdown timers have been installed at approximately 2056 (65%) of the 

3,168 eligible signals. 

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 5,000 safety recommendations have been made as a result of the 

SFY 12/13 and SFY 13/14 safety reviews and over 1,500 of the recommendations have been 

completed.

Skid Accident Reduction Program (SKARP)

The SKARP program incorporates safety considerations into pavement maintenance activities. 

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 2013 shows a decline in the number of sites 

requiring treatment, from 91 sites in 1996 to 22 sites in 2013. 

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 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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.

Source:

Intersection Data - SIMS where intersection _ind = "Y"

Lane departure Data - SIMS

All 2013 data is preliminary
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

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) 85194576 36 % 76099390 36 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 1338421 1 % 1338421 1 %

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)

48558715 21 % 43675715 21 %

State and Local Funds 100731689 43 % 90062689 43 %
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Totals 235823401 100% 211176215 100%

Funds included under the following conditions:

- Funds were HSIP or HRRR 

- Funds other than HSIP and HRRR on projects where the primary work type is safety

- Funds other than HSIP and HRRR on projects where > 50% of the cost is safety related

- Funds were obligated or Advanced Constructed.

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

$54,220,274.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$45,629,274.00

Source: Included safety projects in PSS where LET_BY_DESC = Local and RESP_ORG_DESC <> Railroad.

$ includes HSIP, HRRR and other funds on safety projects

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

$4,630,500.00

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

$2,830,500.00
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

Includes HSIP funds only. Work types include Accident Investigations in Regions 10 and 11 and a Main 

Office Emergency Services contract that involves engineering functions in support of Regional corridor 

safety projects, miscellaneous safety studies and support for statewide program development.

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? 

$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 implemented a statewide regional design services agreement that can be used to 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

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 provide funding assitance to local municipalities for approved 

projects. The Marchiselli program reimburses a portion of the "Non-Federal" share (up to 75%) 

for approved projects.

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.

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.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

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

A listing of projects 

with authorized 

HSIP funds from 

2006 to the 

present is 

attached. See main 

menu question #23 

- General Lising of 

Projects.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 1323 1277 1220 1187 1180

Number of serious injuries 13680 13531 13300 13100 12776

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

10 10 10.03 10.01 9.82

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

57
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Data Sources:

2004-2012 fatality data: FARS

2013 fatality data: SIMS 

Serious Injury Data: SIMS

Fatality data for 2012 and 2013 is estimated.

Serious injury data for 2013 is estimated.

Functional Classification and Ownership:

- The number of crashes and the accompanying rates by functional class and ownership are very general 

estimates. Functional class and ownership are not available on crash reports. Therefore a spatial join 

using GIS was done to join crash records to the Roadway Inventory System to obtain the Functional Class 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

and Ownership attributes. Since the linear referencing system is not yet available for the local system 

the majority of crashes on the local system will show up in the "Other" category using this method.

- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is not available by functional classification and ownership. Therefore, the 

statewide VMT was used in the denominator for all rate calculations.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

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

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

10.8 61.4 0.01 0.05

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0.8 8.8 0 0.01

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

39.8 224.4 0.03 0.17

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

64.8 436.4 0.05 0.34

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

60.4 374 0.05 0.29

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

63.6 467 0.05 0.36

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

6.2 56.2 0 0.04

URBAN PRINCIPAL 32.6 305.6 0.03 0.24
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

41.8 336.2 0.03 0.03

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

212.4 2335.4 0.16 1.8

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

220.4 2644 0.17 2.03

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

100 1194 0.08 0.92

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

39.8 567.2 0.03 0.44

OTHER 301.2 3765.6 0.23 2.9
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 389.4 3117 0.3 2.4

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 186.6 1469.6 0.14 1.13

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 52.2 453 0.04 0.35

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 250.6 3856.2 0.19 2.96

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 1.2 4.2 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0.2 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0.6 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0.4 1.2 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 11.2 95.2 0.01 0.07

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 7 0 0.01

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 1.8 6.4 0 0
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

OTHER 301.2 3765.6 0.23 2.9
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

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 1,168 in 2012. The fatality rate 

per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased from 1.13 in 2,000 to .91 in 2012. New 

York’s fatality rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT) has been below the national 

level every year between 2000 and 2011.

The number of serious injuries has also been on a downward trend. The number of serious 

injuries in New York decreased from 14,466 in 2004 to 11,753 in 2013.

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)

1.74 1.68 1.58 1.54 0

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

7.64 7.66 7.6 7.54 0

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

9.38 9.3 9.14 9.04 0

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

2012 Rolling Average Calculatioin: 

(F+SI 2012 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure*) + (F+SI 2011 

Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older /2011 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2010 Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2009 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2009 Population Figure) + (F+SI 2008 Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older/2008 Population Figure) / 5 = 9.04

Note: 2013 fatality and SI data is not yet available.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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 in Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-NYSDOT continues to include all local roads in the HSIP program; implement projects to 

decrease fatal and serious injuries and implement strategies outlined in the SHSP.

Other: Other-A Vision Zero Action Plan was released by NYC in early 2014. 

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

New York State is in the process of developing the following three safety action plans. The 

recommendations and strategies from the action plans will be incorporated into the updated SHSP.

• Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

• Intersection Safety Action Plan

• Lane Departure Safety Action Plan
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 374 2923 0.29 2.25 0 0 0

Intersections Intersectionrelated

390 5268 0.3 4.05 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 310 2095 0.24 1.59 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 41 651 0.03 0.5 0 0 0

Motorcyclists Motorcycle-related 169 1166 0.13 90 0 0 0
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

Data Sources:

Lane Departure and Intersection Crashes: SIMS

Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycle Fatalities 2004-2011: FARS

Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycle Fatalities 2012-2013: SIMS. 2012 and 2013 fatality statistics are not available in FARS yet and should be 

considered draft.

Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motorcycle Serious Injury Crashes: SIMS. 2013 serious injury statistics should be considered draft.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Groups of similar project types

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

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

86

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No additional items to report at this time.
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

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)

Optional 

question.

N/A 0 N/A 0
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP-HRRR Obligations and Adv Const 2006-

Present (5).xlsx
2014 New York Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

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.