Page 1 of 39

DELAWARE

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 39

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 .......................................................................................................................15

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................27

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................29

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................30

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................30

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................30

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................34

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................35
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 39

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.”
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

Executive Summary 

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

2019 (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019) to demonstrate the success of their safety program. During the 2019 

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 continued 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 modified its HEP methodology to place an emphasis on crash severity and intersections.

With the modified site selection methodology, ten HEP segment sites are selected using the Critical Ratio 

methodology to identify high crash locations. 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 (crash rates are based on three years of fatal and 

injury crash data) for locations of similar characteristics. Additionally, a new Intersection HEP has been

developed to prioritize intersections with the highest potential for reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes. 

A total of five signalized and five unsignalized intersections are studied. Under the FY 2019 HRGX, all 

locations identified with a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0 had an active or planned project; therefore, no 

locations were evaluated for safety improvements in FY 2019. Both programs continued to identify both lowcost 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 2018. From 2014 to 2017, annual fatalities 

averaged 124; however, decreased to 111 in 2018. Compared to the previous year, the number of serious 

injuries decreased by approximately 20 percent in CY 2017 and CY 2018. 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. Based on a preliminary assessment, Delaware has met or made significant progress 

toward meeting four of the five 2018 safety performance measure targets. 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.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 39

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, twenty spot locations throughout the state are chosen for safety studies each year. Ten sites are 

selected using the Critical Ratio methodology to identify high crash locations and ten intersection sites (5 

signalized; 5 unsignalized) are selected using a crash index methodology. 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 

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

upgrades.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

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.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

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

DelDOT's Central Office distributes HSIP funds to cover general HSIP program activities, the installation of 

low-cost countermeasures (signing, marking, signals, etc.) identified through the HSIP, and HSIP projects 

being designed 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.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

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. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• 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

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.

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

DelDOT revised the site selection methodology for its Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) in 2018. Please refer 

to Question 20 for additional information.

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

elaborate. 

During FY 2019 (July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019), 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 continued 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 High-Friction Surface Treatment (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 the 

Crash Analysis and Reporting System (CARS) and continued their program to install rectangular rapid flashing 

beacons (RRFBs) at several crossing locations throughout the state. DelDOT made modifications to their HEP 

methodology to place an emphasis crash severity and intersections to more closely align with their SHSP. 

Details of these changes can be found in an attachment to the Program Methodology section of this report.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Horizontal Curve

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Segments

• Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

• Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

Program: Horizontal Curve

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? 

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Horizontal curvature 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-All horizontal curves to be evaluated.

• 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? 

• 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 
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

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

Program: Median Barrier

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? 

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All roadway departure crashes, 

head-on crashes, and cross-median 

crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Relative severity index

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? 

• 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 
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

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:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

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 

Other-All pedestrian crashes Functional classification 

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). 

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:34
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

Ranking based on net benefit:33

Cost Effectiveness:33

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Segments

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 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles Other-Roadway Type 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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? 

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
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 39

Program: Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

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? 

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

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? 

• 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? 

• 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
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

Program: Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

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? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All wet weather roadway 

departure crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• 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? 

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? 

 2.8

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• High friction surface treatment
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

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

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.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

Please see attached memorandum discussing changes to the HEP methodology.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 39

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,081,900 $3,141,528 34.59%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$2,408,900 $3,146,150 130.61%

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)

$34,217,300 $349,059 1.02%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $45,708,100 $6,636,737 14.52%

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%

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

$236,073

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

$236,073

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%
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

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. 

No impediments at this time.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

2018 HEP Studies Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 20 Locations $345956.9

1

$345956.9

1

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Various

Papermill and 

Creekview

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersection

s

$151124.9

7

$151124.9

7

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,60

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Curved guardrail 

inventory - 

consultant tasks

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Statewide $27481.53 $27481.53 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Signalized Median 

Crossover 

Documents - 

Construction 

Support

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Statewide $22822.3 $22822.3 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Turndown 

guardrail in New 

Castle County

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 County $61818.64 $61818.64 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shipley Road and 

SR9 - RRFB 

Installation

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Crosswalks $7506.1 $7506.1 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,025 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Philly Pike and 

Manor

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

1 Intersection

s

$9108 $9108 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 22,60

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

SR2 

Albertson/Prices 

Corner

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Crosswalk 1 Locations $516950.0

4

$516950.0

4

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther50,60

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

SR5 and 

Hazletville Road 

Survey

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

$20 $20 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

US13 Dover 

Pedestrian Study

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Locations $106077.5

1

$106077.5

1

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther56,40

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

I-95 and SR1 

Freeway Median 

Barrier Design

Roadside Barrier - other 27 Miles $150559.6 $150559.6 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR4 and Brennan Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$108795.2 $108795.2 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther31,40

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Boxwood Road 

Lighting

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 1.25 Miles $480607.9

5

$480607.9

5

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,00

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

2019 HEP Studies Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 20 Locations $865213.0

8

$865213.0

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

2019 SHSP Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Statewide $154818.2

5

$154818.2

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Various

Dover RRFB 

Installation

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 3 Crosswalks $3669 $3669 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Safety Audit for 

Roundabout at 

Howell School 

Road and PC 

Peoples Road

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Intersection

s

$15820.24 $15820.24 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Collector 5,211 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

HEP Sites A& C - 

SR5 & 

Anderson/Johnso

n

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Locations $161087.6

9

$161087.6

9

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 1,500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Nantioke RRFB 

Installation

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Locations $31767.3 $31767.3 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Major Collector 8,600 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

US13 @ Redden Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

1 Intersection

s

$17949.9 $17949.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther32,38

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

SR1 Interchange 

mile markers 

installation

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $57396.1 $57396.1 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

56,00

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

POW/MIA RRFB Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

2 Locations $89809.88 $89809.88 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,258 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

US40 and 

LaGrange

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

1 Intersection

s

$51662.6 $51662.6 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther36,43

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

High Friction 

Support

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1 Statewide $72360.74 $72360.74 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

West Denney's 

Road Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$167935.3

7

$167935.3

7

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 49600 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Alder Signal & 

Cleveland RRFB

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Locations $165481.2 $165481.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 22,50

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Philly Pike Lighting 

Design

Lighting Lighting - other 1 Corridor $54510.32 $54510.32 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Arterial 14,80

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Philly Pike road 

Diet

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

1 Corridor $43941.48 $43941.48 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Arterial 14,80

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

Wyoming Road @ 

Pomeroy

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Locations $89000 $89000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Major Collector 15,10

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Flashing Red 

Arrow Safety 

Studies

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Statewide $58710.17 $58710.17 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot

US13 and SR24 

Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$41227.5 $41227.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther26,28

2

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

2016 HEP 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other $28021 $28021 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

US9 and Sussex 

Central

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$157381.7

2

$157381.7

2

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,30

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Green and 

Albertson

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

1 Intersection

s

$9161 $9161 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 9,800 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Site N - City of 

Wilmington 

Signals

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal timing - leftturn phasing (permissive to 

protected/permissive)

1 Intersection

s

$12233.5 $12233.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,50

0

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

SR54 Corridor 

Study

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $11503.68 $11503.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 7,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

Median Barrier 

Installation

Roadside Barrier - cable 10.5 Miles $3439986.

3

$3439986.

3

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

46,50

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SR4 @ Boxwood Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$2813 $2813 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,19

6

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

2017 HEP 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other $100675.8

9

$100675.8

9

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Various
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

The reported total project costs and HSIP costs shown are the costs for the reporting period (i.e., FY 2019).
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 39

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 103 103 116 101 125 133 120 119 111

Serious Injuries 722 633 608 628 625 567 593 477 377

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.150 1.140 1.270 1.080 1.310 1.340 1.180 1.230 1.130

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.070 7.010 6.650 6.740 6.530 5.720 5.840 4.930 3.850

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

25 19 34 28 30 39 30 38 29

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

74 86 75 82 72 61 64 41 63
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 39

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 39

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2018. As 

such, 2018 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2018 VMT values. 2018 VMT 

was projected from known 2017 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2018 release), which 

indicates a 1.2% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2016-2036 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

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 2018

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

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

2 4.4 0.33 0.77

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 39

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

6.6 24.2 0.8 2.93

Rural Minor Arterial 6.2 16.6 2.59 15.68

Rural Minor Collector 9.6 20.2 4.08 6.21

Rural Major Collector 13 27.4 2.98 6.43

Rural Local Road Or 

Street

8.8 34.2 2.12 8.21

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

6.4 25.2 0.46 1.82

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways And 

Expressways

3.6 9.6 0.57 1.49

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

29.8 126 1.37 5.81

Urban Minor Arterial 15.6 89.2 1.43 8.15

Urban Minor Collector 4.6 21.2 0.54 4.64

Urban Major Collector 7.2 40 1.5 9.58

Urban Local Road Or 

Street

8 54.4 1.58 8.85

Unknown
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 39

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 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

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

2018 crash rates were calculated based on projected 2018 VMT values. 2018 VMT was projected from known 

2017 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2018 release), which indicates a 1.12% annual 

growth rate for the 20-year period from 2016-2036 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 pre-2014 and post-2014 crash data by 

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

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 has steadily 
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

declined on an annual basis from 2014 to 2018. Statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased annually 

from 2014 to 2016, decreased in 2017 and are projected to increase in 2018. Fatalities per VMT (based on 5-

year rolling averages) have increased annually from 2014 to 2018; however, serious injuries per VMT (based 

on 5-year rolling averages) have decreased annually from 2014 to 2018. In 2018, serious injuries per VMT was 

approximately 23 percent lower than in 2014. The raw number of fatalities and serious injuries per 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 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:112.4

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. 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. Having established an agreed upon methodology for the 2018 and 

2019 SPM targets, the three agencies coordinated in Spring 2019 to set 2020 SPM targets. As shown 

in the table below, the number of fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 were reduced by 3 and 15 per 

year, respectively, to obtain target values for 2019 and 2020. 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 2016 through 2020 values were then averaged to 

calculate the 2020 five-year rolling average target values.

Number of Serious Injuries:430.6

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

See response for number of fatalities.

Fatality Rate:1.134

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

See response for number of fatalities.

Serious Injury Rate:4.340
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

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:89.0

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

See response for number of fatalities.

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

safety performance targets. 

After coordinating with the Office of Highway Safety (OHS) and Delaware State Police (DSP) in Spring 2019, 

DelDOT distributed the draft agreed upon safety performance measures 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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 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. 

2018 SPM targets were established during 2017 to consider safety performance through the end of calendar 

year 2018. Per FHWA guidelines, fatality data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and traffic 

volume data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) will be used to officially assess 

whether a state met or made significant progress towards meeting its annual SPM targets. Both FARS data 

and HPMS data for 2018 are not yet available; therefore, officially determining whether Delaware met or made 

significant progress towards meeting its 2018 SPM targets is not possible at this time. However, a preliminary 

assessment was completed using 2018 fatality data from DelDOT’s Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) 

and projected 2018 VMT data to assess Delaware’s achievement of the 2018 SPM targets. Based on this 

preliminary assessment (described below), Delaware has met or made significant progress toward meeting 

four of the five 2018 Safety Performance Measure Targets.

1. Number of Fatalities – Delaware’s projected 2014-2018 5-year rolling average value is 120.8 or 0.6 

fatalities greater than the 120.2 target. Although this target was not met, CY 2019 fatalities were the 

lowest since CY 2013. 

2. Rate of Fatalities – Delaware’s projected 2014-2018 5-year rolling average value is 1.228, which is 

slightly higher than the 1.208 target and slightly lower than the 1.240 baseline. By being lower than the 

baseline, this SPM is met . 

3. Number of Serious Injuries – Delaware’s projected 2014-2018 5-year rolling average value is 527.8 or 

50.8 serious injuries lower than the 578.6 target; therefore, this SPM is met . This significant decrease 

is mainly driven by a decrease in yearly serious injuries in both CY 2017 and CY 2018. The reason(s) 

for this decrease are not yet clear; however, DelDOT anticipates further discussions amongst 

stakeholders will occur during development of its 2020 SHSP. 
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

4. Rate of Serious Injuries – Delaware’s projected 2014-2018 5-year rolling average value is 5.374 or 

0.448 less than the 5.822 target; therefore, this SPM is met . Refer to SPM #3 (number of serious 

injuries) for additional details. 

5. Combined Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries – Delaware’s projected 2014-2018 

5-year rolling average value is 93.2 or 1.0 lower than the 94.2 target; therefore, this SPM is met . A 

significant reduction in serious injuries in CY 2017 largely contributed to meeting this target.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

The HRRR Special Rule does not apply for Delaware in FY2019; however, it does apply for FY2020. Under the 

rule, Delaware must obligate $900,000 in FY2020 towards HRRR safety projects. At the time of reporting, 

DelDOT’s preliminary plan is to obligate half of the funds to high friction surface treatments and half for turned 

down/curve guardrail upgrades.

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

11 14 20 14 17 19 16

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

41 55 42 42 42 46 27

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, 2018 FARS data is unavailable; therefore, State data is reported for CY 

2018.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced)

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

• # RSAs completed

• More systemic programs

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

DelDOT revised the site selection methodology for its Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) in 2018. Please refer 

to Question 20 for additional information.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 38.4 85 0.39 0.87

Intersections 31.8 218 0.32 2.22

Pedestrians 29.6 46.2 0.3 0.47
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 39

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2018. As 

such, 2018 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2018 VMT values. 2018 VMT 

was projected from known 2017 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2018 release), which 

indicates a 1.2% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2016-2036 for "baseline economic growth". 

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

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 39

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 2014 to 2018; 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 20143 through 2016; however, increased by approximately four in 2017 and 2018 

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

2014 to 2018 has seen a yearly decline. Pedestrian fatalities (based on 5-year rolling averages) have 

increased from 2014 to 2017 and remained relatively consistent in 2018; however, pedestrian serious injuries 

have decreased yearly from 2014 to 2018.

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: ICB 

Description: Intersection Control Beacon 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 4 

Number of Installations: 4 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 2 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: Please refer to attached study for further 

details. 

File Name: ICB_ResearchReport_20190628_Package.pdf
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

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.

No elaboration at this time.
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 39

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

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

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

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

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 80

Surface Type (23) 100 100

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

Access Control (22) 100
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 39

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

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

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

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
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

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

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.

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

No

DelDOT is continually assessing its HSIP; however, did not complete a formal program assessment during the reporting period. DelDOT did modify 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. In 2020, DelDOT and its planning partners will be working to updates its SHSP, which will naturally provide opportunities for assessing 

the HSIP.

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2020
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2018 HSIP Methodology Update Memo 2018-12-17.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

ICB_ResearchReport_20190628_Package.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 39

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.