Page 1 of 49

RHODE ISLAND

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 18

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 20

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

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

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 33

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 35

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 37

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 38

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 42

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 43
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 49

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary 

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has followed the Highway Safety Manual process to 

guide their HSIP. RIDOT currently uses societal crash cost ranking to identify top crash site-specific locations 

as well as systemic type issues statewide. RIDOT reviews the top crash lists/types to develop and fine tune a 

plan of incorporating safety improvements through new and existing spot location/systemic projects. Rhode 

Island also has a HSIP committee that uses a data-driven approach to making any safety related decision and 

has developed a ranking form based on safety benefits, feasibility and policy conformance to be used 

whenever HSIP funds are considered for a project.

RIDOT’s HSIP program has been ever-evolving since 2010, as other RIDOT programs, sections, and 

administrations have changed. Most recently, RIDOT’s administration has placed a renewed focus on 

upgrading and maintaining our bridges and roads. As with any new administration, it takes time and 

adjustments to conduct business in a new and exciting way. RIDOT now has a 10-year plan for all of its core 

programs (traffic/safety, road, and bridge) that budgets projects based on focus areas. The emphasis on 

bridges and roads does not mean safety projects are ignored. Safety will always be a critical and necessary 

program, and while available funding may fluctuate in any given year, RIDOT is collecting the data and 

possessing the tools to make more informed data-driven decisions to spend safety dollars in the most 

beneficial way to the State.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 49

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. 

Since 2010, The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has followed the Highway Safety 

Manual process to guide their HSIP. For network screening, RIDOT currently uses societal crash cost ranking 

using the KABCO scale to identify top crash site-specific locations as well as systemic type issues statewide. 

The systemic approach is a risk based approach that examines roadway types that are susceptible to a 

specific crash type (roadway departure, intersection) and identified through high-level queries. RIDOT reviews 

the top crash lists/types to develop and fine tune a plan of incorporating safety improvements through new and 

existing spot location/systemic projects.

The HSIP Committee is made up of safety stakeholders, including RIDOT, FHWA, and RIDOT HSIP 

Engineering Support Services consultant that meets monthly to develop the HSIP program, approve HSIP 

projects and requests for projects, and discuss other safety related issues. The HSIP committee uses a datadriven approach to making any safety related decision and has developed a ranking form based on safety 

benefits, feasibility and policy conformance to be used whenever HSIP funds are considered for a project. Not 

only does the HSIP committee review internal requests for funds, but also requests that come in from the local 

municipalities.

As part of the HSIP project ranking form, points are given for conducting a Road Safety Assessment (RSA) at 

the location under consideration for safety improvements. The RSA’s follow federal RSA guidelines and RI has 

embraced the usefulness of the RSA process. The RSA process also promotes involvement from stakeholders 

outside of RIDOT and strengthens relationships between RIDOT and participating municipalities. These 

strengthening relationships will prove to be imperative for sharing/updating roadway data to allow for predictive 

network screening and state-specific SPF development in the future.

The collection of the MIRE elements will also assist with the selection of systemic project locations and 

countermeasures with the risk for specific crash types (i.e. Curves). RIDOT also uses FHWA low-cost proven 

safety countermeasures, NCHRP, FHWA reports, and other safety documents to assist with countermeasure 

identification. Again, the MIRE data collection and sharing with municipalities will improve the overall HSIP 

program as it will provide the municipalities additional tools to conduct RSA’s and submit strong safety project 

candidates for HSIP committee review and approval. RIDOT is expected to begin implementation of SPF's for 

FY19 once the MIRE data is processed.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 49

RIDOT prioritizes projects based on the ranking scores and how the improvements fit into the roadway 

departure, local safety, safety corridor, intersections, interchanges, and vulnerable users programs. Once 

completed, the projects are evaluated to determine the safety effectiveness of the safety improvements. The 

resulting data will assist RIDOT with developing their own crash modification factors.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning 

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

RIDOT Safety section is responsible for implementation of the HSIP. They are a separate group from RIDOT 

Planning and focus on traffic/safety but carry out the planning function for all safety related projects.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

RIDOT selects the majority of HSIP funded projects thru the SHSP EA. A small portion is allotted to outside 

RIDOT requests. This competitive process still requires alignment with the SHSP.

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

Network Screening - On an annual basis, the RIDOT identifies the roadway facilities exhibiting the most severe 

safety needs based on crash severity and frequency/exposure or the predictive method. Through the RIDOT’s 

HSIP, ALL public roads are addressed, focusing on fatal and serious injury crashes in line with their SHSP and 

the performance measures set forth in MAP-21 and the FAST Act. Most of the State-owned roadway network 

and some of the local roadways are mapped to a Linear Referencing System; however, the majority of the 

local roadways is not referenced and is manually reviewed to ensure their inclusion into the HSIP process.

Diagnosis and Implementation: The RIDOT has developed a Local Safety Program to work with municipalities 

to identify and mitigate crash issues on locally-maintained roadways. RIDOT has developed a process for 

locals to request a safety improvement with the intent for locals to perform the "planning" step from the HSIP 

process. RIDOT will then determine if the improvement is eligible for HSIP funds and distribute the funds 

needed to the locals so they can administer the construction of the improvements. As part of this program, the 

RIDOT will provide the needed training and resources to assist the locals in the planning process with the 

intent for locals to perform the "planning" step independently. Initially, $1,000,000 of funding has be allotted 

annually for local projects that will be ranked and awarded separately from state initiated projects. Currently, 

there are pilot projects that includes five (5) participating municipalities with projects scheduled for 

reimbursement in FY18/19 .

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

are involved with HSIP planning.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 49

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-GIS Analysts

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

R IDOT works internally with transportation planners (Statewide Planning), RIDOT GIS analysts, RIDOT safety 

engineers, RIDOT and OHS highway safety program coordinators and RIDOT operations staff as part of the 

entire HSIP process, including the identification of critical locations and the selection of appropriate 

countermeasures/ improvements. These partners are involved in Road Safety Assessments (RSAs) that were 

performed at many of these locations to facilitate this multidiscipline approach.

RIDOT also houses the Office of Highway Safety where the HSIP, HSP, and SHSP are all developed in a 

coordinated effort focused on developing consistent safety goals. Safety initiatives are now implemented in a 

more integrated and multi-disciplinary manner, providing RIDOT with more flexibility to direct resources to 

address particular safety needs. As part of the FAST Act, the RIDOT and OHS along with RI's Office of 

Performance Management coordinated the development of performance measurement and targets for FY19.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

RIDOT works with University of RI to develop SPFs.

LEL and FHWA are involved in bi-monthly safety meetings.

The MPO is involved in the TIP process (specifically for safety projects)

RIDOT address all public roads, including tribal agency roadways.

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

period?
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 49

No

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. 

Beginning in 2015, the RIDOT performs a semi-annual review of safety improvement proposals for selection. 

Local governments and RIDOT staff submit engineering studies of potential safety projects. These safety 

proposals are evaluated to focus limited resources on areas of greatest need. HSIP funds are available for 

locations or corridors where a known 'substantive safety' problem exists as indicated by location specific data 

on severe crashes or where a risk based analysis has demonstrated the need for systemic countermeasures. 

All HSIP expenditures require that a specific project action can produce a measureable and significant 

reduction in the number or risk of severe crashes. To achieve the maximum benefit, the focus of the program is 

on cost effective use of the funds allocated for safety improvements. RIDOT's HSIP project selection methods 

prioritize safety proposals that align with the SHSP, address roadways with actual or potential for higher deaths 

and serious injuries, and target the underlying safety issue.

The Multi-Disciplinary HSIP Selection Committee is made up of the HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Safety 

and Operations Engineer, and other RIDOT staff. The purpose of the committee is to review and select HSIP 

proposals for advancement. The HSIP PSC meets on a monthly basis. The selection committee also holds a 

separate meeting semi-annually to prioritize and select submitted HSIP Proposals received and reviewed in 

the previous six month period.

RIDOT has 5 different “on-call” consultant contracts. The first on-call contract involves one consultant to 

perform the network screening, diagnosis, and countermeasure selection (HSIP On-Call Administration 

Consultant). This consultant will then develop conceptual improvement plans for RIDOT’s review. RIDOT then 

distributes all improvement projects to the other 4 on-call consultants, which are charged with advancing the 

conceptual plans to final design and construction. Once the improvements have been implemented, the first 

on-call consultant tracks these projects and develops safety effectiveness evaluations.

In 2016, RIDOT developed a 10-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) that is revisited and updated 

annually. HSIP funded safety improvement projects included in the TIP are provided by the HSIP Selection 

Committee. In the TIP, there is a mix of site-specific and systemic safety improvement projects. There are also 

program based projects that act as placeholders for future locations to be added to. As the TIP is annually 

revisited, the safety projects are reviewed and edited by the HSIP Selection Committee based on the current 

safety needs and received HSIP Project Proposals. Safety projects may be adjusted in the TIP annually as 

long as they are fiscally constrained.

Safety projects added to the TIP must demonstrate a projected safety benefit that in sum meet annual goals 

set by RIDOT in order to meet its SHSP goals. If by any means the annual safety goal is not met for a given 

year, the safety projects included in the TIP will be revised by the HSIP Selection Committee the following year 

to increase the projected safety benefits to ensure the goal is still obtainable.

Projected safety benefits are provided by the HSIP Proposal forms. For safety program placeholder projects, 

RIDOT uses national published crash modification factors to help predict the reduction in fatalities and injuries 
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 49

based on the type of countermeasure deployed on a wide scale basis across the State to target roadway 

facilities and users identified in the SHSP as emphasis area.

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:

HSIP Manual_May8_FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Safe Corridor

Roadway Departure

Right Angle Crash

Wrong Way Driving 

Other-Vulnerable Road Users 

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

Program: Right Angle Crash 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Lane miles 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 49

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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 : 15 

Other-Reduction in fatalities and injuries : 15 

Other-Facility risk level : 20

Other-SHSP emphasis area : 15

Other-Project feasibility : 25

Other-Policy conformance : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/19/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Page 11 of 49

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Roadway width 

Other-Clear Zone 

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

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Other-Crash frequency - Fatal and serious crashes only

Other-Facility risk factors/similar geometric 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.

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 : 15 

Other-Reduction in fatalities and injuries : 15

Other-Facility risk level : 20

Other-SHSP emphasis area : 15 

Other-Project feasibility : 25

Other-Policy conformance : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 49

Program: Safe Corridor 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/19/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Other-Transit 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-# Of Lanes 

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

Relative severity index

Other-Crash frequency - fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Facility risk factors/similar geometric 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.

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).
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 49

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C : 15 

Other-Reduction in fatalities and serious injuries : 15 

Other-Facility risk level : 20

Other-SHSP emphasis area : 15

Other-Project feasibility : 25

Other-Policy conformance : 10 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2015 

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]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Wrong way driving incidents 

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

Other-Wrong Way Driving Incidents - Potential Freeway Entry Points

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 49

Other-Dedicated projects in TIP

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

Program: Other-Vulnerable Road Users 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Roadway width 

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

Crash frequency

Other-Facility risk/similar type geometrics

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.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 49

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 : 15 

Other-Reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes : 15 

Other-facility risk level : 20

Other-Project feasibility : 25

Other-Policy conformance : 15 

Other-SHSP emphasis area : 10

Total Relative Weight : 100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 43 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Install/Improve Signing

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments

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

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Other-Crash Modification Clearninghouse 

Other-NCHRP Report 500 Series 

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

Page 16 of 49

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

RIDOT has created a working Connected/Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) group made up if various departments 

with RIDOT including Traffic Safety. RIDOT is exploring CAV and its impact to safety.

RIDOT has issued a RFP for a autonomous shuttle as a pilot program.

RIDOT has placeholders in the TIP for CAV projects related to safety.

RIDOT may participate in the AASHTO SPAT Challenge with a focus on a high crash corridor.

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.

RIDOT refers to the HSM methodologies on all aspects of safety where possible, including in the network 

screening, diagnosis, countermeasure selection, prioritization, and safety effectiveness evaluation categories. 

Please see attached HSIP Program Manual for more information.

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

period?

Yes

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

RIDOT continues to work towards implementation of the predictive method. RIDOT is able to obtain locations 

using this method for rural segments. RIDOT is working on developing SPFS for intersections and urban 

segments over the next 2 years. RIDOT is also looking to enhance the systemic program by developing a 

detailed risk based process.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 49

Yes

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

RIDOT encourages using the predictive method to use a more sound, data-driven approach to allocating 

resources that results in fewer fatalities and serious injuries on the nation's roadways. The predictive method 

(Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs, EB adjustment,) combines crash, roadway inventory and traffic 

volume data to provide more reliable estimates of an existing or proposed roadway's expected safety 

performance, such as crash frequency and severity. To achieve this goal, RIDOT is currently undergoing a 

large data collection effort to obtain all of the Model Inventory of Roadway Data Elements (MIRE), which 

included roadway, traffic, and other data needed to assist the RIDOT make the most efficient decisions where 

to allocate safety funds and resources. The RIDOT also is working on developing a data maintenance effort to 

ensure all data collected is updated on a timely basis. RIDOT has begun using the predictive method for some 

rural segment and will continue to expand in the coming years. 

RIDOT is expanding its systemic program in the next few years, including creating a detailed risk based 

analysis and process. RIDOT is looking to automate this process by developing a tool that resided on a GIS 

platform. The network screening portion of the tool would automate the site-specific and systemic identification 

process which is currently performed manually. For site-specific analysis, the tool will use state-specific SPF 

equations for all facility types, addressing the predictive analysis requirements. The tool will provide a list of 

locations ranked by Excess Excepted Crash Frequency (Expected Crashes – Predicted Crashes). The 

systemic analysis will use allow the user to identify potential trends (geometry, traffic volumes) that have a 

higher occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes in RI using the crash and MIRE data incorporated into the 

tool. Once the potential trends (aka risk factors) are identified, the tool will identify locations that have similar 

trends which could lead to fatal or serious injury crashes. The user can assign a weighted “point “system for 

each trend to help prioritize locations based on severity or number of trends at a given site. This allows the tool 

to provide the user with a “ranked” list of risk-based locations

RIDOT also has its own HSIP Program Manual. The purpose of this document is to describe RIDOT’s 

processes for planning, implementing, and evaluating HSIP funded improvements and to describe its 

relationship to other safety initiatives found in Rhode Island’s SHSP. This document not only helps Rhode 

Island to demonstrate their own successes, but also serves as a mechanism for other states to achieve 

improved highway safety.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 49

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.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $21,681,505 $24,047,773 110.91%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$12,675,100 $12,675,100 100%

State and Local Funds $50,000 $69,000 138%

Totals $34,406,605 $36,791,873 106.93%

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

Other federal aid funds include August Redistribution funding allocated to RIDOT.

State funds programmed for safety are part of a larger maintenance budget and is approximated each year.

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

$17,000 

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

$17,000 

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?

$1,500,000 

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

Page 19 of 49

$1,500,000 

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.

RIDOT’s HSIP program has been ever-evolving since 2010, as other RIDOT programs, sections, and 

administrations have changed. Most recently, RIDOT’s administration has placed a renewed focus on 

upgrading and maintaining our bridges and roads. As with any new administration, it takes time and 

adjustments to conduct business in a new and exciting way. RIDOT now has a 10-year plan for all of its core 

programs (traffic/safety, road, and bridge) that budgets projects based on focus areas. The emphasis on 

bridges and roads does not mean safety projects are ignored. Safety will always be a critical and necessary 

program, and while available funding may fluctuate in any given year, RIDOT is collecting the data and 

possessing the tools to make more informed data-driven decisions to spend safety dollars in the most 

beneficial way to the State. The 10-year plan (aka STIP) identifies HSIP programmed projects for FY2018 - FY 

2026.

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

No
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 49

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

2018 Roadway 

Departure 

Mitigation 

Contract 1

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

12 Approaches $1424271 $1424271 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

75,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2018 High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

2 Curves $959878 $959878 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

15,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements to 

Lower Aquidneck 

Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

2 Intersections $618000 $618000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

30,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements to 

Route 114 

between Bear Hill 

and I-295

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

2 Intersections $8280441 $8280441 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

35,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements to 

Route 

44/Smithfield 

Commons

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $781700 $781700 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

35,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

1R Improvements 

to US Route 44 - 

Road Diet

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

5 Miles $0 $8235099 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

15,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure 

Mitigation - 

Guardrail and 

Median 

Improvements to 

Route 1

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Miles $2538790 $2538790 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

50,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Wrong Way 

Driving Mitigation 

- Geometric 

Improvements to 

Ramp Facilities

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

12 Ramps $1004692 $1004692 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

30,000 30 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Wrong Way 

Driving

Wrong Way 

Driving Mitigation 

- Detection 

Systems

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

4 Ramps $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

30,000 30 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Wrong Way 

Driving

2018 Intersection 

Safety 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

3 Miles $2665800 $2665800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

35,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

On-Call Highway 

Safety 

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Consultant $1500000 $1500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

All 1 1 State Highway 

Agency

Spot & Systemic All All
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 49

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

Improvement 

Program 

Engineering 

Support Services

2018 High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment - I-95 

Curves 

Pawtucket, Route 

24, & Route 37

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

10 Curves $2366268 $2366268 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

100,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Safety Corridor 

Project - Route 2 

and Route 101

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

10 Miles $1157932 $1157932 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

20,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2018 STC 

Contract 1

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $0 $2440000 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

2018 STC 

Contract 2

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $0 $2000000 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Immediate Action 

- Curves

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

10 Curves $0 $20000 State and Local 

Funds

All 20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Immediate Action 

- Signal Timings

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

general retiming

5 Intersections $0 $5000 State and Local 

Funds

All 20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Immediate Action 

- Signalized 

Intersection 

Signage

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

7 Intersections $0 $14000 State and Local 

Funds

All 20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Immediate Action 

- Unsignalized 

Intersection 

Signage

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled5 Intersections $0 $10000 State and Local 

Funds

All 20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection Right 

Angle

Immediate Action 

- Pedestrian 

Crossing 

Signage/Striping

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

10 Crosswalks $0 $20000 State and Local 

Funds

All 20,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Vulnerable Road 

User

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

Page 22 of 49

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 83 67 66 64 65 51 45 51 84

Serious Injuries 484 542 455 422 366 438 427 407 322

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.010 0.810 0.840 0.820 0.840 0.660 0.570 0.640 1.050

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.870 6.570 5.759 5.405 4.707 5.705 5.451 5.108 4.024

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

16 11 14 7 17 14 8 16 22

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

90 85 91 88 69 75 80 57 74
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 49

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 49

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 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

1.4 7.2 0.46 2.34

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0.6 9 0.67 7.39

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

2.4 7.2 1.06 3.16

Rural Minor Arterial 3 12 2.64 10.28

Rural Minor Collector 0.2 3.8 0.14 5.02

Rural Major Collector 0.8 7.2 1.83 8.15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 49

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 Local Road or Street 1.6 4.8 7.27 21.82

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

9.2 32.8 0.5 1.79

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

6.2 24.2 0.54 2.07

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

17 119.2 0.91 6.39

Urban Minor Arterial 6.4 76 0.64 7.48

Urban Minor Collector 0 14.8 0 2.44

Urban Major Collector 1.8 25 8.29 10.52

Urban Local Road or Street 8 30.2 2.08 7.82
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 49

Year 2014

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 32 191.2

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

10.2 101.4

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 49

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 49

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 49

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

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

RIDOT updated their Functional Classification in 2015. Therefore, the figures reported on in previous years 

HSIP Annual report will differ. In future years, the previous FC data will drop out of the 5-year rolling average 

calculation.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 57.0 

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 49

Fatalities have steadily declined in recent years. Based on preliminary data there were 

84 fatalities in 2017, an increase to levels seen in 2005 and 2006. This increase is 

associated with a rise in speeding, pedestrian, and young driver crashes. A 

conservative target of a two percent annual decrease was chosen that accounts for the 

2017 increase but helps to push Rhode Island toward the original SHSP goal of TZD 

with a baseline of 2011. RIDOT and OHS worked together to align targets with those 

within the Rhode Island FFY 2019 HSP. 

Number of Serious Injuries 369.0 

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

The five-year rolling average for Rhode Island’s serious injuries have steadily 

decreased for the last five years, however the serious injuries per year have fluctuated 

with a low of 366 in 2013 and a high of 455 in 2011. Serious injuries are projected to 

be lower than average, with 322 in 2017. Rhode Island's 2019 target maintains the 

course of working toward the SHSP goal of TZD with a baseline of 2011 and a three 

percent annual decrease. RIDOT and OHS worked together to align targets with those 

within the Rhode Island FFY 2019 HSP. 

Fatality Rate 0.720 

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

While the fatality crash rate has declined slightly in recent years, preliminary data in 

2017 shows an increase back to 2015 levels. The conservative target of shown in the 

fatality performance measure is also reflected here, with a long-term goal of moving 

back toward the SHSP goal of TZD with a baseline of 2011. RIDOT and OHS worked 

together to align targets with those within the Rhode Island FFY 2019 HSP. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.710 

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

This goal is consistent with the latest revision of the 2017-2022 SHSP and its TZD 

target of halving fatalities and serious injuries by 2030 using 2011 as the base-year 

(2011–2015 five-year averages). RIDOT and OHS worked together to align targets 

with those within the Rhode Island FFY 2019 HSP. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 85.0 

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

Preliminary data indicate there were 21 pedestrian fatalities in 2017, which is 50 

percent higher than in 2016. Bicyclist fatalities have been very low in Rhode Island 

over the past five years. With increased focus on statewide vulnerable road user 

programs targeting Providence and other municipalities with high pedestrian crashes, 

we believe we will move back toward the TZD trend. RIDOT and OHS worked 

together to align targets with those within the Rhode Island FFY 2019 HSP. 
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 49

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

OHS and RIDOT conducted a target setting workshop in Spring 2018 to finalize performance targets that are 

consistent between the SHSP, HSP, and HSIP for Fiscal Year 2019 (Fatality, Fatality Rate, Serious Injuries) as 

required by the FAST Act. As part of the target setting exercise, data was projected using the FORCAST 

function in Excel using 2011-2015 averages as the baseline. Staff then compared the projected crashes based 

on the historical trendline and discussed if and how Rhode Island could maintain this trendline. Factors such as 

current year fatality and serious injury projections, recently implemented and proposed programs and projects, 

and funding were considered when determining targets for Fiscal Year 2019.

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

targets. 

RIDOT and OHS worked together with the State MPO to align targets with those within the Rhode Island FFY 

2019 HSP and the 2017-2022 SHSP. As part of this effort, OHS and RIDOT conducted a target setting 

workshop in Spring 2018 to finalize performance targets that are consistent between the SHSP, HSP, and 

HSIP for Fiscal Year 2019 (Fatality, Fatality Rate, Serious Injuries) as required by the FAST Act. As part of the 

target setting exercise, data was projected using the FORCAST function in Excel using 2011-2015 averages 

as the baseline. Staff then compared the projected crashes based on the historical trendline and discussed if 

and how Rhode Island could maintain this trendline. Factors such as current year fatality and serious injury 

projections, recently implemented and proposed programs and projects, and funding were considered when 

determining targets for Fiscal Year 2019.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

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

Page 36 of 49

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

11 15 8 18 18 5 16

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

43 24 26 37 43 42 50

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Lives saved

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

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

level evaluations.

As RIDOT installs more HSIP projects and continues to track their safety performance, RIDOT will report back 

on the overall B/C. It is difficult to calculate an overall B/C for all HSIP projects as most do not have sufficient

after data at this time to provide a statistically significant result. RIDOT has deployed policy changes and 

passed a primary seat belt law could result in the consistent decrease in the 5 year rolling average of fatalities 

and serious injuries in the state. While RIDOT has ramped up their HSIP program the past few years, there are 

a few project improvement types that were ready to track improvements on this period. These projects are 

listed in the following questions.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

HSIP Obligations 

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

RIDOT performs RSAs for all HSIP projects.

RIDOTs HSIP obligations have increased significantly in the past few years. The 10 year TIP is programmed to 

continue to expend the annual obligations for HSIP.

RIDOT expand its programs to include more systemic countermeasures.

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

No
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 49

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure 28.8 132.2 0.37 1.69 0 0 0

Intersections 16 217.2 0.2 2.77 0 0 0

Pedestrians 14.2 58.8 0.18 0.75 0 0 0

Bicyclists 1.4 16 0.02 0.2 0 0 0

Older Drivers 13 47 0.16 0.6 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 9 63 0.11 0.8 0 0 0
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 49

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

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

Yes

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 Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

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

Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 49

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

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 10 

Number of Installations: 10 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 75% reduction in crash severity with 

no fatalities at treatment locations. 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Systemic Horizontal Curves 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 20 

Number of Installations: 20 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

35% reduction in crash severity with 

no fatalities and 50% in serious 

injuries. 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Road Diets 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 8 

Number of Installations: 8 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

95% reduction in crash severity with 

90% in fatalities and 72% reduction in 

serious injuries. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 49

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)

Wrong Way 

Driving

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

8.00 10.00 13.00 1.00 31.00 1.00 20

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

Please note that there were no fatal or serious injury crashes at any locations where wrong way driving detections systems were installed in the period analyzed. The online reporting tool will not allow RIDOT to input the value zero (0) 

into the above table, therefore it is blank.

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

Yes

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

In the past few years, RIDOT has revamped the HSIP to develop subprograms (as listed in this report). RIDOT is currently tracking on the safety effectiveness of all improvements implemented under these subprograms. Systemic 

improvements have been recently implemented and sufficient safety crash data is not yet available. RIDOT will be able to present before and after crash data for each subprogram (including systemic) using more advanced evaluations 

(compared to simple before-after).
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/25/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022 

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) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Number (8) 0.99991672218521 0.999883990719258

Route/Street Name (9) 0.987425049966689 0.657424593967517

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0.449866755496336 0.109628770301624

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0.999666888740839 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length (13) 1 1

Direction of Inventory (18) 0.99975016655563 1

Functional Class (19) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Median Type (54) 0.99991672218521 0.999883990719258

Access Control (22) 0.845602931379081 0.440255220417633
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 49

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)

1 1

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

1 0.910788863109049 1 1

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

1 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0.896518007496334 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0.896409364984518 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

1 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

1 0

Ramp Length (187) 1 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

1 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0.0999099909990999 0
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 49

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) 1 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

0.85 0.78 0.72 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

1. RIDOT's road inventory includes 3,324 segments (3.8% of the inventory) that are not coded with the Type of Government Ownership. 62% are non-local paved roads.

2. RIDOT's intersection inventory does not contain Functional Classification or Ownership fields. The intersection inventory percent complete information is a summary of interections.

3. It is anticipated that an additional 500 to 1,500 additional intersection need to be inventoried to capture all Non-Local Paved Road Intersections.

4. RIDOT's Ramp inventory does not include Functional Classification or Ownership Fields. The ramp inentory percent complete information is a summary of all ramps.

5. RIDOT's road/intersection inventory does not include roads/intersections within the Narragansett Indian Tribe.

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.

Historically, RIDOT maintained a road inventory database for State owned and Federal Aid roads to meet Highway Performance Monitoring (HMPS) reporting requirements. Through coordination with other agencies (e-911 and the 

State’s GIS clearinghouse) a local roads layer had been maintained. In 2013, RIDOT conducted a detailed assessment of existing road inventory databases in Rhode Island, and developed an RFP for a state-wide MIRE data collection 

project. In 2014, RIDOT selected a road inventory vendor to conduct the collection of MIRE elements on approximately, 6,500 roadway miles, 16,000 intersections (estimated), and 445 ramps. The inventory was finalized and delivered to 

RIDOT in 2016.

RIDOT’s MIRE inventory includes 174 MIRE elements. Several of these elements are included in the inventory, but were not field populated (elements related to speed and traffic flow were not collected). RIDOT’s MIRE data inventory 

consists of three separate inventories, broken down into the following categories.

1. Roadway Segment Descriptors - Consists of approximately 86,500 tenth of mile roadway segments, with 105 MIRE elements for all public roads in Rhode Island. Of the 105 elements, there are several placeholder elements (nonphysical elements such as AADT, truck speeds, Etc.) that RIDOT may populate at a later date.

2. Intersection Inventory - Consists of junction (intersection points) and junction approach (intersection approach) elements. The inventory includes approximately 18,000 intersection locations with 18 junction elements and 40 junction 

approach elements. It is important to note that the intersection inventory was not prioritized based on the functional classification of the intersecting roads. The 18,000 intersections included in the inventory does not include all non-local 

paved roads based on roadway functional classification.

3. Ramp Inventory - Consists of 445 individual ramps associated with 105 unique interchange locations. Included in the ramp inventory are 21 of the 24 MIRE Interchange and Ramp Descriptors. MIRE elements not include are 

Interchange Entering Volume, Ramp AADT, and Year of Ramp AADT.

RIDOT’s MIRE inventory includes 31 of the 37 MIRE FDEs for non-local paved roads. Elements highlighted in yellow are absent from the inventory. As previously stated, RIDOT’s intersection inventory was not prioritized based on 

roadway functional classification and does not include all State/State and State/local intersections. To comply with FHWA’s MIRE FDE requirements, RIDOT will need to complete the intersection inventory for any State/local intersections 

not included in the inventory. It is estimated that an additional 500 to 1,500 intersections need to be inventoried. This effort begun in 2018 and will continue over FY19 and 20 given staffing levels. 
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 49

Future Steps

RIDOT’s early response to FHWA’s MIRE requirements and their intent to conduct more advanced safety analyses, have put them in a good position from a MIRE FDE compliance standpoint. Completion of the intersection inventory to 

include non-local paved roads. Additional work is needed for the estimation of traffic volumes to comply with the AADT requirements. In addition, within the State of Rhode Island there is one Federally and State recognized tribe, 

Narragansett Indian Tribe, whose roadways need to be added to the MIRE inventory. RIDOT should coordinate with the Narragansett Indian Tribe to determine the extent of their data collection efforts.

When Rhode Island’s Traffic Records Strategic Plan is updated by the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee RIDOT will propose inclusion of this plan, and or the remaining action items associated with this plan. In the meantime, 

RIDOT will continue to implement the Plan as outlined in this document to ensure MIRE FDE are collected for all public roads by September 30, 2026.

Furthermore, RIDOT must coordinate with all localities (i.e., Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Counties, cities, and towns) and other public roadway owners (i.e., Federal, Tribal, and private road owners) that maintain their 

own roadways to determine the extent of their data collection efforts. RIDOT must determine the availability, completeness, and compatibility of the FDE data on non-RIDOT maintained, public roads.

Below is a list of action items for RIDOT to complete:

1. Coordinate with the Narragansett Indian Tribe to understand the extent of their road network. a. Provide background information to the Tribe on the FHWA MIRE FDE data requirements and the steps that RIDOT has taken to meet the 

requirements.

b. Assess the Tribes road mileage and existing GIS data that maybe available and develop a cost estimate to be complete the inventory.

c. Seek assistance from the Tribe in completing the inventory. It is anticipated that the additional inventory could be completed without the use of any special equipment such as a mobile data collection vehicle. The State’s existing high 

resolution aerial photography should be sufficient for locating the roadways. Attribution of the roads could be completed by the Tribe through a web-portal provided by RIDOT using their existing GIS infrastructure.

d. If Tribal staff are to complete the inventory, prepare training material on how to use any tools provided by RIDOT and background material on MIRE. There are a number of existing MIRE resources such as the MIRE Version 1.0 

Report, MIRE Data Collection Guidebook that can found at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/mire.aspx.

2. Finalize the MIRE Intersection Inventory for non-local paved roads. a. As part of RIDOT’s MIRE data collection project, the location of all intersections within the State was identified by RIDOT GIS staff and RIDOT’s MIRE vendor. It is 

anticipated that between 500 and 1,500 additional intersection locations need to be added to RIDOT’s existing intersection inventory. A more detailed assessment should occur to accurately estimate the cost to complete the remaining 

intersections.

b. When finalizing the intersection inventory, RIDOT should evaluate if all of the intersection elements currently included in their inventory should be collected or if the collection should be limited to MIRE FDE’s or combination. It is 

recommended that RIDOT collect the MIRE FDEs and any additional elements required of their AASHTOWare Safety Analyst implementation.

c. The data collection effort can likely be completed through a desktop data collection effort using the video log from RIDOT’s MIRE data collection effort, existing aerial photography, and other sources of street imagining.

3. Expand the traffic count program for non-local paved roads and local paved roads. a. RIDOT should develop separate methodologies for accurately estimating AADT for non-local and local paved roads.

b. RIDOT should evaluate their existing traffic count program and HMPS reporting to identify gaps in their traffic count program. Emphasis should be on lower roadway functional classification roads and ramp facility types.

c. Based on the results of traffic volume gap analysis, RIDOT should release an RFP to enhance their traffic count program.

In addition to expanding their traffic count program, RIDOT should develop a methodology to distribute/estimate traffic volumes across their network so that all roadway, ramps, and intersection approaches meeting the MIRE FDE 

requirements

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 Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 49

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 Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No

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

The Rhode Island Uniform Crash Report will be revised to include new fields and make the crash report consistent with the latest version of the MMUCC by April 2019. RIDOT has allocated funding for this task. 

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.

RIDOT will be asking FHWA to provide assistance in setting up an HSIP program assessment in 2019.
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Manual_May8_FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Rhode Island Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 49

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.