Page 1 of 46

CONNECTICUT

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 46

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............................................................................................................................................... 22

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

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

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 35

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 40

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 46

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary

The reporting period for 2018 is from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017.

Connecticut's (5 year rolling average) fatalities and fatal crash rates have increased in 2016. Both (5 year 

rolling average) serious injuries and the serious injury crash rate have seen little change in 2016. 

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 implementation plan will target goals and devise strategies in each emphasis area to see 

where improvements can made in order to support the vision of moving towards zero deaths. In the next fiscal 

year, CTDOT hopes to solicit a greater number of off system (non-state highway) locations with high potential 

for crash reduction with the help of local agencies partners and stakeholders.
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 46

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, implement HSIP projects. The spot improvement approach, known as the Suggested List of 

Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS), results in safety investments at specific locations while the systemic 

approach leads to widespread implementation of treatments to reduce the potential for fatalities and/or serious 

injuries, whether or not crashes have occurred at any 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 improvement projects are evaluated to determine their effectiveness.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

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

The HSIP staff is located within the Division of Traffic Engineering's Safety Engineering Section.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

The HSIP funds are administered and allocated by the central office at CTDOT.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 46

Local Roads are addressed by the Local Road Accident Reduction Program (LRARP). The LRARP provides 

federal funding for safety-related improvements on the non-state maintained roadways, to address hazardous 

elements identified at specific locations and along roadway sections. Local road crash data is available at the 

crash repository at the UCONN. Since traffic volume data for the majority of local roads is not available, an 

analytical analysis of crashes on non-state maintained roadways to determine project selection has not been 

possible. Therefore, the Department annually solicits the nine Council of Governments (COGs) in CT for 

recommended improvements on behalf of their member towns, to address identified hazardous elements. 

These improvements may address traffic signal enhancements, minor geometric improvements, roadside 

obstacles, sight line conditions, hazards to pedestrians and poor or unmarked roadways. In the future when 

more local data is available, the methodology for selection of improvements under the LRARP will be 

reevaluated. In recent years, the Department has expanded the LRARP to consider systemic improvement 

projects designed to address run-off-road fixed-object collisions on local roads. The project costs is capped at 

$500,000 per location and the local agencies are typically responsible for the non-federal share as well as 

100% of the costs for preliminary engineering and rights-of-way. All locations are reviewed and investigated by 

the Division of Traffic Engineering's Safety Engineering Section and the Division of Highway Design.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Maintenance

Operations

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The Operations' Section within the Department's Division of Traffic Engineering reviews specific locations on 

the state highway system for possible highway safety improvements. The study locations typically originate 

from internal databases, such Suggested List of Study Surveillance Sites (SLOSSS), or via appointed and 

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

CTDOT’s Office of Maintenance may be requested to implement low-cost improvements such as traffic signal 

timing changes, installation of signs and pavement markings. In those situations where the scope of work is 

beyond the resources 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 undertaken 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)

Academia/University

Other-Safety Circuit Rider Program

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

Page 7 of 46

The Transportation Safety Research Center at UCONN is developing new tools for CTDOT which will assist 

with HSIP planning activities.

Describe coordination with external partners.

The Division of Traffic Engineering's Safety Section annually solicits the nine Council of Governments (COGs) 

in CT for recommended improvements on behalf of their member towns, to address identified hazardous 

elements on local roads. Due to limited HSIP funding, each COG must prioritize the applications received and 

forward only two potential projects to CTDOT for consideration. CTDOT evaluates all the projects received and 

notifies the COG if the project is approved for funding. The COG's inform the member towns accordingly. 

The Department's Safety Section works in partnership with the 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’s), collection and analysis of traffic volume 

data, 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 UCONN and provides 

accurate information to local practitioners to make informed roadway safety decisions.

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

period?

Yes

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

The Transportation Safety Research Center at UCONN has assumed the role of transportation safety planning 

for the agency which was formerly the responsibility of the Department's Bureau of Policy and Planning. 

UCONN is in the process of developing a new safety management system for the Department. The beta 

version of the network screening and diagnostic tools are currently still being tested and refined.

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

Yes

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

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:

-Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSSS)

-Local Road Accident Reduction Program (LRARP)
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 46

-Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP)

-Projects supporting SHSP Emphasis Areas

-Section 402/405 Safety Programs (NHTSA)

-Section 154 (Open Container Requirements)

-High Risk Rural Roads

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

CT's HSIP safety program.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Horizontal Curve

Roadway Departure

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

Other-spot improvement (SLOSSS)

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 46

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

Probability of specific crash types

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

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: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2008 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-As supplied by the applicant Functional classification 
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 46

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

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? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 46

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

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?

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? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 46

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Horizontal curvature 

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

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

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?

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: Other-spot improvement (SLOSSS) 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1967 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 46

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

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

Critical rate

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

No

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

Yes

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?

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

Incremental B/C : 100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 27

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Upgrade Guard Rails

Horizontal curve signs

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

The percentage reported in last year's report should have been 20% not 78%.
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 46

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

CTDOT, in partnership with the University of Connecticut, is currently updating the agencies safety analysis 

tools and methods that match the six-step safety management process as described in the HSM. For example, 

the CT's network screening module, which is used to identify and rank sites with a higher than expected crash 

frequency is being updated to allow screening for specific roadway types, crash types, or the presence of a 

specific traffic control device. Under the diagnosis module, users will soon be able to create collision diagrams 

using advanced GIS mapping capabilities. These diagrams are critical to the review process and help lead to 

the identification of contributing factors and crash patterns. Condition diagrams will also be built 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.

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

period?

No

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

No
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 46

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $27,540,690 $29,760,226 108.06%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,895,035 $1,895,035 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $6,894,086 $6,894,086 100%

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 $36,329,811 $38,549,347 106.11%

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

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

19%

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

19%

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

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

29%

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 46

29%

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

None.

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

No
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 46

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0138-0212CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $438369 $438369 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3449PL Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 records $180000 $180000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

other 0 other other Data records

0172-0456CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

642 Locations $516950 $516950 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0170-3448PL Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 records $380000 $380000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

other 0 other other Data records

0093-0213PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 plan $1540000 $1540000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

other 0 other other Data records

0093-0214PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 plan $743000 $743000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

other 0 other other Data records

0138-0212CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $1093767 $1093767 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

22,750 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3360PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 plan $1801800 $2002000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

varies 0 other other Data records

0172-0438PE Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1040 Locations $86000 $86000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians reduce conflicts

0170-3420PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 2 plan $360000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

other Data records

0173-0442RW Roadside Barrier- metal 36.39 Miles $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0173-0481PE Roadway Rumble strips - center 0 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0171-0426PE Roadway Rumble strips - center 0 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0174-0415PE Roadway Rumble strips - center 34.31 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0463PE Roadway Rumble strips - center 0 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0063-0696CN Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $1461690 $1624100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

26,250 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0173-0469CN+ Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

195 Locations $60938 $60938 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 46

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0102-0354CN+ Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Locations $455616 $506240 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0173-0469CN+ Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

195 Locations $2681 $8043 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0034-0345RW+ Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $110700 $123000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections keep vehicles on 

road

0171-0396CN Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

660 Locations $369440 $369440 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians reduce conflicts

0017-0182CN Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.42 Miles $5000000 $5000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

26,800 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3432PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 plan $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

other Data records

0173-0485PE Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

750 Locations $1044000 $1044000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on

road

0174-0399PE Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $45000 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0174-0399RW Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0174-0417PE Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

1500 Locations $1950000 $1950000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0170-3350CN Roadway Rumble strips - center 18 Miles $178500 $178500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0459CN Roadway Rumble strips - center 67 Miles $389640 $389640 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0173-0477CN Roadway Rumble strips - center 27.41 Miles $338820 $338820 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0174-0412CN Roadway Rumble strips - center 50.96 Miles $385400 $385400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0171-0409PE Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

246 Locations $80000 $80000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0438CN Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1040 Locations $665300 $665300 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians reduce conflicts

0172-0451CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

411 Locations $962355 $962355 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0034-0305PE+ Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $135000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,450 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 46

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0171-0434PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

5 Intersections $206000 $206000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0174-0419PE Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

20,200 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0079-0238CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

1 Intersections $513990 $571100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0084-0108PE+ Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,750 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0173-0487PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

2 Intersections $83000 $83000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0172-0443RW Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0172-0443PE Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

7 Intersections $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0173-0460PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $22500 $22500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,300 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3306CN+ Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled109 Intersections $89582 $89582 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections reduce conflicts

0106-0126RW Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

35,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0106-0126PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

35,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3453PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning plan $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

other other other

0172-0402CN+ Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

3 Intersections $88471 $88471 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0009-0098CN+ Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

1 Intersections $146700 $163000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

6,400 25 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0138-0211CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $438970 $438970 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

21,200 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0138-0212CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $367944 $367944 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

22,750 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3455OTH Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other safety patrol $2673000 $2970000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic safety patrol other

0174-0415CN Roadway Rumble strips - center 34.31 Miles $489860 $489860 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 46

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0170-3455OTH Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other safety patrol $1410300 $1567000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic safety patrol other

0171-0401PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $22500 $22500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

18,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0171-0401RW Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $25000 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

18,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0138-0211CN+ Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $191631 $191631 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

21,200 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0138-0212CN+ Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $17457 $17457 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

22,750 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0174-0391CN Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

2 Intersections $536320 $536320 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0034-0345CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $996642 $1107380 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

14,300 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0034-0324RW+ Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $101901 $113223 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

23,450 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0171-0393CN Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $438500 $438500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

36,400 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0063-0696CN+ Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $50778 $56420 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

26,250 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0170-3480PL Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 report $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians reduce conflicts

0084-0108PE+ Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,750 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0171-0409CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

246 Locations $605231 $605231 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0451CN+ Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

411 Locations $244383 $244383 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0435CN Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

8 Intersections $1879915 $1921260 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0172-0456CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

642 Locations $1502890 $1502890 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0172-0451CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

411 Locations $232145 $232145 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road

0171-0409CN Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

246 Locations $160000 $160000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

varies 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

keep vehicles on 

road
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 46

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0102-0346CN+ Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $203127 $225697 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,750 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0144-0196PE Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,750 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0063-0593CN+ Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $18451 $18451 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,600 30 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0138-0211CN Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $503570 $503570 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

21,200 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

0092-0681PE+ Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

32,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections reduce conflicts

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

Page 22 of 46

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 302 224 320 221 264 286 248 270 274

Serious Injuries 1,902 1,763 1,721 1,428 1,494 1,303 1,146 1,302 1,574

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.950 0.710 1.020 0.710 0.840 0.920 0.800 0.850 0.873

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.990 5.610 5.500 4.580 4.780 4.210 3.670 4.120 5.024

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

53 27 53 34 47 40 51 48 49

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

289 290 248 247 241 227 213 251 241
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 25 of 46

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

9.6 1.57

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

1 0.34

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

12.4 2.73

Rural Minor Arterial 11.2 2.49

Rural Minor Collector 1.6 1.09

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 46

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 Major Collector 12.6 1.46

Rural Local Road or Street 17.6 2.54

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

35.4 0.36

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

19 0.47

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

42.2 1.12

Urban Minor Arterial 50.2 0.99

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 0.17

Urban Major Collector 13.6 0.52

Urban Local Road or Street 27.6 1.1
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 46

Year 2017

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 190.4 775.4

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

81 740.8

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 46

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

FARS is the source for the number of fatalities based on functional class. The source of data for HMVMT is 

FHWA Table VM-2. Table VM-2 was not available for 2016 when data was entered into the OLT so 2015 data 

was used instead. 

The state's crash file still does not have serious injury crash data broken down by functional class so those 

columns are blank.

The state's crash file is the data source for the number of fatalities and serious injuries on state highway and 

local roads for 2017.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 274.0 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 46

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

Annual fatality figures have fluctuated during the five year reporting period, but the 5 

year moving average has been flat or increasing. The projected 5 year trend line based 

on a regression analysis is relatively flat for the next 2 years. Based on the projected 

trend line, the number of fatalities is expected to remain flat or slightly increase during 

the planning period. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1574.0 

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

While the serious injuries have fluctuated year to year, the 5 year moving average has 

been trending down with the except of the last two years which have been flat. The 

projected 5 year trend line based on a regression analysis is slightly decreasing for the 

next 2 years. However the most recent 3 years of data (2015-2017) suggest the number 

of serious injuries is no longer decreasing. Based on the projected trend line and the 

most recent 3 years of data, the number of serious injuries is expected to be flat during 

the planning period. 

Fatality Rate 0.873 

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

While the annual fatality rate (per HMVMT) has fluctuated year to year, the moving 5 

year average has been flat or slightly increasing. The projected 5 year trend line based 

on a regression analysis is relatively flat for the next 2 years. Based on the projected 

trend line, the fatality rate is expected to remain flat or slightly increase during the 

planning period. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.024 

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

While the serious injury rate (per HMVMT) has fluctuated year to year, the moving 5 

year average has been trending down but flat over the last 3 years. The projected 5 

year trend line based on a regression analysis is slightly decreasing for the next 2 

years. However the most recent 3 years of data (2015-2017)suggest the number of 

serious injuries is no longer decreasing but instead might be flattening out. Based on 

the projected trend line and the most recent 3 years of data, the serious injury rate is 

expected to be flat during the planning period. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 290.0 

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

While non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries fluctuated year to year, the moving 

5 year average has increased during the 2 years. The projected 5 year trend line based 

on a regression analysis is flat for the next 2 years. However the most recent 3 years of 
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 46

data (2015-2017)suggest the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is 

increasing. Based on the projected trend line, the number of non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries is expected to remain the same or decrease slightly during the 

planning period. 

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

The targets for each of the safety performance measures support the overall goal in CT's latest SHSP of 

reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads 15 percent by 2021. The SHSP is living document 

and the strategies can be updated if CT is not meeting the stated goals.

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

targets. 

On June 19, 2018, CTDOT hosted a meeting with all the MPOs to discuss the safety performance targets 

required by FHWA and NHTSA.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

CT's apportionment during the reporting period was $1,502,890 and all the funds were obligated. The HRRR 

projects were 172-451, 172-456, 171-409. See Q29 (Project Listing) for additional details.

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

26 44 30 35 38 46 55

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

118 139 113 112 124 120 131
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 46

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

Data source for the number of older drivers and pedestrian fatalities is FARS with the exception of 2017 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.

it should be noted that the data for years 2011-2016 was updated and many of the values are different from 

last years HSIP report. The number of older drivers and pedestrian fatalities were verified by another data 

source (UCONN crash data repository and it is unclear why the numbers are different.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 46

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

Since the number of fatalities and serious injuries has slightly increased over the last year, it is difficult to 

evaluate the State's HSIP program. CT finalized its SHSP in July 2017 and it is anticipated that many of the 

infrastructure related strategies will be implemented resulting in fewer fatalities and serious injuries.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017

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)

Lane Departure All 33 148 0.1 0.47
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 46

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 All 116 459 0.37 1.45

Intersections All 72 716 0.23 2.26

Pedestrians All 52 239 0.16 0.75

Bicyclists All 4 51 0.01 0.16

Older Drivers All 64 163 0.2 0.51

Motorcyclists All 52 239 0.16 0.75

Work Zones All 1 0 0 0
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 46

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

Annual data from 2015 and 2016 was updated from last years report to address an input error.

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 46

No

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

Page 40 of 46

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)

0

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

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

No
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 46

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/18/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2022

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 80 99 60 90

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 99

Surface Type (23) 100 100 81 99

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 81 99 61 90

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 81 99 61 90

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 99 100 90

Median Type (54) 70 50

Access Control (22) 100 100
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 80 99

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 80 99

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 99 100 90

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

14.25 2

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

14.25 2

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

14.25 2

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

14.25 2

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

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):

98.33 97.22 57.13 51.00 81.82 81.82 87.00 99.00 76.40 90.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

CTDOT has recently made progress related to collection and integration of MIRE data specific to intersections since 9/30/17. We will report progress on next year's report.

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.

See "State of Connecticut Strategic Plan for Traffic Records 2018-2019" (pages 132-144)

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dtransportation_safety/traffic_records/trcc_traffic_records_strategic_plan.pdf

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes As any injury other than fatal that results in 

one or more of the following:

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood;Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); Crush 

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations;Significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body);Unconsciousness when taken 

from the crash scene;Paralysis 

Yes

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes As any injury other than fatal that results in 

one or more of the following:

Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than

fatal which results in one or more of the 

following:Severe laceration resulting in 

exposure of underlying 

tissues/muscle/organs or

resulting in significant loss of blood;Broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg);Crush 

Yes
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 46

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

injuries; Suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations;Significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body);Unconsciousness when taken 

from the crash scene;Paralysis

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

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

No

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

2019

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

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

CT's HSIP safety program.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Connecticut Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 46

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned 

for the fiscal year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.