Page 1 of 61

NEW JERSEY
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 61

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 9

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 23

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 31

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 31

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 46

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 47

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 49

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 54

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 56
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 61

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.” 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 61

Executive Summary

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) continues the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads. 

The FAST Act requires the development of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) and the Railway-Highway Crossings Program (RHXP). The New Jersey SHSP was updated in 

2015. In order to obligate HSIP funds, states are required to (1) develop, implement and update a SHSP; (2) 

produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems; (3) evaluate the plan on a 

regular basis, and (4) submit an annual transparency report. 

HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on 

performance. 

This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report (ASR) has been changed from the Federal 

Fiscal Year (FFY) to the Calendar Year (CY). The NJDOT decided to make this change to be consistent with the 

reporting period of crashes and to be more precise in the reporting of the projects that get authorized during 

that period. 

With the change of the reporting period, the list of authorized projects included in this 2017 report will be 

very similar to the list of projects included in the 2016. Projects that were authorized between October 2015 

and December 2015 are excluded and the projects that were authorized between October 2016 and 

December 2016 are added.

New Jersey has analyzed roadway safety performance as described in part 30 “General Highway Safety Trends 

in the State for Past Five Years”. Over the five year period, 2012- 2016, the New Jersey’s five-year rolling 

average for the fatalities as well as fatality rates dropped approximately 3% and 4% respectively. Similarly, for 

the number of serious injuries and serious injury rates, the five-year rolling average dropped approximately 

31% and 33% respectively. However, over the same five-year period, the actual number of crashes resulting in 

fatalities and incapacitating injuries in each year has fluctuated. Nationally, over the past two years, crashes 

involving fatalities have been trending upward.

The NJDOT took the lead to establish the five safety performance targets. Throughout the process, the NJDOT 

coordinated with the three MPOs, Division of Highway Traffic and Safety (DHTS) and the FHWA, NJ Division. 

The NJDOT established final targets and received concurrence from DHTS as three of the five safety targets are 

identical and required for both the Highway Safety Plan and the HSIP Annual Safety Report.

NJDOT has a broad spectrum of safety programs designed to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes as 

follows: 

Intersection Improvement Program; 

Crash Reduction Program (Roadway Departure and Corridor Segment); 

Utility Pole Mitigation Program; 

Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program; 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 61

Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (State); 

Rail Highway Grade Crossing Program (Federal); 

High Risk Rural Roads Program; and the 

Local Safety Program 

New Jersey continues to develop highway safety improvement projects on the basis of both crash experience 

and crash potential to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all public roads. New Jersey understands the 

benefits of systemic approach which provides an expanded comprehensive and proactive approach to road 

safety efforts. New Jersey constantly considers ways to expand its use of systemic safety improvements in the 

key safety emphasis areas. In 2016, the following systemic treatments were analyzed for implementation: 

• Based on the engineering study, equipping all the approved Mid-Block Crosswalks on the State 

Highway System with either Traffic Control Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or 12” yellow Flashing 

Warning Beacons and/or by upgrading the existing signing and striping. 

• Installation of louvered backplates with yellow retroreflective borders behind all signal heads mounted 

on steel mast arms on the State Highway System. As part of the same project, snow scoops will be 

added to the Signal Head Visors to reduce snow accumulation.

• Installation of traffic control devices and upgrades at all interchange off ramps on the Interstate 

Highway System in order to reduce the occurrence of Wrong Way Crashes.

In addition to exploring and developing the above systemic programs, New Jersey continues its effort with 

High Friction Surface Treatment on roadway curves which experience high roadway departure crashes such as 

fixed objects and overturns. The systemic pilot roundabout program to reduce injury crashes at intersections 

has also been a success as more counties are interested in building modern roundabouts.

New Jersey’s current SHSP reflects NJ’s commitment to a performance based program through the 

identification of data driven investment strategies which aligns with the annual fatal and serious injury 

reduction goals and incorporation of the Towards Zero Death Vision. This plan provides direction to focus 

approximately 40 percent of the annual HSIP funding on state highways and 60 percent on county and 

municipal network in line with the current distribution of serious injuries and fatalities. To implement SHSP 

goals, New Jersey’s HSIP apportionment of the Local Safety Program (LSP) has increased significantly and, as a 

result, the LSP has grown substantially. Some of the changes in the LSP which contributed towards its success 

include the provision of design services with professional services procurement through the MPOs and 

participation with HSIP funds for concept development phase for local projects. In addition to that, NJDOT 

continues to provide support to MPOs and their subregions through various trainings, meetings and assistance 

with HSM analysis for LSP projects.

New Jersey is also committed to make data analysis tools accessible to all public agencies. In 2016, NJDOT 

developed and deployed the first phase of a new user friendly crash data analysis tool called Safety Voyager. 

Safety Voyager is a web based application that allows NJDOT to visualize crash data, ball banking reports and 

traffic counts data in a map based interface. The application is hosted in a web based cloud data access. In the 

first release, the NJDOT had emphasized a basic functionality and security. Going forward, major releases and 

data updates will follow to enhance the program and satisfy the needs of the various users.

NJTPA 

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) is the MPO serving the 13-county northern New 

Jersey region. NJTPA continues to work with its federal partners, the New Jersey Department of 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 61

Transportation (NJDOT), NJ TRANSIT, member counties and cities and other state and local agencies to make 

travel safer and more reliable for all users of the region's transportation system. 

The NJTPA is proactive when it comes to safety, actively engaging in Safety Conscious Planning. Addressing 

safety issues involves a complex interaction with human behavior, technology, engineering, education and 

enforcement, as well as the natural environment. While traditional safety planning is reactive—a problem is 

identified through crash data analysis and then the appropriate engineering, enforcement and/or education 

countermeasures are implemented—Safety Conscious Planning integrates safety into all phases of 

transportation improvement planning and development so that safety is an integral part of all decisionmaking. All of NJTPA’s efforts are aligned with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

FY 2016 marked the 11th year of the Local Safety Program (LSP) and 6th year of the High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP). Since 2005 the NJTPA has allocated more than $100 million on over 120 projects for 

motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety-related improvements that include installation of upgraded traffic 

control and pedestrian countdown signals, new signage and crosswalks, reflective striping, and other safety 

improvements. Prior to FY 2014, the NJTPA had an annual apportionment of $3 million for both programs 

combined. This apportionment was subsequently increased by NJDOT, and in FY 2014 $16.3 million was 

obligated followed by $18.3 million in FY 2015 and $16.9 million in 2016. In January 2015, The NJTPA Board of 

Trustees approved a FY 2016-2017 LSP/HRRRP program of over $32 Million.

The NJTPA recognizes the need to assist member counties and cities in preparing plans, specs & estimates 

(PS&E) for construction authorization of projects in both programs. In FY2013, the NJTPA created the Local 

Safety Engineering Assistance Program (LSEAP). This annual program has grown from 38% of the projects in 

the program year requesting engineering assistance in FY 2013 to 75% requesting assistance in FY 2016. In 

another measure, the program has increased from one consultant and five design projects to four consultants 

and sixteen projects. This engineering assistance program has resulted in high levels of timely, high quality 

documentation submitted for authorization and has improved the state’s ability to successfully address safety 

issues on local roads, where 60% of crashes occur. For more information on the location safety program, visit 

the webpage: http://www.njtpa.org/local-safety. 

Another recent NJTPA initiative, The Street Smart NJ program is a successful statewide Pedestrian Safety 

Education Campaign initiative that was the first of its kind in New Jersey. This program combines community 

outreach and enforcement to raise awareness of pedestrian and motorist laws and change behaviors that lead 

to pedestrian and cyclist crashes and fatalities. It was first piloted in 2013 by five New Jersey municipalities. 

The program has been expanded to run vigorous campaigns in 12 partner communities in 2016, as well as to 

encourage and support additional communities and the Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) to 

run their own campaigns. Street Smart NJ uses outdoor, transit and online advertising, along with grassroots 

public awareness efforts and law enforcement to address pedestrian safety. Street Smart NJ emphasizes 

educating drivers and pedestrians through mass media, as well as targeted enforcement. It complements, but 

doesn’t replace, other state and local efforts to build safer streets and sidewalks, enforce laws and train better 

roadway users. The Street Smart NJ program was expanded in 2016 to include six new partner communities —

Elizabeth, Passaic, Toms River, Lakewood, Red Bank, Metuchen and Franklin Borough in Sussex County. 

Throughout March 2016, every partner — with the exception of Long Beach Island, which runs summer 

campaigns —participated in the Street Smart NJ program. In addition, several New Jersey shore communities 

(Asbury Park, Belmar, Bradley Beach, and Manasquan) conducted campaigns over the summer, reaching 

thousands of beach goers. For more information, visit the campaign website www.bestreetsmartnj.org. 

In addition, the NJTPA worked with Newark to develop the City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action 

Plan, which was completed in February 2016 and adopted by the City Council in May 2016. The plan's intent is 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 61

two-fold: to serve as a guide for city staff to prioritize locations of greatest concern and also to inform the 

public where the city intends to focus its efforts. The plan has identified specific treatments for high crash 

locations which will provide the city with the data needed for future HSIP project applications. For more 

information, visit the webpage: http://njtpa.org/planning/regional-studies/bicycle-pedestrian/newark-safetyaction-plan.

DVRPC 

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) serves four counties in southern New Jersey: 

Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer. 

DVRPC conducted a formal project application solicitation in January of 2017 for the Local Federal HSIP and 

HRRR Programs, offering funds for construction and design assistance for completion of final PS&E packages 

(by a consultant and paid for with HSIP). One completed application was received by Burlington County for a 

roundabout. DVRPC continued working with Camden County on potential roundabout locations and with 

Gloucester County on an HRRR location which was ultimately funded with non-HSIP federal funds. 

The Mt. Ephraim Avenue Corridor-wide Pedestrian Safety Local Concept Development study kicked-off in 

December of 2016, and the contract was awarded for the preliminary engineering phase of Mercer County’s 

Brunswick Circle Extension Roundabout. 

In an effort to identify hazardous curves for systemic improvement with HSIP funds, DVRPC led an effort aided 

by SJTPO to hire one consultant to conduct a curve data gathering and safety assessment study on local New 

Jersey roads in the DVRPC and SJTPO regions. This effort has been and will continue to be coordinated closely 

with county, regional, state, and federal partners to ensure HSIP compliance. The RFP was advertised in June 

of 2017.

DVRPC has conducted multiple safety project updates with its New Jersey TIP Subcommittee to foster 

information sharing and encourage project development, and staff has engaged DVRPC’s Board and Regional 

Technical Committee to advance NJDOT’s HSIP advancement Plan.

SJTPO 

The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) is the MPO serving four counties in southern 

New Jersey, including Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem Counties.

Working with Statewide partners, to move the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan into action and solidify 

SJTPO’s commitment to advancing the SHSP, annual investment goals were established based on three crash 

categories; Intersection, Pedestrian, and Lane Departure crashes. Most recently, SJTPO documented strategies 

and identified projects to meet the HSIP Investment Goals. SJTPO has committed to several general strategies 

to help achieve these goals.

The HSIP is the primary funding source available to the SJTPO to implement the SHSP; and advancing projects 

through HSIP has been a major focus for the SJTPO in recent years. Support for HSIP among counties and 

municipalities in the SJTPO region has been low in recent years due to the complex nature of the program and 

the failure of select high profile safety projects to secure HSIP funding. To overcome this, SJTPO has put a great 

deal of effort in the past year to educating jurisdictions about the benefits of the program, and bolstering the 

technical support SJTPO can offer to reduce the complexity of the process for jurisdictions. Further, SJTPO has 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 61

worked to develop an initial review process to screen out lesser-developed projects early on, reduce the 

likelihood of well-developed project applications being rejected, and to enhance the quality of submissions to 

NJDOT to improve timeliness of project selection and advancement.

Through these efforts, SJTPO has worked with local jurisdictions to put together an aggressive portfolio of 

projects for FY 2018 funding. These projects include a mix of systemic projects, including centerline rumble 

strips and high friction surface treatment at horizontal curves as well as hot spot locations, including 

roundabouts and pedestrian corridor improvements. In addition, SJTPO will resurrect its efforts to move 

forward with a road diet pilot in addition to advancing multiple county roundabout pilots. SJTPO will also 

undertake a county-wide bicycle and pedestrian safety action plan in FY 2018, which will identify top 

pedestrian safety concerns and prepare those locations for safety investment. This effort could become an 

example for other counties in the region to follow and a means to focus local attention to investment in bicycle 

and pedestrian safety. While SJTPO struggled to get projects authorized for HSIP funding in FY 2017, current 

and future efforts are anticipated to yield great results in coming years, which is very exciting.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 61

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 Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

Under the most recent federal legislation, the FAST Act, NJ is apportioned approximately $57 million annually 

for HSIP Program. This apportionment is distributed 60% to local roadway and 40% to state roads based on 

fatalities and serious injuries data. The local portion is distributed to the 3 MPOs based on census data. Each 

MPO distributes HSIP funds into the different emphasis areas as described in the SHSP. The funds allocated to 

state roadways also get distributed into these different emphasis areas.

NJDOT develops an annual safety investment strategy for all HSIP funded activities and projects. The annual 

investment strategy demonstrates the linkage between the objectives of the SHSP and the projects we are 

implementing to ensure we are focusing on the most effective safety improvements.

HSIP implementation steps for hot spot locations:

• Planning: Verify the identified location with any of the existing Safety Management System (SMS) lists

• Problem Identification: Identify the safety concerns

• Problem Screening Process: Develop the data needed for consideration of the project by the Capital 

Programming Screening Committee (CPSC) and the Capital Program Committee (CPC).

• Concept Development:

1. Verify that the project’s purpose and need is consistent with the identified safety concern and NJ most 

current SHSP

2. Prepare an initial cost estimate for at least two Safety Design Alternatives

3. If the identified infrastructure improvements are greater than $250,000 in cost then a Predictive Safety 

Analysis using the (HSM) will be required

• Design and construction

• Evaluation

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 61

 Planning

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Formula via MPOs

Other-Network screening for high crash locations

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The allocation of HSIP funds for local and state roads is based on network screening lists for high crash locations. In 

addition to the screening for the local roads (county and municipal owned roads), there is also a competitive application 

process through each MPO.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.

Local Roadways are eligible for HSIP improvements through a competitive application process with the 

respective MPOs. All Local Roadways in New Jersey are covered by one of three MPOs - NJTPA, SJTPO, or 

DVRPC. NJDOT oversees the production of network screening lists for each of the MPO regions, including both 

County and Municipal owned roadways, which help the MPOs prioritize their projects. As New Jersey is a 

focus state for both intersection and pedestrian crashes, screening lists include a focus on Intersection, 

Pedestrian Corridor, High Risk Rural Roads, and Pedestrian Intersection crashes utilizing a weighted severity 

scale. These lists were shared with local roadway owners and government officials to assist in the selection of 

regional priority locations to develop HSIP funded projects leading to better investment of HSIP funding at the 

local level. 

Identify which internal partners (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) Bureaus, Divisions) 

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Operations

Other-Project Management

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

NJDOT's Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety, under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Investment 

Planning and Grant Administration is responsible for crash data compilation, analysis and program 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 61

development. The Division of Project Management under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Program 

Management is responsible for final design and implementation of improvements. New Jersey's HSIP Manual 

identifies the process for coordination and delivery of HSIP projects for roadways under state jurisdiction. This 

manual was updated in 2016. Regular meetings are conducted between Capital Investment Planning & Grant 

Administration and staff from Division of Program Management under Division of Project Management to 

monitor and assist as the projects move through project development to advertisement. NJDOT supports the 

advancement of projects under local jurisdiction by participating in the Technical Assistance Team for local 

safety projects. The Technical Assistance Team consist of NJDOT's Safety, Environmental, and Local Aid staff. 

NJDOT's Division of Local Aid, under the Assistant Commissioner of Capital Investment Planning and Grant 

Administration is responsible for coordinating with the MPOs in the selection, authorization and oversight of 

projects implemented on the local road network.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs)

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Each state is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) to guide the allocation of safety funding and resources to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries 

on public roadways. A SHSP is required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) as a condition to utilize federal HSIP funds. In the development of the SHSP, all 

of the external partners mentioned in the question, except the “Tribal Agency” are involved. Only the 

selected external partners are involved in the HSIP planning process. 

Describe coordination with external partners.

NJDOT coordinate with all the MPOs, DHTS and FHWA on a regular basis. Daily phone calls, scheduled 

meetings or emails are the main way of communication. FHWA representative is always available to provide 

support and guidance. 

The same partners were involved in the setting of the performance safety targets.

Coordination with local government agencies is done through the MPOs. The three MPOs provide extensive 

support and assistance to their subregions in regards to their safety projects. Quarterly meetings are 

conducted between NJDOT and the MPOs to discuss any major concern and to keep track of the status of the 

projects and the funding. 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 61

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

The HSIP funds are now available for Concept Development phase as well. 

All Pedestrian Improvement Projects require Pedestrian Road Safety Audit, either before or in the CD phase.

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate. 

The Assistant Commissioner of Capital Investment Planning and Grant Administration continues to conduct 

quarterly collaboration meetings with all three MPOs along with subject matter experts at the NJDOT. These 

meetings promote partnering with a focus on safety. NJDOT’s Division of Local Aid coordinates with the 

MPOs on regular basis to ensure advancement of Local Safety Projects.

Program Methodology

Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP planning, implementation 

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

2016 HSIP Manual.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Roadway Departure

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Segments

Other-High Risk Rural Roads

Other-Utility Pole Mitigation

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Intersection 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 61

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-New Jersey is designated as a FHWA Intersection Focus State

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements projects.

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 1
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-60% of NJ’s injury and fatality events occur on local roadways 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Priority given to State's focus areas
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 61

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

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 60

Other-Project to address established safety problem as shown through crash history, risk-based (systemic) 

analysis and/or local roadway knowledge : 20

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2011 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-Newark is a FHWA designated Pedestrian Focus City, and New Jersey is a FHWA designated Pedestrian 

Focus State

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Pedestrian Crashes Other-NJ is a pedestrian focus state 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Other-Pedestrian generators

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 61

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements projects.

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Other-FHWA Ped Focus State : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2008 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Lane miles Roadside features 

Other-Horizontal Curvature 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 61

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Sites identified based on methodology developed for systemic treatment for roadway departure crashes

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements projects 

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 61

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Lane miles 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Other-Exposure is taken into consideration

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Using the ranking to identify priorities, NJDOT selects and implements projects 

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Other-High Risk Rural Roads 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/16/2005 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-The Special Rule for high risk rural road safety was applied to NJ
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 61

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Functional classification 

Other-Rural 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Crash rate

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

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 60

Other-Project to address established safety problem as shown through crash history, risk-based (systemic) 

analysis and/or local roadway knowledge. : 20

Total Relative Weight : 100
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The Special Rule for high risk rural road safety under 23 USC 148(g) requires that the State obligates certain 

amount of funds for HRRRs if the fatality rate on its rural roads increased. This special rule was applied to New 

Jersey in the past but doesn't apply to New Jersey for 2018.

Program: Other-Utility Pole Mitigation 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-To mitigate some of the Lane Departure crashes involving a utility pole

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fixed Object crashes Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

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

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-by ranking
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 61

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Field investigation : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 53

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Rumble Strips

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

High friction surface treatment

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-with alternatives Analysis utilizing the HSM

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 61

The Highway Safety Manual is a helpful tool used to prioritize the HSIP investments. The HSM is 

used to analyze different alternatives. Also, all of the HSIP projects should have a Benefit/cost ratio 

greater than 1 and the B/C calculations are based on the HSM. 

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 61

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Calendar Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

<p><span style="font-family:Calibri;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:'Calibri',sansserif;font-size:11pt;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareastlanguage:UK;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;">This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report 

(ASR) has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year to Calendar Year. The NJDOT decided to change the 

reporting period because most of the HSIP authorizations in the NJDOT are processed during the months of 

August and September and the report is created during the month of August. It’s more accurate to report 

projects that have been authorized than making the report based on predictions.   </span></p><p 

style="margin-bottom:0pt;"><span style="font-family:'Calibri',sans-serif;font-size:11pt;mso-fareast-fontfamily:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-language:UK;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;">Therefore, 

the list of projects included in this 2017 report will be very similar to the list of projects included in the 2016 

ASR, only excluding the projects that were authorized between October 2015 and December 2015 and adding 

the projects that were authorized between October 2016 and December 2016.</span></p><p style="margin:0in 

0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family:Calibri;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:'Arial',sansserif;font-size:12pt;mso-fareast-font-family:'Times New Roman';mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-ansilanguage:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;"> </span></p>

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $50,800,000 $37,775,379 74.36%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$3,300,000 $1,279,060 38.76%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $54,100,000 $39,054,439 72.19%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 61

This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report (ASR) has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year to 

Calendar Year.

The programed funds are the Safety funds programed in the STIP. (3/4 from FFY 16 plus 1/4 from FFY 17)

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

$22,825,000

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects?

$20,332,439

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report (ASR) has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year to 

Calendar Year.

The programed funds were calculated taking 3/4 of the programed funds in STIP for the FFY 2016 plus 1/4 of the 

programed funds for the FFY 2017 

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

$5,010,250

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

$7,659,000

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report (ASR) has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year to 

Calendar Year.

The programed funds were calculated taking 3/4 of the programed funds in STIP for the FFY 2016 plus 1/4 of the 

programed funds for the FFY 2017.

Rail Road salaries are included in the non-infrastructure calculations.

Non-infrastructure cost includes, but is not limited to, work that is required to identify and advance individual projects in 

the early selection stages, i.e. collision diagrams, review of HSM analyses for local projects, Pedestrian Road Safety 

Audits, etc. 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 61

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$52,000,000

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

List of funds transferred out of HSIP in CY 2016:

$ 8,000,000.00 - from HSIP to STP completed on 09/15/16

$25,000,000.00 - from HSIP to STP completed on 09/15/16

$19,000,000.00 - from HSIP to STP completed on 09/15/16

$52,000,000.00 - TOTAL TRANSFERS IN CY 2016

Discuss impediments to obligating HSIP funds and plans to overcome this challenge in the future.

The programmed funds for NJ’s HSIP Local Safety Program increased substantially from approximately $5 

million in FY2011 to $22 million in FY2016, based on the priorities and guided investment strategies set by 

2015 updated Strategic Highway Safety Plan to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on New Jersey’s 

roads. The program is no longer limited to low cost improvements only. For projects requiring infrastructure 

improvements, the Capital Project Delivery Process has to be followed. This requires additional staff and 

expertise to carry out these projects from CD to construction. Additional resources and trainings are needed 

to deliver this extent of program on a yearly basis.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

No
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 61

General Listing of Projects

List the projects obligated using HSIP funds for the reporting period.

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

2016 Safety Programs 

Consultant Services

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data Develop and/or 

enhance 

methodologies 

and establish 

standardization 

for problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

2016 Staff Work 

Program - Rail

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2498000 $2498000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 Railroad Other Railroad Develop and/or 

enhance 

methodologies 

and establish 

standardization 

for problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

2016 Staff Work 

Program - Safety

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2099000 $2099000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Planning Develop and/or 

enhance 

methodologies 

and establish 

standardization 

for problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

2016 Statewide Utility 

Pole 

Relocation/Replacement

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

$145000 $145000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Utility Pole 

Mitigation

Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

2016 Utility Pole 

Relocation/Replacement 

(NJTPA)

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

$178000 $178000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

NJTPA 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Utility Pole 

Mitigation

Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

2016 Verifiers Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2312000 $2312000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data Develop and/or 

enhance 

methodologies 

and establish 

standardization 

for problem 

identification, 

prioritization, and 

evaluation.

Byram-Kingwood Road 

(CR 651) form CR 519 

to SR 29 (HRRR) FD

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

$62000 $62000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 40 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 61

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

Garden Road & Mill 

Road Traffic 

Signalization

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Numbers $105000 $105000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

12,200 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

HFST Pilot Program at 

Route I-80 Interchanges 

(25% RURAL)

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

$257000 $257000 HRRR Special

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

HFST Pilot Program at 

Route I-80 Interchanges 

(25% RURAL) CON

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

$2475000 $2475000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

Intersection 

Improvements at CR 

551 (Auburn Rd.) and 

CR 662 (High Hill Rd.) –

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $1120000 $1120000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

MLK Blvd Intersection 

Improvements (Jersey 

City)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$865000 $865000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Design, develop 

and implement a 

transportation 

system that 

accommodates all 

users.

Mt. Ephraim Avenue 

Safety Improvements -

pedestrian project

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

$300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Design, develop 

and implement a 

transportation 

system that 

accommodates all 

users.

Passaic CLRS Roadway Rumble strips - center $928000 $928000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

Passaic Horizontal 

Curve High Friction 

Surface Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

$5502000 $5502000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

48,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 61

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Route 15 & Berkshire 

Valley Road (CR 699)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Numbers $643000 $643000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

S. Salem St & Franklin 

Road (CR 665) - (AC)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$479000 $479000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Stuyvesant Avenue (CR 

619) & 18th Avenue, 

South Orange Avenue 

(CR 510) & Bergen 

Street, Park Avenue 

(CR658) & Clifton 

Avenue, and Broadway 

(CR 667) & 3rd Avenue 

- 4 intersections

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$2825000 $2825000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Summit Ave Intersection 

Improvement Phase III 

(Charles to Lenard)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

12 Numbers $428000 $428000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Design, develop 

and implement a 

transportation 

system that 

accommodates all 

users.

US 206 Whitehorse 

Circle

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $4706000 $4706000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

US 22 Westbound 

(Vauxhall to Bloy)

Roadway Roadway - restripe to 

revise separation between 

opposing lanes and/or 

shoulder widths 

$1255000 $1255000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 46, Canfield Avenue Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$630000 $630000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Improvements to JFK 

Blvd East (CR 693) at 

Bergenline Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Numbers $379000 $379000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Improvements to 

Paterson Plank Road 

(CR 681) at Webster 

Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$43439 $43439 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Intersection 

improvements at Broad 

St (CR 11) & Bergen 

Place, Red Bank

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Numbers $117000 $117000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 61

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Intersection 

Safety. 

Bergen St - Ped Safety 

Corridor Improvements 

(RSA)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

3 Numbers $122000 $122000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Design, develop 

and implement a 

transportation 

system that 

accommodates all 

users.

MLK Blvd - Ped Safety 

Corridor Improvements 

(Newark-RSA)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

2 Numbers $131000 $131000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Design, develop 

and implement a 

transportation 

system that 

accommodates all 

users.

Roadway Improvements 

and resurfacing along 

CR 524 (Stage Coach 

Road) - Section I

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

$280000 $280000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

Lyons Avenue (CR 602) 

Phase II

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$3573000 $3573000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection

Safety. 

Chancellor Avenue (CR 

601) - Phase II

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

$3073000 $3073000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Develop and 

implement New 

Jersey Best 

Practices for 

Intersection 

Safety. 

Horizontal Curve Safety 

Treatment, RT 50 (69% 

RURAL)

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

$774000 $774000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Identify and 

implement 

engineering 

solutions to 

prevent and 

minimize roadway 

departure crashes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

This year, the reporting period for the 2017 Annual Safety Report (ASR) has been changed from the Federal Fiscal Year to Calendar Year. The NJDOT decided to change the reporting period to accurately report the projects which got 

authorized in that particular year.

Therefore, the list of projects included in this 2017 report will be very similar to the list of projects included in the 2016 ASR. The projects that were authorized between October 2015 and December 2015 are excluded and the projects 

that were authorized between October 2016 and December 2016 are added.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 61
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 61

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 590 584 556 627 590 542 556 562 603

Serious Injuries 1,727 1,581 1,566 1,412 1,281 1,134 990 1,138 975

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.817 0.802 0.772 0.858 0.797 0.727 0.743 0.745 0.805

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.391 2.170 2.174 1.932 1.731 1.522 1.323 1.509 1.268

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

158 172 152 159 175 146 180 190 184

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

341 324 357 312 291 214 185 212 198
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 61

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 61

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

As the crash data keeps changing with time, data calculations reported are based on the data collected on July 7, 2017.

In 2016 ASR, Plan4Safety data was used to find the general trends. From this year forward, the NJDOT Accident Records Database (ARD) will be 

used as the authoritative data source for the Annual Safety Report (ASR) with the exception of Fatalities. For Fatalities, the FARS data had been 

used in the past and will continue to be used in future as well. 

Fatalities and SI are counted by the number of people being killed or injured instead of counting the number of crashes. To date, the official FARS 

data is not available for 2016. The NJSP data, as of August 25, 2017, has been used for 2016 fatalities.

In 2016 ASR, private property crashes were included in the calculations for all of the years. This year’s report excludes private property crashes 

from the calculations.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 61

Fatalities for the General Trends were taken from FARS except for the year 2016. To date, the official FARS data is 

not available for 2016. The NJSP data, as of August 25, 2017, has been used for 2016 fatalities.

Fatalities for Functional Classification were taken from FARS except for the year 2016 because of the same reason 

mentioned above. NJDOT/ARD data was used for 2016.

Fatalities for Roadway Ownership were taken from FARS except for the year 2016 because of the same reason 

mentioned above. NJDOT/ARD data was used for 2016.

To the maximum extent possible, present this data by functional classification and ownership.

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

6 3.6 0.52 0.31

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

2.4 1.8 0.53 0.4

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

15 18.6 1.5 1.87

Rural Minor Arterial 15 13.4 2.27 2.09

Rural Minor Collector 3.6 4.8 1.66 2.26

Rural Major Collector 16.8 26 2.04 3.16

Rural Local Road or Street 13.4 10.2 2.31 1.56

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

56.4 55.2 0.39 0.38

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

50.8 47.4 0.4 0.32

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

162.8 281.6 0.99 1.72

Urban Minor Arterial 121.4 248.6 1.09 2.24

Urban Minor Collector 0.6 3.2 0.08 0.25

Urban Major Collector 18.2 34.4 0.4 0.76
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 61

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Urban Local Road or Street 47 86 0.46 0.82
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 61

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 240.6 337.8 0.8 1.12

County Highway Agency 179.8 375.6 1.23 2.58

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

94.8 222.6 1.81 4.24

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency 0 0.4 0 0.23

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority 50 40.8 0.36 0.3

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

10.8 165 0.09 1.42

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 61

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 61

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 61

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 61

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 61

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 61

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 61

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The two categories namely “Other Freeway and Expressway” and “Minor Collector” under Functional Classification table 

may have skewed results because of the changes in Roadway Functional System since 2015. An accurate representation 

of the 5-year rolling averages in these categories will resume in 2020.

Serious Injury data was taken from NJDOT/ARD. 

Fatalities for Functional Classification were taken from FARS except for the year 2016 since the official FARS data for 

2016 was not available at the time of the preparation of report. NJDOT/ARD data was used for 2016.

Fatalities for Roadway Ownership were taken from FARS except for the year 2016 since the official FARS data for 2016 

was not available at the time of the preparation of report. NJDOT data/ARD data was used for 2016..

For Roadway ownership, the 2015 and 2016 records were geocoded based on the 2016 Roadway Network (RN). Every 

crash with a route number and a mile post was located spatially on the RN and a roadway (jurisdiction) functional code 

was returned as a result.

VMTs were provided by NJDOT Roadway Information and Traffic Monitoring System.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 61

The fatalities and serious injuries for the year 2016 in the Performance Target calculations don't match exactly with the 

fatalities and serious injuries for the General Trends. The safety targets were set in early May, 2017 prior to the time 

crash data for 2016 was closed. The NJSP data, as of January 24, 2017, were used for 2016 fatalities. The NJDOT data, as 

of January 26, 2017, was used for 2015 serious injuries and used to project an estimate of 2016 serious injuries based on 

the available crash data accumulated to date at that time.

For the General Trends calculations, fatalities and serious injuries were taken from data as of 7/7/17.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 586 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Number of Serious Injuries 1105 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Fatality Rate 0.778 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Serious Injury Rate 1.467 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 386.5 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 

See attached file called "ASR - Safety Target Answers" 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The fatalities and serious injuries for the year 2016 in the Performance Target calculations don't match exactly with the 

fatalities and serious injuries for the General Trends. The safety targets were set in early May, 2017 prior to the time 

crash data for 2016 was closed. The NJSP data, as of January 24, 2017, were used for 2016 fatalities. The NJDOT data, as 

of January 26, 2017, was used for 2015 serious injuries and used to project an estimate of 2016 serious injuries based on 

the available crash data accumulated to date at that time.

For the General Trends calculations, fatalities and serious injuries were taken from data as of 7/7/17.

Describe efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders (e.g. MPOs, SHSO) to establish safety performance 

targets. 

The NJDOT took the lead to establish the five safety performance targets. Several meetings with the MPOs 

and DHTS took place during the process. The New Jersey Division FHWA Safety Engineer also attended these 

meetings and offered input in an advisory capacity. Meetings started in the second half of 2016 and carried 

forward into 2017 until all the targets were set. Throughout the process, the NJDOT coordinated with MPOs 

and DHTS to: a) share data for the measures, b) develop and discuss methods to set statewide targets, and c) 

discuss preliminary targets. After obtaining final fatal and SI numbers, the NJDOT developed the final safety 

performance targets using the methodology that was agreed upon in earlier meetings. The NJDOT 

coordinated these targets with the DHTS and obtained their concurrence.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

Does the HRRR special rule apply to the State for this reporting period? 

Yes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

New Jersey is a densely populated state and therefore comprises of limited length of roadways which can be 

qualified under HRRR program. For systemic projects specially, there were portions of roadways which met the 

HRRR criteria and received safety improvements but could not be funded with HRRR funds. It is very difficult 

to manage a project to keep track of split funding. Therefore it has been decided that the general HSIP funds 
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 61

will be used for the projects even if they have portions which qualify for HRRR funds. The projects where the 

complete project area meet the HRRR criteria will be funded by the set aside HRRR funds.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

103 112 100 97 118 102 107

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

159 142 111 144 104 106 139

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 61

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced)

Lives saved

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

NJDOT currently evaluates the safety projects funded by HSIP based on before and after crash data and the Benefit Cost 

Ratio. We don’t do the overall formal Program Evaluation. The overall Safety Performance Measure chart, which 

includes fatalities, serious injuries and their rates, gives us an idea how New Jersey is performing in the area of traffic 

and pedestrian safety.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and success of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 61

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 299.8 568.6 0.4 0.76

Intersections 140.6 377 0.19 0.5

Older Drivers 119.2 185.6 0.16 0.25

Motorcyclists 60.2 119.8 0.08 0.16

Reduce Young Driver 

Crashes

63 143.6 0.08 0.19

Reduce Impaired Driving 73.2 211.8 0.1 0.28

Drawsy & Distracted 205.8 498.6 0.27 0.66

Aggressive Driving 168.2 345.2 0.23 0.46

Ped. & Bike 155.6 210.6 0.21 0.28

Unbelted 283.4 461.6 0.38 0.61

Heavy Vehicle 72.2 79 0.1 0.11

Unlicensed Drivers 74.4 145.6 0.1 0.19

Work zone 11.8 15.6 0.01 0.02

Railcar-Vehicle 0.8 0.2 0 0
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 61

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 61

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 61

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 61

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Somerset -

Hamilton Street 

(CR 514) and 

Franklin 

Boulevard (CR 

617)

Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

12.00 16.33 4.00 3.33 16.00 19.66 0.11

Monmouth - Front 

Street/River Road 

(CR 10)

Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

14.00 23.67 0.67 14.67 23.67 -2.18

Somerset - South 

Main Street (CR 

527) and Main 

Street (CR 533)

Urban Minor 

Collector

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

45.67 54.00 3.67 1.33 49.34 55.33 3.30

Hudson - JFK 

Boulevard (CR 

501) and JFK 

Boulevard East 

(CR 693)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

188.00 218.33 20.33 35.67 208.33 254.00 -87.09

Essex -

Springfield 

Avenue (CR 603) 

at 40th 

Street/Florence 

Avenue

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

8.33 14.33 2.67 1.00 11.00 15.33 2.34

HRRR - Sussex -

Rudetown Road 

(CR 517), 

Lewisburg 

Creamery Road 

(CR 565), Glen 

Road (CR 620), 

Deckertown 

Turnpike (CR 650)

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

2.67 1.33 2.67 1.33 0.85

HRRR - Warren -

Great Meadows 

Road (CR 611) 

from Route 46 to 

CR 519

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips - center 15.00 13.00 15.00 13.00 0.86

HRRR - Warren -

Cedar Lake Road 

(CR 616) from CR 

655 to Route 94

Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway Rumble strips - center 5.00 0.33 5.00 0.33 9.53

HRRR -

Monmouth -

Siloam Road (CR 

527)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

19.00 4.33 19.00 4.33 15.37
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 61

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

HRRR - Warren -

CR 519 from Rt. 

46 to CR 521

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement markers 26.33 30.33 26.33 30.33 -7.41

HRRR - Sussex -

Clove Road (CR 

653) from SR 206 

to New 

Mashipacong 

Road

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

18.00 11.67 18.00 11.67 3.28

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Note that the projects evaluated were constructed in 2013 or before. The program has changed significantly since then.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 61

Compliance Assessment

What date was the State’s current SHSP approved by the Governor or designated State representative?

 08/18/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2019

When does the State anticipate completing it’s next SHSP update?

 2019

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Provide the current status (percent complete) of MIRE fundamental data elements collection efforts using the table below. 

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 0 60

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 90 60 60

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 0 10

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descritor (11)

100 100 100 100 0 10

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 5 5

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 0 5
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 61

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 98 2

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 0 5

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 90

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

80 80

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

80 80

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

80 80

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

80 80

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

80 80

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 61

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 95 20

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 95 20

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

94.72 94.17 77.50 76.25 51.82 38.18 95.33 84.67 0.00 18.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

On the actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE FDE on all public roads by September 30, 2026, the current MIRE FDE are stored in the SLD database. However, NJDOT 

proposed two options/protocols for MIRE FDE accessibility:

Option1, Create the MIRE FDE database and export the data to ArcGIS Interactive Transportation Data Applications similar to the current NJDOT roadway information and Traffic Monitoring (Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow).

Option 2, provide the MIRE FDE through NJDOT current Enterprise Data Warehouse - Transportation Management System Integration Initiative (TransINFO).

The NJDOT’s BTDS currently collects many of the required MIRE elements and has developed a plan for the collection and/or update of the remaining required elements. Through BTDS’s Data Warehouse Maintenance (DWM) contract the 

following elements will be collected in the short-term (1-3 years):

• 18. Direction of Inventory

• 120. Unique Junction Identifier

• 122. Location of Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point

• 123. Location of Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point

• 126. Intersection/Junction Geometry

• 131. Intersection/Junction Traffic Control

• 178. Unique Interchange Identifier

• 182. Interchange Type

• 195. Roadway Type at Beginning of Ramp Terminal

• 199. Roadway Type at Ending of Ramp Terminal

• 201. Location of Roadway at Ending of Ramp Terminal I

In addition, the BTDS is working with all NJ MPOs to first develop a data sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to discuss and implement an action plan and time table for collection of MIRE data elements at the county and local levels.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 61

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitated No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitated No If the victim has a serious non-fatal injury 

which results in one or more of the 

following: Severe laceration resulting in 

exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood, Broken or 

distorted extremity (arm or leg), Crush 

injuries, Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations, Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body), Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene, or 

Paralysis

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); Crush 

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body); Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene; or 

Paralysis

Yes

Crash Database Incapacitated No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitated No If the victim has a serious non-fatal injury 

which results in one or more of the 

following: Severe laceration resulting in 

exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in 

significant loss of blood, Broken or 

distorted extremity (arm or leg), Crush 

injuries, Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations, Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body), Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene, or 

Paralysis

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); Crush 

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; Significant burns 

(second and third degree burns over 10% 

or more of the body); Unconsciousness 

when taken from the crash scene; or 

Paralysis

Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The NJDOT will bring the non-compliant name to the State Traffic Resources Coordinating Committee's (STRCC) attention to plan a revision to the existing name. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2017

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 61

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2016 HSIP Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

HSIP PM Targets 2018 - Final and Approved.xlsx

ASR - Safety Target Answers.docx

Safety Targets Letter to FHWA.pdf

Evaluation:

Projects evaluated in the 2017 ASR.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2017 New Jersey Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 61

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, 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 non-infrastructure 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. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

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.