Page 1 of 40

CONNECTICUT

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 40

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................15

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................15

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................17

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................21

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................21

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................31

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................32

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................32

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................32

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................35

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................36

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................39

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................40
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 40

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. 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.”
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 40

Executive Summary

The reporting period for 2021 is from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. Connecticut's (5 year rolling 

average) fatalities and fatal crash rates have increased in calendar years 2019 and 2020. Both (5 year rolling 

average) serious injuries and the serious injury crash rate have seen little change in recent years. Connecticut 

uses HSIP resources to incorporate safety improvements across a broad range of maintenance, safety and 

non-infrastructure projects. Innovative methodologies developed and used by CTDOT will continue to identify 

more locations, on a statewide scale, with the greatest potential for crash reduction. Applications of new 

Highway Safety Manual concepts and systemic approaches are also being integrated into the HSIP program. 

The SHSP will target goals and devise strategies in each emphasis area to see where improvements can be 

made in order to support the vision of moving towards zero deaths.

Since CT did not meets its 2019 safety performance targets, an HSIP Implementation Plan was prepared and 

submitted to the Division Office, which was accepted in September 2020 ( https://portal.ct.gov/-

/media/DOT/documents/dtrafficdesign/CT-HSIP-implementation-plan.pdf ). CTDOT took this opportunity to reevaluate its HSIP investments and identify gaps and deficiencies to ensure that projects identified, prioritized, 

and programmed have the best potential for reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Consideration is also being 

made to help CT meet safety performance targets in subsequent years.
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 40

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. 

CTDOT's Safety Engineering Section, which is located within the Division of Traffic Engineering, Bureau of 

Engineering and Construction utilizes both the spot improvement approach and the systemic approach to 

identify, select, and implement HSIP projects. The spot improvement approach, known as High Frequency 

Crash Locations (HFCL), results in safety investments at specific locations. The systemic approach leads to 

widespread implementation of treatments to reduce the potential for fatalities and/or serious injuries, 

regardless of if crashes occurred at a given site. Since many of CT's fatal and serious injury crashes are 

spread out across all public roads, the systemic approach provides an alternate method to identify and 

implement low-cost safety countermeasures addressing specific risk factors across the entire roadway 

network. As data becomes available, spot and systemic improvement projects will be evaluated to determine 

their effectiveness.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

Traffic

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

Local Roads are addressed by the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP). The LRSP provides federal funding for 

safety-related improvements on the non-State-maintained roadways, to address hazardous elements identified 

at locations and along roadway sections. To address all public roads requirement, Regional Transportation 

Safety Plans (RTSP) have been prepared for each of the nine regional councils of government (COG). The 

RTSPs identify key safety issues for all public roads. The plans utilized are similar to Connecticut’s Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) but focused instead on the local and regional level needs of the individual 

communities and region. Since RTSPs include all public roads, communities will be made aware of potential or 

emerging safety issues on locally owned and maintained roadways and recommendations on how to address 

them. Once all nine RTSPs have been finalized, there will be a new application process for HSIP projects not 

on the State system. Project sponsors will be encouraged to examine a full range of options starting with lowcost spot and systemic treatments such as signs and pavement markings, to mid-range solutions such as 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 40

traffic signals, turning lanes or roadway realignment. The applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on

factors such as crash analysis, regional or local priority, and benefit/cost analysis. Additional program details 

will made available at a later date. Local road projects are also included in the HSIP Implementation Plan for 

FFY2021 and for FFY2022. Projects selected are based on comprehensive data gathered; SHSP Emphasis 

Areas; and input from regional councils of government.

Tribal roads open to public travel are located in Southeastern CT and are not included in the RTSPs. The 

Tribal Nations have been invited to participate in the transportation safety planning process under the SHSP on 

numerous occasions but have not yet been involved. In the past, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has contacted the 

Department to conduct RSAs on Tribal roads and CTDOT has willingly participated. It is acknowledged that 

tribal roads qualify for HSIP funding. Contact information for CT's State and Federal transportation officials are 

available under the Transportation Safety for Tribal Governments website.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The Safety Engineering Section within the Department's Division of Traffic Engineering conducts network 

screening on the state system to determine those intersection and segments that have the greatest potential 

for injury reduction. The lists are forwarded to the Operations Section within Traffic Engineering which reviews 

locations for possible highway safety improvements and the Highway Division’s Highway Management Unit 

(HMU). All of the sections coordinate and collaborate with each other as necessary. The study locations 

typically originate from internal databases, such as High Frequency Crash Location (HFCL) lists or via 

appointed and elected officials, town officials, or the public. Depending on the cost and scope of the 

countermeasure, CTDOT’s Office of Maintenance may be requested to implement low-cost improvements 

such as traffic signal timing changes, as well as installation of signs and pavement markings. In those 

situations where the scope of work is beyond the resources of the DOT’s Division of Maintenance, the 

Operations Section recommends a project for inclusion in the CTDOT’s Capital Improvement Plan. These 

safety projects are further developed, and plans, specifications, and estimates are taken on by the 

Department's Division of Highway Design.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

• Other-Safety Circuit Rider Program

Describe coordination with external partners.

Regional Transportation Safety Plans (RTSP) are being prepared for all nine Councils of Government (COG) in 

CT. Once the plans are complete, the COGs will solicit member towns for candidate HSIP projects. CTDOT 

plans to evaluate all the projects received and will notify the COG if the project is selected for funding. The 

COGs then inform the member towns accordingly. 

The Department's Safety Section works in partnership with CT's Safety Circuit Rider Program (CT SCR) which 

provides safety-related information, training, and technical assistance to local agencies. Some of the initiatives 

include coordination of Road Safety Assessments (RSA), collection and analysis of traffic volume data, 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 40

identification of low cost safety improvements, assistance in the development of Local Road Safety Plans, 

development of a Connecticut Toolbox of Safety Resources, development of a series of Roadway Safety 

Briefs, and delivery of Local Road Safety Training. The CT SCR program also provides assistance to local 

agencies in understanding the capabilities of the new CT Crash Data Repository at the University of 

Connecticut (UCONN) and provides accurate information to local practitioners to make informed roadway 

safety decisions.

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

elaborate. 

Projects can qualify for the Department's HSIP funds and placement on the HSIP Safety Project Plan when 

they are initiated from the following sources:

- High Frequency Crash Locations (HFCL)

- Local Road Safety Program (LRSP)

- Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP)

- Projects supporting SHSP Emphasis Areas

- High Risk Rural Roads

- Regional Transportation Safety Plans (RTSPs)

- HSIP Implementation Plan

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 

See attached file.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-spot improvements (HFCL)

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 40

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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?

No

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

Horizontal curves projects on local roads are based on risk factors.

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:9/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 40

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2008

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-As supplied by the 

applicant • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 40

• 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?

No

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

Submittals by the regional planning organizations. The submittals that meet the program's criteria are 

funded.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Submittals are checked for accuracy and if the improvement yields a b/c ratio greater 

than 1.0, the submittals are forwarded to financial to obtain funding

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 B/C:50

Available funding:50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:9/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 40

• Probability of specific crash types

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

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic • Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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?
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 40

Yes

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:100

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-Interchange Geometry

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• selection committee
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 40

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:100

Program: Other-spot improvements (HFCL)

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only • Traffic

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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?

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).
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 40

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness:1.0

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 21.2

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-Speed Management Program

• Rumble Strips

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

• Other-CT Roadway Safety Management System

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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.

CTDOT, in partnership with UCONN, is currently updating the agency's safety analysis tools and methods to 

match the six-step safety management process as described in the HSM. CT's Roadway Safety Management 

System (CRSMS) has a network screening module which is used to identify and rank sites with a higher than 

predicted crash frequency for specific roadway types, crash types, or the presence of a specific traffic control 

device. In the diagnosis module, users can create collision diagrams and crash trees as well as conduct a test 

of proportions. Condition diagrams are also available to provide a visual site overview and can be used in 

coordination with the collision diagram. CTDOT is also using IHSDM in the safety planning process to evaluate 

and compare design alternatives.
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 40

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

The reporting period is October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $27,683,333 $33,737,322 121.87%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$466,044 $466,044 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$8,241,422 $8,341,422 101.21%

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 $36,390,799 $42,544,788 116.91%

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

safety projects?

$2,316,138

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

$3,329,130

7.8% of the total HSIP funding was for local road safety projects.

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

$6,405,430

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

$8,680,430

20.4% of the total HSIP funding was for non-infrastructure projects.
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 40

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$15,356,714

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

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

the future.

None.
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 40

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0015-

0335CN

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

1 Locations $5400684 $6000760 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,700 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0015-

0335CN+

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

1 Locations $240984 $267760 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,700 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0034-

0324RW+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $337500 $375000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,300 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0063-

0678CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – Modern 

Roundabout

1 Locations $50527 $50527 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

12,200 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0076-

0221CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $321210 $356900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

25,600 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0079-

0243CN

Roadside Barrier - other 14 Locations $550564 $613138 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep 

Vehicles on 

Road

0087-

0146CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $377663 $419625 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

15,400 25 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0088-

0194CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $167346 $185940 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

10,800 15 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0093-

0213PL

Miscellaneous Transportation safety 

planning

1 Plan $1540000 $1540000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Data Records

0093-

0214PL

Miscellaneous Transportation safety 

planning

1 Plan $860000 $860000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Data Records

0094-

0260CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

3 Intersections $990000 $1100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

17,900 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0106-

0126CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $422724 $469693 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther35,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0106-

0126CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $338748 $376387 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther35,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0144-

0196CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $1889518 $1889518 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 19,750 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0144-

0196CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $46911 $55736 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 19,750 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0170-

3455HO+

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous - other 1 Safety Patrol $1800000 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Safety Patrol Other

0170-

3480PL+

Miscellaneous Transportation safety 

planning

1 Report $157500 $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Critical 

Roadway 

Locations

Reduce 

Conflicts

0170-

3501PL+

Miscellaneous Transportation safety 

planning

7 Plan $100000 $100000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Data Records

0170-

3565PL

Miscellaneous Data analysis 1 Plan $1500000 $1500000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Safety Plan Records

0170-

3566PL

Speed 

management

Speed management - other 238 Signs $136956 $136956 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Safety Patrol Other

0170-

3566PL

Speed 

management

Speed management - other 238 Signs $466044 $466044 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Safety Patrol Other

0170-

3569PL

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Plan $1902430 $1902430 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Not 

applicable

Data Records

0171-

0393CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $87853 $87853 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 36,400 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0171-

0434CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

5 Intersections $1650400 $1650400 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0171-

0454PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

11 Crosswalks $125550 $139500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce 

Conflicts

0172-

0443CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $152992 $152992 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0172-

0450CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $922406 $922406 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0172-

0495PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

29 Crosswalks $455400 $506000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0468CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $2438992 $2438992 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0468CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0468CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $910686 $910686 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0468CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $1944448 $1944448 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0487RW

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0487PE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $47000 $47000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0500PE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and 

ITS - other

40 Intersections $1100000 $1100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0501PE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and 

ITS - other

40 Intersections $1300000 $1300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Conflicts

0173-

0507PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

14 Crosswalks $217350 $241500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce 

Conflicts

0174-

0391CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $50986 $50986 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0174-

0399CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $91441 $91441 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0174-

0405CN

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $4489867 $4489867 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0174-

0405CN+

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacement

17 Intersections $27463 $27463 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce 

Conflicts

0174-

0417CN

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

1500 Curves $2427340 $2427340 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep 

Vehicles on 

Road

0174-

0435PE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and 

ITS - other

50 Intersections $825000 $825000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Conflicts

0174-

0436PE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and 

ITS - other

50 Intersections $925000 $925000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Conflcits

0174-

0438PE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid Rectangular 

Flashing Beacons (RRFB)

30 Crosswalks $319050 $354500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce 

Conflicts
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 40

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 264 286 248 270 304 281 293 249 309

Serious Injuries 1,779 1,523 1,356 1,526 1,689 1,641 1,361 1,344 1,304

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.840 0.924 0.795 0.855 0.961 0.892 0.930 0.788 0.978

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.690 4.920 4.348 4.830 5.338 5.210 4.308 4.253 4.127

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

47 40 51 49 65 52 61 59 63

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

247 226 210 251 307 302 255 247 197
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 40

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 40

In some cases, the values from previous years were updated to reflect the most recent data. The fatalities data 

for 2020 is from the UCONN Crash Data Repository since FARS data is not available. 2019 and 2020 data 

was acquired on July 7, 2021.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

FARS except for 2020 data which is from UCONN's Crash Data Repository.

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

ownership.

Year 2019

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

2.2 0.47

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 40

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 Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

44.6 0.45

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

24.2 0.58

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

57.6 1.51

Urban Minor Arterial 77 1.49

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 37.8 1.45

Urban Local Road or 

Street

32.8 1.29

Other 3.4
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 40

Year 2018

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

196.4 479.4

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

83 747.2

City or 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

FARS is the source for the number of fatalities based on functional class. Only data up to 2019 is available.

The source of data for HMVMT is FHWA Table VM-2 for 2018.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:270.0
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 40

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

"Annual" Fatalities.

o The annual number of fatalities have fluctuated from year to year, but the annual data also

suggest a downward trend since a high point of 320 in 2010. The year 2020 has been an

exception when most of the states in the U.S., including CT, saw an increase in traffic fatalities

with a significant drop in traffic volume during the COVID-19 pandemic.

o A time series regression analysis was conducted to project the likely number of fatalities in 2021

and 2022 (our target year). Based on the regression analysis, we should expect the fatalities

around 290, but there is a significant amount of statistical variance around the projection.

Year Moving Average.

o The 5-year moving average trendline shows the projected fatalities of around 290, similar to the

projection with the annual numbers for the target year of 2022.

TARGET: 

o CTDOT is choosing to set a 2022 fatality target of 270. The selection is based on careful

consideration of the following:

1. CTDOT has chosen to set an aggressive target that will move the state back toward

fatality levels experienced in 2014 - 2015.

There has been a decreasing trend in the number of fatalities for the past couple of years with safety 

related infrastructure projects as well as enforcement and educational campaigns. CTDOT recognizes 

that 2020 was an unusual year with the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in higher than expected 

traffic fatalities when the traffic volume was significantly lower. This was an unexpected consequence 

observed in most of the states in the U.S. 

Number of Serious Injuries:1300.0

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

"Annual" Serious Injuries. 

• The annual number of serious injuries have fluctuated from year to year, but the annual data also

suggest a major downward trend since a high point of 2,033 in 2010.

• A time series regression analysis was conducted to project the likely number of serious injuries in 2021

and 2022 (our target year). Based on the regression analysis, we should expect large drop in serious

injuries. The drop is expected to bring the annual number down to around 1,200, but there is a

significant amount of statistical variance around the projection.

5-Year Moving Average.

• Unlike the case for fatalities, the 5-year moving average for serious injuries is exhibiting a steady

downward trend. Nonetheless, there is still a large difference between the 5-year average trendline and

the annual regression analysis forecast. The 5-year average is expected to drop to around 1,439, while

the regression forecast is around 1,200.

TARGET: 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 40

• CTDOT is choosing to set a 2022 target of 1,300 serious injuries. The selection is based on careful 

consideration of the following:

1. The 2 trendlines in the graph suggest the actual value should lie fall between 1,203 - 1,439.

CTDOT wants to set an aggressive target that will move the state back toward serious injury levels 

experienced in 2014 or lower.

Fatality Rate:0.850

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

"Annual" Fatality Rate. 

• The annual fatality rate has fluctuated from year to year, but the annual data suggest a downward trend 

since a high point of 1.023 fatalities/100M VMT in 2010.

• A time series regression analysis was conducted to project the likely number of fatalities in 2021 and 

2022 (our target year). Based on the regression analysis we should expect the fatality rates to drop to 

0.845, but there is a significant amount of statistical variance around the projection.

5-Year Moving Average. 

• In contrast to the annual numbers, the 5-year moving average is exhibiting an upward trend. The 

trendline for the 5-year moving average suggests the fatality rate could be up to 11% higher (or a rate 

of 0.936 versus 0.845) than rates suggested by the "annual" projection. (The annual trend reflects the 

influence of a decreasing fatality rate.)

TARGET: 

• CTDOT is choosing to set a 2022 fatality rate target of 0.850. The selection is based on careful 

consideration of the following:

1. The 2 trendlines in the graph suggest the actual value should lie fall between 0.845 and 0.936.

2. CTDOT wants to set an aggressive target that will move the state back toward fatality rate levels 

experienced in 2014 - 2015 time period.

3. CTDOT recognizes that 2020 was an unusual year with the COVID-19 pandemic where CT saw 

an increase in traffic fatalities with a significant drop on traffic volume. The 2020 Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) data will not be available until later but it is highly likely that the fatality rate for 

2020 will be higher than any of the previous years.

4. The latest available NHTSA data for 2018 suggests that historically, Connecticut has one of the 

lowest fatality rates in the country. In 2018, it had a rate of 0.930 that was the 11th lowest rate 

nationwide. The national average of 1.13 was 20% higher. Despite having an already 

exceptionally low fatality rate, Connecticut is choosing to strive for an even lower rate by setting 

target at 0.850 for 2022. The goal is to return to 2014 - 2015 levels.

Serious Injury Rate:4.300

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

"Annual" Serious Injury Rates.

• The annual serious injury rates have fluctuated from year to year, but the annual data suggest a major 

downward trend since a high point of 6.400 serious injuries/100 million VMT in 2010. 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 40

• A time series regression analysis was conducted to project the likely serious injury rates in 2021 and 

2022 (our target year). Based on the regression analysis, we should expect a large drop in the serious 

injury rates. The drop is expected to bring the annual rate down to 3.700 – 4.000, but there is a 

significant amount of statistical variance around the projection.

5-Year Moving Average. 

• Unlike the case for fatality rates, the 5-year moving average for serious injury rates is exhibiting a 

steady downward trend. Nonetheless, there is still a large difference between the 5-year average 

trendline and the annual regression analysis forecast. The 5-year average is expected to drop to 

around 4.582, while the regression forecast is 3.700 – 4.000. 

TARGET: 

• CTDOT is choosing to set a 2022 target of 4.300 serious injuries/100M VMT. The selection is based on 

careful consideration of the following:

1. The 2 trendlines in the graph suggest the actual value should lie fall between 3.700 – 4.600.

2. CTDOT wants to set an aggressive target that will move the state back toward fatality rate levels 

experienced in 2014 or lower.

3. CTDOT recognizes that 2020 was an unusual year with the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a 

decrease in the number of serious injuries and a significant drop in the traffic volume. The 2020 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data will not be available until later but it is highly likely that the 

serious injury rate for 2020 will be higher than the past couple of years due to the drop in traffic 

volume. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:280.0

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

"Annual" Non-Motorist Fatalities & Serious Injuries.

• The annual number of non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries have fluctuated from year to year, but 

the annual data also suggest a major downward trend since a high point of 372 in 2016.

• A time series regression analysis was conducted to project the likely number of non-motorist fatalities 

and serious injuries in 2021 and 2022 (our target year). There is a significant amount of statistical 

variance around the projection.

5-Year Moving Average. 

• Unlike the "annual" projections of fatalities and injuries, the 5-year moving average for non-motorist 

fatalities and serious injuries is exhibiting a steady upward trend since 2015. However, the 2020 

preliminary data is encouraging and suggests a small drop. The diverging trends yield a significant 

difference between the 5-year moving average trendline and the annual regression analysis forecast. 

The 5-year moving average is expected to increase to around 350.6, while the regression forecast is 

325-330. 

TARGET: 

• CTDOT is choosing to set a 2022 target of 280.0 non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries. The 

selection is based on careful consideration of the following:

1. High Priority for Pedestrian Safety. The safety of pedestrians became a major issue in 

Connecticut when pedestrian fatalities unexpectedly jumped in 2014. While it was part of a 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 40

larger national trend, it raised great concern in a state that is heavily urbanized and walking and 

bicycling are essential modes of transport for many residents. These forms of active 

transportation are also increasingly popular forms of physical exercise. CTDOT adopted 

pedestrian safety as a high priority, and it has a major program to improve safety and expand 

opportunities for walking and bicycling. Several safety-related infrastructure projects were

undertaken from 2015 – 2020 to improve the conspicuity of traffic control devices for nonmotorized road users including but not limited to marked crosswalk enhancements and other 

signing. Connecticut remains committed to these goals.

2. 5-year Moving Average Trendline is Problematic. Given CTDOT's commitment to pedestrian 

safety, we are unwilling to accept the higher a higher performance target of 350 fatalities and 

serious injuries that is projected using the 5-year moving average trendline.

3. "Annual" Trendline More Acceptable. The projection using regression analysis suggests a value 

between 300-330 that we believe to be more likely than the 5-year average, and it is more 

acceptable given CTDOT's goal to improve non-motorist safety.

4. Aggressive Target. The CTDOT wants to set an aggressive target that will move the state back 

toward fatality rate levels experienced in 2014 and lower.

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

safety performance targets. 

Internal coordination between the Highway Safety Office (HSO) and Traffic Engineering began in the Spring of 

2021. The HSO's contractor prepared initial targets for each of the safety performance targets for discussion. 

Once the draft targets were approved at the staff level, they were forwarded to CTDOT management for 

discussion and approval. After the targets were approved, CTDOT hosted a meeting with the MPOs to discuss 

safety performance targets. During the May 4, 2021 meeting, there was a presentation and discussion on 

Federal reporting requirements, deadlines, and an assessment on past and current trends. After the HSIP 

annual report is submitted to FHWA, CTDOT will send a letter to all the MPOs requesting a resolution from 

their policy board no later than February 28, 2022, stating that they either support CTDOT's targets or that they 

plan to set their own.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 277.0 287.2

Number of Serious Injuries 1547.0 1467.8

Fatality Rate 0.883 0.910

Serious Injury Rate 4.931 4.647

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

307.2 321.6

Number of Fatalities: 

Preliminary data suggests that target will not be achieved and is slightly worse than baseline
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 40

Number of Serious Injuries: 

Preliminary data suggests that target will be achieved and is better than baseline

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT): 

Preliminary data suggests that target will not be achieved and is slightly worse than baseline

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT): 

Preliminary data suggests that target will be achieved and is better than baseline

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries: 

Preliminary data suggests that target will not be achieved and is slightly worse than baseline

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

35 38 50 53 40 53 42

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

112 124 120 132 117 137 138

Data source for the number of older drivers and pedestrian fatalities is FARS with the exception of 2020 data 

which is from the UCONN crash data repository. Data source for the number of older drivers and pedestrian 

serious injuries in the UCONN crash data repository.
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 40

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations.

Since the number of fatalities and serious injuries trends have not changed much since last year, it is difficult to 

evaluate the State's HSIP program. The safety effectiveness evaluation module within the CT Roadway Safety 

Management System (CRSMS) will allow users to evaluate individual project(s).

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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)

Roadway Departure 178.4 468.8 0.57 1.49

Intersections 63.8 611 0.21 1.94

Pedestrians 56.2 204.2 0.18 0.65

Bicyclists 15.2 32.8 0.01 0.11

Older Drivers 30.8 100.6 0.1 0.32

Motorcyclists 51.2 236 0.16 0.75

Work Zones 4.4 8.4 0.01 0.03

Young Drivers 39.6 206.4 0.13 0.65
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 40

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

estiiltaaF

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

800

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 40

Source of data for Roadway Departure crashes for 2020 was UConn's Crash Data Repository Crash 

Dashboard.

Source of data for the rest of the crashes for 2020 was UConn's Crash Data Repository Crash Data Query 

Tool.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 40

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 40

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/01/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2021 To: 2026

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

 2026

Actual date SHSP was approved by the Governor is July 2021.

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 90 99 65 99

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 99 99

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 90 99

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 90 99 65 99

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 90 99 65 99

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 99 99 100 90
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 40

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Median Type (54) 

[55]

95 50

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 99 99

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 99 99

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 99 99 99 90

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 40

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 99.72 97.22 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 99.00 78.80 95.40

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dhighwaysafety/TRCC/Traffic-Records-Strategic-Plan-2021.pdf

MIRE FDE section begins on page 36
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 40

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

CT HSIP guide.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 40

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 noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule: applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which 

data are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance 

dated February 13, 2013.

Performance measure: means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to 

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

Programmed funds: mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.

Roadway Functional Classification: means the process by which streets and highways are 

grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on 

safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

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.