Page 1 of 51

DELAWARE

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 51

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 17

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 17

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 19

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 22

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 36

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 37

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 39

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 45

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 46
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 51

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.” 
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 51

Executive Summary

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has prepared this Annual Report for state fiscal year 

2018 (July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018) to demonstrate the success of their safety program. During the 2018 

reporting period, DelDOT continued its successful core HSIP programs – Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), 

Highway Rail-Grade Crossing Program (HRGX), and Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) as well as its 

systemic safety program. As part of the systemic program, DelDOT has been evaluating the durability of its 

high-friction pavement surface treatments at selected locations and began planning for the installation of 

sinusoidal rumble strips at test locations. DelDOT continued reviewing signing and pavement markings at all 

horizontal curves for MUTCD-compliance to identify low-cost improvements at these locations. Additionally, 

DelDOT began considering modifications to its HEP methodology.

On an annual basis, HEP sites are currently selected using the Critical Ratio methodology to identify high 

crash locations for all HSIP components. The Critical Ratio method (also known as the Rate Quality Control 

Method) uses a statistical test to determine whether the crash rate at a particular location is significantly higher 

than a predetermined average crash rate for locations of similar characteristics. A total of 15 corridors were 

studied under the HEP and 3 highway-grade crossings were studied under HRGX. Both programs continued to 

identify both low-cost remedial improvements and long-term safety improvement needs. DelDOT continued 

successful implementation of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) as part of a pilot program. Pedestrian 

safety continued to be priority through both new studies and the design and implementation of previously 

identified countermeasures. The success of these programs is demonstrated by the steady decline in the 

combined number of fatalities and serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) from 2014 to 2017. 

Although fatalities have remained relatively consistent recently, there have been noticeable decreases in 

serious injuries. In 2017, serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled was 32 percent lower than the yearly 

average from 2005 to 2016. DelDOT led efforts, in conjunction with Delaware’s Office of Highway Safety, to 

identify Delaware’s safety performance measure targets, which are included in this report. In addition, DelDOT 

continued working on improvements and enhancements to its Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) and 

implementation of safety projects developed from the HSIP. Each year DelDOT meets with the SHSP core 

committee to identify, review and evaluate the implementation of countermeasures to support the Emphasis 

Areas identified in the 2015 SHSP. Progress is tracked through implementation matrices by Emphasis Area.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 51

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. 

DelDOT’s Traffic Section leads the HSIP with support from both internal and external partners. The HSIP is 

comprised of several programs (and subprograms) that are designed to prioritize resources that target the 

most critical safety improvement opportunities as identified through data-driven approaches. The following 

programs are included in Delaware’s HSIP:

• Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) 

• Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (HRGX) 

• Systemic Safety Improvement Programs 

o Longitudinal Rumble Strips 

o Freeway Median Barrier 

o High Friction Surface Treatment 

• Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

For the HEP, fifteen spot locations throughout the state are chosen for safety studies each year. Sites are 

selected using the Critical Ratio methodology to identify high crash locations. For each site selected, DelDOT’s 

Traffic Section reviews crash data, performs a field review, and identifies potential safety improvement 

alternatives. For candidate locations where improvements are in project development, design, or construction, 

a safety audit is performed to confirm that the proposed improvements will address the identified crash 

problem. The HEP committee, which includes representatives from DelDOT (Traffic, Planning, Project 

Development, and the Maintenance Districts), Delaware State Police, FHWA, MPOs, and the counties and 

municipalities, meets to reach a consensus on the recommended safety improvements. Traffic control device 

improvements (i.e., signing, striping, lighting, and traffic signal upgrades) are then designed by DelDOT’s 

Traffic Section and implemented by DelDOT’s maintenance forces and/or on-call contractors. Projects 

requiring detailed design, public involvement, or resulting in right-of-way or environmental impacts are 

forwarded to DelDOT’s Project Development section for prioritization and inclusion in the Capital 

Transportation Program (CTP).

For the HRGX, DelDOT uses FRA’s GradeDec.NET software to calculate benefit/cost ratios for all of 

Delaware’s public highway-rail grade crossings. The benefit/cost ratios take into account the most recent five 

years of crash data, train speeds, the number of trains per day, and AADT, in addition to several other factors. 

The benefit/cost ratios at each crossing are then calculated for various upgrade alternatives. Then, all at-grade 
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 51

crossings statewide are ranked according to their benefit/cost ratios to identify candidate locations for safety 

upgrades.

Each of Delaware’s systemic safety improvement programs use a data-driven approach based on a number of 

factors, including traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, functional class, and crash history to identify and 

prioritize locations for implementing proven countermeasures. Before/after crash analysis has indicated the 

success of the high-friction surface treatment program.

Delaware’s SHSP is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework, identifies 

specific goals and objectives, and integrates the four E's - engineering, education, enforcement and 

emergency medical services (EMS). Delaware’s SHSP core agencies include DelDOT, Office of Highway 

Safety (OHS), and Delaware State Police (DSP). Additionally, several other stakeholders (e.g., Federal 

Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles, Delaware Department of Justice, Delaware Office of 

Emergency Medical Services, Delaware Transit Commission, WILMAPCO, Dover/Kent County MPO, City of 

Wilmington, and Delaware T2/LTAP Center) provide input and expertise towards the development of the 

SHSP. Together, the SHSP core agencies and stakeholders review fatal and serious injury crash data to 

identify emphasis areas to focus resources with the goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, 

working groups consisting of representatives from the relevant core agencies and stakeholders, meet to 

discuss implementation plans for specific emphasis areas.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

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

HSIP staff are located in DelDOT's Division of Transportation Solutions - Traffic Section.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office via Formula

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

DelDOT Central Office distributes HSIP funds to cover general HSIP program activities, the installation of lowcost countermeasures (signing, marking, signals, etc.) identified through the HSIP, and HSIP projects being 

design through DelDOT's Project Development group.

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

All roadways throughout the state are eligible for safety funding; however, the calculations used to identify high 

crash locations for the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) include state roadways in DelDOT's road inventory 

where traffic volumes are available. Based on a review of statewide crash data on all public roadways from 

2009 to 2011, only 4 percent of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes occur on subdivision streets and 

municipal roadways, indicating that crashes reported on these roadways would not likely meet the minimum 

crash criteria for the various HSIP elements.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 51

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Representatives from DelDOT's Traffic, Planning, Project Development, and Maintenance and Operations 

divisions participate in the HSIP as part of the HEP and SHSP committees.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency

FHWA

Other-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Other-Delaware State Police

Other-Department of Justice

Other-Delaware Office of Emergency Medical Services

Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Representatives from DelDOT’s external partners participate in the HSIP via the HEP and/or SHSP 

committees. Together, DelDOT and these agencies work together to focus resources with the goal of reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries.

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

period?

No
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 51

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. 

During FY 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018), components of Delaware’s HSIP included the Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), and the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Safety Program (HRGX). In addition, DelDOT has been investigating the application of sinusoidal rumble strips 

at several test locations to evaluate their impact and address noise concerns associated with traditional rumble 

strips. Additionally, all HFST applications to date in the state are in the process of being evaluated for their 

durability. DelDOT continued its evaluation of horizontal curves throughout the state for MUTCD-compliant 

signing and pavement markings and initiated new pedestrian safety studies along corridors exhibiting high 

pedestrian crash histories. DelDOT continued enhancements to CARS and continued their program to install 

rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at several crossing locations throughout the state. In addition, 

DelDOT developed statewide guidelines for barrier end treatment maintenance and repair and an Approved 

Products List (APL) for temporary and permanent barrier end treatments. DelDOT is currently considering 

modifications to their HEP methodology to prioritize corridors and/or intersection, including the consideration of 

fatal and injury crashes only during site selection and/or considering crash numbers in lieu of crash rates.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

File Name:

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Horizontal Curve

Pedestrian Safety

Segments

Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 51

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Horizontal curvature 

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

Probability of specific crash types

Other-All horizontal curves to be evaluated.

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-Prioritized based on functional classification

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

Available funding : 1
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 51

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes, head-on crashes, and crossmedian crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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).
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 51

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 50

Ranking based on net benefit : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All pedestrian crashes Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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?

selection committee
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 51

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 : 34

Ranking based on net benefit : 33

Cost Effectiveness : 33

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles Other-Roadway Type 

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

Critical rate

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.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 51

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Ranking based on B/C : 25

Available funding : 25

Ranking based on net benefit : 25

Cost Effectiveness : 25

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Probability of specific crash types

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

No
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 51

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-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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

Available funding : 2

Ranking based on net benefit : 1

Program: 

Other-High Friction Surface 

Treatment 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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-All wet weather roadway 

departure crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 51

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-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 6

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

apply.

High friction surface treatment

Other-Median Barrier

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

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

Stakeholder input
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 51

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? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

DelDOT has accepted the SPaT Challenge and we expect to have our first systems operational shortly. As 

vehicles manufacturers increase deployment of connected vehicles, the implementation of red light violation 

warnings and other associated applications at traffic signals via DSRC will be supportive of safety initiatives 

related to the “Intersections” emphasis area of the SHSP. Moving ahead, we expect to have a higher level of 

coordination between ITS/CAV initiatives and HSIP/SHSP initiatives than we have had in the past.

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.

DelDOT uses the HSM to compare alternatives under consideration for its HEP.

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?

Yes

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

Please see attachment for the methodology for the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) site selection process. 

DelDOT is currently considering modifications or to this methodology to prioritize corridors and/or intersection, 

including considering only fatal and injury crashes during site selection and/or considering crash numbers in 

lieu of rates.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 51

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $14,369,800 $15,919,130 110.78%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $2,420,200 $2,020,747 83.5%

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)

$19,083,300 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $1,768,792 0%

Totals $35,873,300 $19,708,669 54.94%

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

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

0%

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

0%

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

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

$433,836

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

$433,836
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 51

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

Section 154 and State funds were used for non-infrastructure projects.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

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?

0%

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

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

No impediments at this time.

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

No
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 51

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

2017 HEP Studies 

Program

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 15 Locations $189729.39 $189729.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

2016 Strategic 

Highway Safety 

Program Studies

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

1 Statewide 

Program

$209402.39 $209402.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot and 

Systemic

Various

US13 @ 

Wildel/Fern/Marsh

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 1 Intersections $228290 $228290 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

34,900 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians, 

Intersections

2015 HEP 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

$4669.5 $4669.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

Signalized Median 

Crossover 

Contract 

Documents

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

433 Intersections $4298.49 $4298.49 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Multi-Lane Divided 

Highways

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SR58 @ Cavaliers 

Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $23631.25 $23631.25 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,600 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SR2 & Duncan 

Pedestrian Safety

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Intersections $17607 $17607 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

43,900 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians, 

Intersections

Edinburgh Drive & 

Airport Road 

(N321)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $304652.95 $304652.95 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,400 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Smyrna LED 

Lighting

Lighting Continuous roadway 

lighting

0.5 Miles $21346.27 $21346.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

27,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians, 

Intersections

RRFB Installations 

at Fred Hudson 

Road & 

Trail/McCoy Way 

and Gills Neck 

Road

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 2 Locations $5370 $5370 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

SR4 Ped 

Upgrades

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

4 Intersections $227842.57 $227842.57 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

13,400 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

SR273 Roadway 

Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 2 Intersections $41210.8 $41210.8 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

32,600 50 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians, 

Intersections

High Friction 

Surface Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

1 Miles $218115.92 $218115.92 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

2018 HEP Studies 

Program

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 15 Locations $758844.59 $758844.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Various
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 51

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

2018 Strategic 

Highway Safety 

Program Studies

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

1 Statewide 

Program

$195714.22 $195714.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

Turned Down 

Guardrail Design

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Statewide $6683.92 $6683.92 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Curved Guardrail 

Inventory

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Statewide $47641.09 $47641.09 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Turned down 

Guardrail New 

Castle County

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 County $5524 $5524 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shipley and SR9 

RRFB

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Crosswalks $62928.41 $62928.41 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,025 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Cleveland and 

North College 

APS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

1 Intersections $15409.25 $15409.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,500 25 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

E. Trap Pond @ 

Whaley's Corner

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to all-way stop

1 Intersections $28616.4 $28616.4 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Collector

1,750 50 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Philly Pike and 

Manor APS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

1 Intersections $11552 $11552 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

22,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

Signalized Median 

Crossover -

Construction 

Support

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Statewide $27084.87 $27084.87 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

SR273 @ 

Whiteclay Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $55132.45 $55132.45 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

32,800 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US113 @ Kings 

Highway

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - remove 

right-turn yield

1 Approaches $156867.05 $156867.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

23,100 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Papermill @ 

Creekview

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $98041.9 $98041.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,600 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SR5 @ Hazletville 

Road

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

$77545.92 $77545.92 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-95 and SR1 

Freeway Median 

Barrier Design

Roadside Barrier - other 27 Miles $33139.27 $33139.27 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

2017 HEP 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation -

other

$7751.88 $7751.88 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

Pre-approved 

Products List -

Consultant 

services

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

1 Statewide $1919.65 $1919.65 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

City of Dover 

RRFB Installations

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 3 Crosswalks $149994.56 $149994.56 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 51

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

SR1 Impact 

Attenuator 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier end treatments 

(crash cushions, terminals)

1 Corridor $281640 $281640 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Safety Outreach 

Trailer and 

Highway Safety 

Brochure

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 1 Trailer $13001.54 $13001.54 State and Local 

Funds

0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

2017 Workzone 

Safety Campaign

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 1 Statewide $19441.8 $19441.8 State and Local 

Funds

0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

Safety Barricades Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

$48819 $48819 State and Local 

Funds

0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

Traffic Cones Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

$37350 $37350 State and Local 

Funds

0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

2018 Workzone 

Safety Campaign

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 1 Statewide $144191.57 $144191.57 State and Local 

Funds

0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

Workzone 

Inspection 

Grading System 

and Process 

Review

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

1 Statewide $17042.22 $17042.22 State and Local 

Funds

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

TTC Plan Review 

Services

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

1 Statewide $74524.12 $74524.12 State and Local 

Funds

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Work Zones

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 51

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 118 103 103 116 101 125 133 120 118

Serious Injuries 609 722 633 608 628 625 567 593 474

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.310 1.150 1.140 1.270 1.080 1.310 1.340 1.220 1.180

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.740 8.070 7.010 6.650 6.740 6.530 5.720 6.010 4.750

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

21 25 19 34 28 30 39 29 39

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

64 74 86 75 82 72 61 64 41
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 51

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 51

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2017. As 

such, 2017 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2017 VMT values. 2017 VMT 

was projected from known 2016 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2017 release), which 

indicates a 1.07% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2015-2035 for "baseline economic growth". 

For the purposes of this reporting, state data was used for both the number of fatalities and serious injuries.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

For the purposes of reporting the most recent statewide crash data trends, crash data from Delaware’s Crash 

Analysis Reporting System (CARS) was used. It should be noted that safety performance measure targets 

(and the trend line analyses to derive the targets) relied on FARS data as required by the SPM Final Rule.

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

Year 2017

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 

(RPA) - Interstate

0 0 0 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 51

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 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

And Expressways

1 3.8 0.16 0.62

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

7.4 26.6 0.78 2.88

Rural Minor Arterial 6.2 14.6 5.88 19.76

Rural Minor Collector 8.4 10.6 5.46 6.85

Rural Major Collector 14.4 34.2 2.38 5.63

Rural Local Road Or Street 7.2 34.2 1.67 7.84

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

6 23.4 0.45 1.74

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

And Expressways

2.6 9 0.44 1.5

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

29.8 134.6 1.44 6.51

Urban Minor Arterial 14.6 95.6 1.37 8.97

Urban Minor Collector 0.2 2.4 0.35 4.66

Urban Major Collector 10.6 60.2 1.35 7.7

Urban Local Road Or 

Street

8 60.8 0.87 6.64
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 51

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 0 0 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 51

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 51

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 51

0

5

10

15

20

25

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 51

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2017. As such, 

2017 crash rates were calculated based on projected 2017 VMT values. 2017 VMT was projected from known 

2016 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2017 release), which indicates a 1.07% annual 

growth rate for the 20-year period from 2015-2035 for "baseline economic growth". If needed, please see 

attached spreadsheet for the crash data. Additionally, functional classification data was updated/corrected for 

several roadways in 2014 throughout the state; therefore, comparing 2014 and 2015 crash data by functional 

classification should be done with caution. Data by roadway ownership is not available at this time.

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.

The combined number of fatalities and serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) per year increased 

by approximately 5 (less than one percent) from 2013 to 2014. From 2014 to 2017, the combined number of 

fatalities and serious injuries has steadily declined on an annual basis. Statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

has generally decreased from 2013 to 2017. Fatalities per VMT (based on 5-year rolling averages) decreased 

in 2013 when compared to 2012; however, 2014 and 2015 saw an increase in the fatality rate before declining 

in 2016 and 2017. Serious injuries per VMT (based on 5-year rolling averages) decreased annually from 2013 

to 2017 except for a slight increase in 2016 compared to 2015. In 2017, serious injuries per VMT was 32 

percent lower than the yearly average from 2005 to 2016. The raw number of fatalities and serious injuries per 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 51

year for the State of Delaware are relatively low; therefore, there is greater potential for larger fluctuations in 

fatality rates and serious injury rates as compared to other larger states and national rates, even though the 

raw number of fatalities and serious injuries may only differ by a few on a year-to-year basis.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 119.0 

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

During 2015, DelDOT, OHS, DSP, and other statewide safety partners collaborated in 

the development of the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Toward Zero 

Deaths, which provides a framework to reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting 

from crashes on Delaware’s roadways. The 2015 SHSP established a multi-year 

overall goal which includes annual target reductions (see graphic at right). In 2017, 

DelDOT and OHS performed extensive data and trendline analyses to identify 

potential methodologies for establishing Delaware’s 2018 SPM targets and met with 

FHWA and NHTSA representatives to review the data and establish the 2018 SPM 

targets. At that time, DelDOT and OHS agreed to use the annual target reductions 

included in Delaware’s 2015 SHSP overall goal as the basis for developing 

Delaware’s 2018 SPM targets. In March 2018, DelDOT, OHS, and DSP reconvened to 

establish Delaware’s 2019 SPM targets and agreed to follow the same methodology 

used for the 2018 SPM targets. As shown in the table below, the number of fatalities 

and serious injuries in 2017 were reduced by 3 and 15 per year, respectively, to obtain 

target values for 2018 and 2019. Consistent methodologies were applied to establish 

the target values for the rate of fatalities, rate of serious injuries, and combined number 

of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The 2015 through 2019 values were 

then averaged to calculate the 2019 five-year rolling average target values. The 2018 

SPM targets (established in 2017) consider safety performance through the end of 

2018; therefore, assessing achievement of the 2018 SPM targets cannot be completed 

at this time. 

Number of Serious Injuries 507.4 

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

See response for number of fatalities. 

Fatality Rate 1.190 

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

See response for number of fatalities. 
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 51

Serious Injury Rate 5.078 

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

See response for number of fatalities. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 85.0 

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

See response for number of fatalities. 

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

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

targets. 

Following a March 2018 meeting between DelDOT, OHS, FHWA, and NHTSA, the draft agreed upon safety 

performance measures were distributed to statewide stakeholders for their comment via email. Members of 

Delaware’s SHSP committee accounted for a majority of the stakeholders included in the distribution of the 

draft targets. This includes, but is not limited to, the representatives from Delaware’s MPOs, Delaware State 

Police, and Delaware’s Office of Emergency Medical Services. DelDOT did not receive any objections to the 

draft safety performance measure targets.

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? 

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 51

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

13 11 14 20 14 17 18

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

41 41 55 42 42 42 46

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

As required, the number of fatalities is based on FARS data and the number of serious injuries is based on 

State data. At the time of reporting, 2017 FARS data is unavailable; therefore, State data reported for CY 2017.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 51

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)

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.

See response to Question 33 for discussion of the change in fatalities and serious injuries.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

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 2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 51

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

Roadway Departure 39.4 95.8 0.4 0.99 0 0 0

Intersections 32.6 238.6 0.33 2.46 0 0 0

Pedestrians 30 47.6 0.31 0.49 0 0 0
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 51

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 51

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2017. As 

such, 2017 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2017 VMT values. 2017 VMT 

was projected from known 2016 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2017 release), which 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 51

indicates a 1.07% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2015-2035 for "baseline economic growth". 

Delaware’s 2015 SHSP includes 7 data-driven emphasis areas. Crash statistics for emphasis areas related to 

driver behavior (i.e., Impaired Driving, Unrestrained Motorists, Speeding) are reported in Delaware’s annual 

Highway Safety Plan .

As shown, the number of roadway departure fatalities (based on 5-year rolling averages) has remained 

relatively steady from 2013 to 2017; however, the number of roadway departure serious injuries has decreased 

during the same period. The number of intersection fatalities (based on 5-year rolling averages) remained 

relatively consistent from 2013 through 2016; however, increased by approximately four in 2017 when 

compared to 2016. The number of intersection serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) from 2013 to 

2017 peaked in 2014; however, is relatively consistent otherwise. Pedestrian fatalities (based on 5-year rolling 

averages) have increased from 2013 to 2017 and pedestrian serious injuries remained relatively consistent 

from 2013 to 2016 before decreasing approximately 12 percent.

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

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: RRFB 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Vehicle/pedestrian 

Number of Installations: 9 

Number of Installations: 9 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

First-vehicle yielding compliance 

after RRFB installation has an 

average improvement of 29 percent 

throughout the 9 sites. 

File Name: RRFB Countermeasure Evaluation.pdf

CounterMeasures: New Signals 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 36 

Number of Installations: 36 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: Various. Please see attached study. 

File Name: Crash Trends at New Signal Installations_Update 091217.pdf
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 51

CounterMeasures: HAWK Pedestrian Signal 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Vehicle/pedestrian 

Number of Installations: 4 

Number of Installations: 4 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

92% of vehicles stopped correctly for 

HAWK signal. See attached study for 

further details. 

File Name: HAWK_Study_Report_December2017.pdf
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 51

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 OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

See comments.

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

No elaboration at this time.

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

No
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 51

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/31/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 80

Surface Type (23) 100 0 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 0

Access Control (22) 100 0
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 51

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 80

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 51

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

Interchange Type (182) 0 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 72.22 100.00 87.50 90.91 100.00 100.00 84.44 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

There are no non-state maintained interchanges/ramps in the state; therefore, the non-state maintained interchange/ramp section is not applicable. A value of 100 % was entered for the purposes of reporting.

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.

DelDOT is currently in the development stages of their Transportation System Data Management (TSDM) system which will incorporate the FDEs. Data collection to provide FDEs for state-maintained roads has occurred and was 

completed in October 2015. DelDOT is working towards meeting the FDE requirement by September 2026.

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 Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes See MMUCC 4th Edition definition. Yes See MMUCC 4th Edition definition. Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary WORK IN PROGRESS No WORK IN PROGRESS No WORK IN PROGRESS No

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

Delaware’s crash report form, crash report form instruction manual, and crash database are compliant with the MMUCC, 4th Edition name and definition for a suspected serious injury. DelJIS is currently working towards developing the 

crash database data dictionary, which will be compliant once completed.

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.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 51

2019

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

DelDOT is continually assessing its HSIP; however, did not complete a formal program assessment during the reporting period. DelDOT is currently considering modifications to its HEP methodology to prioritize corridors and/or 

intersections, including considering only fatal and injury crashes during site selection and/or considering crash numbers in lieu of rates.
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 51

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2018 HSIP Annual Report HEP Site Selection.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

HSIP_Q32(FuncClass)_2018.xlsx

Evaluation:

RRFB Countermeasure Evaluation.pdf

Crash Trends at New Signal Installations_Update 091217.pdf

HAWK_Study_Report_December2017.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 51

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.