Massachusetts

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: MA

 
ii 

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 21

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 21

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 24

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 34

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 34

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 48

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................50

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 52

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 57

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 62

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 70
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

SAFETEA-LU first instituted the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in 2005 and MAP-21 

continued the program in 2012. Although Massachusetts was in fact designing and constructing safety 

projects, it was using other funding categories. In 2009 Massachusetts began obligating funds from the 

HSIP funding category, only after an HSIP Task Force was developed and HSIP guidelines were 

implemented. Massachusetts is now in the sixth year of an active HSIP program. This report summarizes 

the HSIP management and structure in Massachusetts as well as describing the selected HSIP programs 

and projects. We are submitting the HSIP report on line for the second year but challenges remain in 

gaining access to the reporting system so that the HSIP reporting all falls to one person. Please note that 

while 2013 information is listed in this report, the information is incorrect and should not be used. We 

were unable to eliminate 2013 fields even though we have not supplied 2013 data and 2013 is not yet 

available in MA.

 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other The STIP provided for approximately $40 million in 2014 HSIP funds. $15M administered in HQ 

and $25M was allocated to the regions (by MARPA formula) through MPO project selection process. 

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

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

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

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

Highway Safety Plan, regardless of roadway jurisdiction. There was also one low cost systemic approach 

project to reduce crashes along horizontal curves that was restricted to locally owned roads. Finally, 

other eligible projects / programs were selected based on HSIP-eligible criteria such as statewide 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

improvements to data or assistance with SHSP. These programs impact safety on all roadways regardless 

of roadway jurisdiction

 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The HSIP Guidelines are being updated based on MAP-21 and should be finalized in July 2014.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

Other: Other-FHWA

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-Guidelines have changed on HSIP-eligible programs / projects based on MAP-21

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

would like to elaborate. 

None

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-CRASH SEVERITY 

WEIGHTING

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-MPO

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

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

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 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

PROJECT READINESS

 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-percent commuting by 

biking

Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

8 

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-participating communities based on data driven process
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

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 
2014 Massachusetts 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-STATEWIDE CRASH PROGRAM

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
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Selection committee

Other-STATEWIDE NEEDS

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 

STATEWIDE NEED

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 6/18/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

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

12

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-local curve program 

locations identified by locals 

based on need, State curves 

based on District input for need

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-local curve program locations identified by locals based on need, State curves based on District 

input for need

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

Yes
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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.

An application was submitted to all 351 cities and towns asking for participation. Approximately 15% 

applied and were accepted

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-all comunities are eligible

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 

for local curves, all 

communities invited to submit 

locations (we budgeted for 350 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

curves)

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-SYSTEMATIC 

APPROACH NOT BASED ON 

CRASHES 

Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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-ALL SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAYS

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-ALL SECONDARY ROADS

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

ALL SECONDARY ROADS

 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-ratio of ped crashes to 

all crashes by town

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-commuting by walking 

(journey to work census data)

Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Massachusetts 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-EMS data on pedestrians, ratio of pedestrian crashes to all crashes, commuting rates of 

pedestrians by towns

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-based on priority of towns selected by above criteria

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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 

number of communities 

invovled in programs is based on 

available funding

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

8

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-no change since last reporting period. Already use RSAs and systemic
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

would like to elaborate. 

none
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

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) 35175718 22 % 31590858 19 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 250200 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)

95346788 60 % 107937120 63 %

State and Local Funds 28014510 18 % 30522153 18 %
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Totals 158537016 100% 170300331 100%

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

$10,596,170.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$10,393,080.00

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

$1,950,000.00

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

$1,050,300.00

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

period?

$0.00
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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. 

Not enough shovel-ready projects in the pipeline because local communities must fund the design on 

locally owned roadways and funding is tight. Previously, in 2009 and 2010, in order to get the HSIP 

projects moving, MassDOT and FHWA allowed the use of HSIP funding for design as long as the project 

was HSIP eligible and was programmed on the STIP in an outlying year. This enabled a full HSIP program 

for the next few years. We revisited this with FHWA for the HRRRP and used HSIP for design to get the 

project in the pipeline. We may work with FHWA and revisit the idea of using HSIP funding for design in 

the future. Local communities may also work through their MPOs to push projects that are more 

systematic with minimal design efforts like a retroreflective sign upgrade program. Right now several 

things are being considered. Finally, we tied our HSIP funds programs / strategies identified in the 

updated 2013 SHSP. However, the strategies developed from the emphasis areas teams are in the 

process of being worked out through the public process and several have been finalized but there will be 

more to come. 

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry 

Function

al 

Classifica

tion

AAD

T 

Spe

ed

Roadw

ay 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasi

s Area

Strategy

ADAMSROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION 

AT ROUTE 8 & 

FRIEND STREET

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control 

- two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers 

391560 192945

1 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1600

0 

35 Town 

or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

BROCKTONRESURFACING 

& RELATED 

WORK ON 

WEST ELM 

STREET, FROM 

WARREN 

AVENUE TO 

WEST STREET 

(6,800 FT.)

Roadway Roadway -

other

1.3 

Miles 

659733 487509

4 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Major 

Collector 

2300

0 

35 City of 

Munici

pal 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

SEEKONKINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

Intersection geometry 

Intersection 

1 

Numb

247500 317466

0 

Other 

Federa

Urban 

Minor 

2200

0 

35 State 

Highwa

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

TS AT ROUTE 

114A, ARCADE 

AVENUE AND 

MILL ROAD

geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/u

nspecified 

ers l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial y 

Agency

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

CONCORDLINCOLNLIMITED 

ACCESS 

HIGHWAY 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT ROUTE 2 

& 2A, 

BETWEEN 

CROSBY'S 

CORNER & 

BEDFORD 

ROAD, 

INCLUDES C19-024

Interchange design 

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

1 

Numb

ers 

474946

8 

482632

58

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

4900

0 

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

WEST 

TISBURYINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT STATE 

ROAD 

(VINEYARD 

HAVEN ROAD) 

AND OLD 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 

Numb

ers 

31471.9

2 

367761

.88

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector 

8000 45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

COUNTY ROAD 

LOWELLSIGNAL & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT VFW 

HIGHWAY, 

BRIDGE 

STREET & 

LAKEVIEW 

AVENUE

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numb

ers 

186804

3 

359351

9 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

2600

0 

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

WORCESTER -

RECONSTRUCT

ION OF 

LINCOLN 

STREET 

(ROUTE 70), 

FROM MARSH 

AVENUE TO 

AMESBURY 

STREET 

(PHASE II)

Roadway Roadway -

other

0.99 

Miles 

276030

0 

752740

7 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2300

0 

35 City of 

Munici

pal 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

SALEMRECONSTRUCT

ION ON CANAL 

STREET, FROM 

WASHINGTON 

STREET & MILL 

Roadway Roadway -

other

1.2 

Miles 

180000

0 

657420

0 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

2000

0 

35 City of 

Munici

pal 

Highwa

y 

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

STREET TO 

LORING 

AVENUE & 

JEFFERSON 

AVENUE

NHPP) Agency design

METHUENINTERCHANGE 

RECONSTRUCT

ION ON I-93 AT 

ROUTE 

110/113 

ROTARY, 

INCLUDING 

REMOVAL OF 

M-17-017 & M17-018, REHAB 

OF M-17-007 & 

NEW BRIDGE 

CONSTRUCTIO

N OF M-17-040

Interchange design 

Interchange design - 

other

1 

Numb

ers 

398660.

4 

564509

77

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstat

e 

1230

00

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

SPRINGFIELDSIGNAL & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT SUMNER 

AVENUE, 

ALLEN STREET, 

ABBOT STREET 

& HARKNESS 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numb

ers 

111593

7.9

218779

8 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

2300

0 

30 City of 

Munici

pal 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

AVENUE 

$2,057,600

EASTONSIGNAL & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS @ ROUTE 

138 

(TURNPIKE 

STREET) AND 

ROUTE 106 

(FOUNDRY 

STREET)

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

left-turn lane

1 

Numb

ers 

609969 137774

4 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1800

0 

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

BOURNERESURFACING 

& SAFETY 

UPGRADING 

ON ROUTE 28 

(GENERAL 

MACARTHUR 

BOULEVARD)

Roadway Roadway -

other

4.8 

Miles 

479040.

3 

709729

3 

State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

3500

0 

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 

design

ANDOVER -

TEWKSBURYINTERSECTION 

& SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT 

DASCOMB 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numb

ers 

164684

9.16

162720

2 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2300

0 

35 Town 

or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

ROAD, EAST 

STREET, & 

SHAWSHEEN 

STREET

Agency

ATTLEBORO -

RTE I-95 SB to 

Route I-295 SB 

RAMP 

RECONSTRUCT

ION (MassDOT 

Project)

Interchange design 

Installation of new lane 

on ramp

1 

Numb

ers 

413412

6 

413412

6 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstat

e 

1900

0 

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 

design

GREENFIELD, 

ROUTE 2A AND 

SHELBURNE 

RD/RIVER ST 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

1 

Numb

ers 

349215 134454

5 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1700

0 

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

RAYNHAMSIGNAL AND 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

T @ ROUTE 44 

(NEW STATE 

HIGHWAY), 

ORCHARD 

STREET AND 

ROUTE 24 NB - 

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry - 

other

2 

Numb

ers 

847064.

89

379260

2 

Other 

Federa

l-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

3700

0 

40 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

OFF RAMP

WEST 

SPRINGFIELD 

TO 

BERNARDSTON 

– TRAFFIC SIGN 

REPLACEMENT 

ON 

INTERSTATE 

91 

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Sign 

sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

46 

Miles 

311100

0 

571069

4 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstat

e 

3400

0 

65 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Older 

Drivers 

develop 

infrastruc

ture 

improvem

ents that 

accommo

date older 

road user 

safety

DISTRICT 5-

MEDIAN 

DELINEATION 

REPLACEMENT 

ON ROUTE 6, 

FROM DENNIS 

T.L. TO 

ORLEANS T.L.

Roadside Barrier -

other

13 

Miles 

110772

0 

357180

0 

State 

and 

Local 

Funds

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

2000

0 

50 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 

design

STATEWIDEIMPLEMENTAT

ION (PHASE II) 

OF THE 

FLASHING 

YELLOW 

ARROW AT 

SIGNALIZED 

INTERSECTION

S--ONE OF THE 

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal - add flashing 

yellow arrow

50 

Numb

ers 

180000

0 

200000

0 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

"FHWA NINE 

PROVEN 

COUNTERMEAS

URES"

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

BIKE/PED 

SAFETY 

PROGRAM

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists 

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

12 

Numb

ers 

415800 100000

0 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

program 

is 

communi

ty wide 

in 12 

communi

ties 

0 0 system

atic 

approa

ch

Pedestri

ans

educate 

the 

public, 

integrate 

pedestria

n safety

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

LOCAL CURVE 

PROGRAM

Roadway signs and 

traffic control Curverelated warning signs 

and flashers

150 

Numb

ers 

853200 962000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 Town 

or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 

design

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

WORK ZONE 

ENFORCEMENT

Non-infrastructure 

Enforcement

1 

Numb

ers 

135000 150000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

multiple 

locations 

within 

work 

zones 

around 

the state

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Work 

Zones

increase 

enforcem

ent to 

enhance 

safety of 

all people 

working 

in the 

roadway
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

ASHBURNHAM 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMEN

TS AT ROUTE 

101 & 

WILLIAMS & 

COREY HILL 

ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control Modify control 

- two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers 

250200 278000 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

3000 35 Town 

or 

Townsh

ip 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersect

ions

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

intersecti

on design

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

ROAD SAFETY 

AUDIT 

CONTRACT

Non-infrastructure 

Road safety audits

2 

Numb

ers 

180000 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

multiple 

locations 

across 

the state

0 0 multipl

e 

locatio

ns 

across 

the 

state

multiple 

locations 

across 

the state

Road 

Safety 

Audits

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

SHSP UPDATE

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers 

180000 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

assistanc

e with 

SHSP 

0 0 assistan

ce with 

SHSP 

assistanc

e with 

SHSP 

identify 

data 

needs and 

review 

performa

nce 

measures

SHSP 

STRATEGIES - 

HIGH 

FRICTION 

SURFACE 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high friction 

surface

3 

Numb

ers 

157950

0 

175500

0 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Lane 

Departur

e 

Incorpora

te safety 

elements 

into 

roadside 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

TREATMENTS design
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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 395.6 376.6 367 360.2 0

Number of serious injuries 4237.6 3914.6 3700 3570.4 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.66 0

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.7 7.14 6.76 6.51 0

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

35
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

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

Year - 2012

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

3 20 0.25 1.65

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

7 29 1.36 4.21

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

7 29 1.33 5.17

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

3 25 0.55 4.17

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

1 7 0.68 4.76

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

14 34 2.13 5.16

URBAN PRINCIPAL 49 268 0.33 1.76
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

69 122 1.23 2.16

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

26 948 0.23 8.63

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

28 999 0.32 11.38

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

129 484 1.71 6.48

OTHER 9 209 0 0

URBAN COLLECTOR 

(COMBINED MAJOR + 

MINOR) 

2 373 0.08 2.33
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 134 964 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 1 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 7 77 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 4 35 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 3 29 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 1 0 0

CITY OR TOWN HIGHWAY AGENCY 194 2212 0 0
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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

none

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.454 0.426 0.438 0.436 0.344

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

3.66 3.576 3.472 3.452 2.714

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

4.118 4.006 3.916 3.894 3.062

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

49

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-no longer just select spot improvement locations. Include programs and systemic 

improvements into the mix

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

51

We now use a combination of spot improvements, safety programs and systemic projects in the mix of 

our HSIP. The overall safety programs and systemic projects are based on SHSP strategies and action 

items. 
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure 162 907 0.29 1.65 0 0 0

Intersections 93 1601 0.17 2.92 0 0 0
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Bicycle Safety 9 169 0.02 0.31 0 0 0

Crash Data 360 3585 0.66 6.54 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 162 907 0.29 1.65 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety 68 717 0.13 1.31 0 0 0

Intersection 93 1601 0.17 2.92 0 0 0

Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

63 309 0.11 0.57 0 0 0
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2012

Systemic improvement Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

5 113 0.01 0.21 0 0 0

Install/Improve Signing 63 309 0.11 0.57 0 0 0
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

none
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance 

Targets: Application of Special Rules

older driver data for 2014 report.xlsx
2014 Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

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.