Page 1 of 50

DELAWARE
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 50

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 45
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 50

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.” 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 50

Executive Summary 

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

2017 (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017) to demonstrate the success of their safety program. Crash statistics reported 

in this Annual Report are for calendar year 2016 (January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016). During the 2017 

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

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

systemic safety program. As part of the systemic program, DelDOT continued installation of longitudinal 

rumble strips and installed high-friction pavement surface treatments at selected locations. Also, DelDOT 

continued reviewing signing and pavement markings at all horizontal curves for MUTCD-compliance to 

identify low-cost improvements at these locations.

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

for all HSIP components. The Critical Ratio method (also known as the Rate Quality Control Method) uses a 

statistical test to determine whether the crash rate at a particular location is significantly higher than a 

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

under the HEP and 2 highway-grade crossings were studied under HRGX. Both programs continued to identify 

both low-cost remedial improvements and long-term safety improvement needs. Short-term and long-term 

improvements identified by two pedestrian safety audits completed in 2015 are in the design and 

implementation phase. The success of these programs is demonstrated by the combined number of fatalities and 

serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) gradually decreasing from 2010 to 2013. In 2014, the total 

number of fatalities and serious injuries increased slightly (less than 2 percent); however, remained below 2012 

values. In 2015, the total number of fatalities and serious injuries decreased to their lowest levels since 2009 and 

2016 saw a continuation of this trend. DelDOT led efforts, in conjunction with Delaware’s Office of Highway 

Safety, to identify Delaware’s first iteration of safety performance measure targets, which are included in this 

report. In addition, DelDOT continued working on improvements and enhancements to its Crash Analysis 

Reporting System (CARS) and implementation of safety projects developed from the HSIP.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 50

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

are included in Delaware’s HSIP:

• Hazard Elimination Program (HEP)

• Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (HRGX)

• Systemic Safety Improvement Programs

o Longitudinal Rumble Strips

o Freeway Median Barrier

o High Friction Surface Treatment

• Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implemented by DelDOT’s maintenance forces and/or on-call contractors. Projects requiring detailed design, 

public involvement, or resulting in right-of-way or environmental impacts are forwarded to DelDOT’s Project 

Development section for prioritization and inclusion in the Capital Transportation Program (CTP).

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

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

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

The benefit/cost ratios at each crossing are then calculated for various upgrade alternatives. Then, all at-grade 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 50

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

upgrades. 

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

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

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

success of the high-friction surface treatment program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation plans for specific emphasis areas.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering 

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

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office via Formula

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

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

design through DelDOT's Project Development group. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

crash criteria for the various HSIP elements.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 50

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA

Other-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Other-Delaware State Police

Other-Department of Justice

Other-Delaware Office of Emergency Medical Services

Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

serious injuries. 

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

period?

No
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 50

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

Yes

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

During FY 2017 (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017), components of Delaware’s HSIP included the Strategic 

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

Safety Program (HRGX). In addition, significant advances in DelDOT’s systemic safety programs continued 

during the FY 2017 period. DelDOT continued installation of longitudinal rumble strips and began installation 

of high-friction pavement surface treatment at high-ranking locations. DelDOT continued its evaluation of 

horizontal curves throughout the state for MUTCD-compliant signing and pavement markings and initiated a 

new pedestrian safety study along a corridor exhibiting high pedestrian crash histories corridors. DelDOT 

continued enhancements to CARS and began a pilot program to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons 

(RRFBs) at several crossing locations throughout the state. In addition, DelDOT worked toward developing 

statewide guidelines for barrier end treatment maintenance and repair and an Approved Products List (APL) for 

temporary and permanent barrier end treatments.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Horizontal Curve 

Pedestrian Safety

Segments

Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 50

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Horizontal curvature 

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

Probability of specific crash types

Other-All horizontal curves to be evaluated. 

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Prioritized based on functional classification

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1 

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 50

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes, head-on crashes, and crossmedian crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 50 

Ranking based on net benefit : 50 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015 

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

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

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All pedestrian crashes Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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).
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 50

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 34 

Ranking based on net benefit : 33 

Cost Effectiveness : 33

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles Other-Roadway Type 

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

Critical rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 50

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C : 25 

Available funding : 25 

Ranking based on net benefit : 25 

Cost Effectiveness : 25

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Program: Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Other-Competes with HSIP projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Probability of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 50

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2 

Ranking based on net benefit : 1 

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

Other-High Friction Surface Program: Treatment 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All wet weather roadway 

departure crashes 

Volume 

Other-Roadway Miles 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 50

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability 

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the 

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 1 

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 25 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 50

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.

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

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

Please see attachment for the methodology for the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) site selection process.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 50

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $10,731,600 $2,282,745 21.27%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $2,358,257 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $2,369,000 $2,590,040 109.33%

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)

$5,889,500 $253,638 4.31%

State and Local Funds $0 $425,000 0%

HRRRP (SAFET_LU) $190,100 $0 0%

Totals $19,180,200 $7,909,680 41.24%

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

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

$0 

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

$0 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 50

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

$252,348 

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

$252,348 

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.

No impediments at this time.

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

No
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 50

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

2016 HEP 

Studies Program

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 15 Locations $186139.97 $186139.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

Signing 

equipment for 

various locations

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

$12526.83 $12526.83 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

Pre-approved 

products List 

(consultant work)

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

$58099.41 $58099.41 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

End treatment 

repair guidelines 

(consultant work)

Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

$30829.89 $30829.89 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

0 Roadway 

Departure

HEP before, after 

crash analysis

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning $45502.69 $45502.69 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

Left Exit design 

services

Intersection traffic 

control

$26665.76 $26665.76 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Older Drivers, 

Aggressive 

Driving

CARS 

Enhancements

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $49940.98 $49940.98 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Data

SR1 @ Bay 

Crossing Blvd 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $300000 $300000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

58,700 45 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

US13 @ MLK Jr. 

Blvd

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $203292.2 $203292.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

29,800 50 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

Hazletville Road 

Pole Relocation

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

1 Locations $7850 $7850 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

16,200 45 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

29044 Numbers $575219.71 $575219.71 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Inspection of 

turned down 

guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal $19534.59 $19534.59 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Inspection of 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

$762.02 $762.02 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Signing 

equipment for 

various locations

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

$2119.54 $2119.54 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

2017 HEP 

Studies Program

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 15 Locations $894423.4 $894423.4 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Various

SR2 @ E 

Cleveland 

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $12592 $12592 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

39,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 50

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

Ave/Woodlawn 

Ave

Signalized 

Median 

Crossover 

Contract 

Documents

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

433 Intersections $12783.54 $12783.54 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Multi-Lane Divided 

Highways

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SHSP Studies 

Consultant

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning $115921.58 $115921.58 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Various

SR141 Spur and 

West Park

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $2475.9 $2475.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,700 35 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

SR2 @ Kirkwood 

Plaza

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Intersections $122952.36 $122952.36 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

43,900 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians, 

Intersections

SR2 and Duncan Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Intersections $25254.15 $25254.15 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

43,900 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians, 

Intersections

Workzone Safety 

Campaign

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts $24324.47 $24324.47 State and Local 

Funds

0 Work Zones

Safety Outreach 

Trailer and 

Highway Safety 

Brochure

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts $4196.81 $4196.81 State and Local 

Funds

0 Various

US40 & Church 

(Lighting)

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.2 Miles $198708.2 $198708.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

HEP Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other $92765.69 $92765.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Various

SR2 @ SR41/62 

APS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - audible 

device

1 Intersections $17734.01 $17734.01 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

49,200 40 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

OHS Crosswalk 

Campaign

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts $57500 $57500 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

0 Pedestrians

RRFB at 

Bayhealth 

Campus Dover

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Locations $155000 $155000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,000 25 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians

Purchase of truck 

mounted VMS 

boards

Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

$81233.5 $81233.5 State and Local 

Funds

0

US13 @ Wildel 

Ave

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 1 Intersections $14158 $14158 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

34,900 35 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians, 

Intersections

South Walnut 

Street Guide 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Locations $17403.75 $17403.75 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

31,500 50 State Highway 

Agency

North Dover Back 

Plates Governors

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates

1 Intersections $28919.49 $28919.49 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,400 25 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

RRFB South 

(Beach Area)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Locations $42700.51 $42700.51 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Major 

Collector

10,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 50

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

SR58 & Cavaliers 

Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $17000 $17000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,600 40 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

SR273 Roadway 

Lighting

Lighting Intersection lighting 2 Intersections $111899.9 $111899.9 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

32,600 50 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians, 

Intersections

Smyrna LED 

Lighting 

Installation

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.5 Miles $49185.76 $49185.76 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

27,500 45 State Highway 

Agency

Pedestrians, 

Intersections

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

The reported total project costs and HSIP costs shown are the costs for the reporting period (i.e., FY 2017).
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 50

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 122 118 103 103 116 101 125 133 120

Serious Injuries 713 609 722 633 608 628 625 567 593

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.360 1.310 1.150 1.140 1.270 1.080 1.310 1.340 1.200

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.960 6.740 8.070 7.010 6.650 6.740 6.530 5.720 5.820

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

28 21 25 19 34 28 30 39 29

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

71 64 74 86 75 82 72 61 64
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 50

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2016. As 

such, 2016 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2016 VMT values. 2016 VMT 

was projected from known 2015 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2016 release), which 

indicates a 0.92% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2014-2014 for "baseline economic 

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

injuries.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

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

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

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

Year 2016

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 50

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 -

Interstate

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

1.2 3 0.13 0.39

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

7.4 28 0.72 2.73

Rural Minor Arterial 5 11.6 1.55 3.56

Rural Minor Collector 10.4 11.6 7.52 8.27

Rural Major Collector 13.8 37.6 2.28 6.16

Rural Local Road or Street 5.6 35.8 1.29 8.06

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

6.2 25.6 0.47 1.94

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

2.2 8.6 0.38 1.52

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

30.8 139 1.54 6.96

Urban Minor Arterial 13.8 96.2 1.32 9.21

Urban Minor Collector 0 1.2 0 2.53

Urban Major Collector 10.2 62 1.32 8.08

Urban Local Road or Street 7.8 64.4 0.88 7.24
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 50

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 0 0 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2016. As such, 2016 

crash rates were calculated based on projected 2016 VMT values. 2016 VMT was projected from known 2015 

VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2016 release), which indicates a 0.92% annual 

growth rate for the 20-year period from 2014-2014 for "baseline economic growth". If needed, please see 

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

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

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

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

As shown, the combined number of fatalities and serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) per year 

declined each year from 2010 through 2013. In 2014, there was an increase of less than one percent. The 

combined number of fatalities and serious injuries declined from 753 in 2014 to 728 and 721 in calendar year 

2015 and 2016, respectively. Statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT); gradually decreased from 2008 to 2012 

(based on 5-year rolling averages); however, has been increasingly since 2013. Fatalities per VMT (based on 5-

year rolling averages) decreased in 2013 and 2014 when compared to 2012; however, 2015 and 2016 has seen 

an increase in the fatality rate. Serious injuries per VMT (based on 5-year rolling averages) have decreased 

since 2012 on an annual basis since 2010. The raw number of fatalities and serious injuries per year for the 

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

and serious injury rates as compared to other states and national rates, even though the raw number of fatalities 

and serious injuries may only differ by a few on a year-to-year basis.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 50

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 120.2 

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

During 2015, DelDOT, OHS, and other safety partners throughout the state worked to 

develop the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan: Toward Zero Deaths, 

which provides a framework to reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from 

crashes on Delaware’s roadways. The overall goal of the SHSP includes annual target 

reductions for fatalities and serious injuries. DelDOT and OHS performed extensive 

data and trendline analyses to identify potential methodologies for establishing 

Delaware’s 2018 targets. DelDOT and OHS met with FHWA and NHTSA 

representatives in April 2017 to review the data and potential methodologies for 

establishing targets. In order to maintain consistency with the 2015 SHSP, DelDOT 

and OHS agreed to use the annual targets included in Delaware’s 2015 SHSP as the 

basis for developing Delaware’s 2018 five-year rolling average targets for each SPM. 

The number of fatalities and serious injuries in 2016 were reduced by 3 and 15 per 

year, respectively, to obtain target values for 2017 and 2018. The 2014 through 2018 

values were then averaged to calculate the 2018 5-year rolling average target values. 

Consistent methodologies were applied to establish the target values for the rate of 

fatalities, rate of serious injuries, and combined number of non-motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries. 

Number of Serious Injuries 578.6 

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

See number of fatalities approach. 

Fatality Rate 1.208 

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

See number of fatalities approach. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.822 

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

See number of fatalities approach. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 94.2 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 50

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

See number of fatalities approach. 

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

Between the time when safety performance measure targets were developed (and agreed upon by multiple 

stakeholders) and the time of this report, the number of serious injuries for calendar year changed slightly from 

582 to 593, an increase of 11 serious injuries or less than two percent. 

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

targets. 

Following an April 2017 meeting between DelDOT, OHS, FHWA, and NHTSA, the draft agreed upon safety 

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

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

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

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

draft safety performance measure targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

19 11 13 11 14 20 14

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

47 59 41 41 55 42 42
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries

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

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

data.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 50

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Economic Effectiveness (cost per crash reduced) 

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.

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

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

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 42.6 103.4 0.45 1.09
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 50

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

Intersections 28 236.8 0.29 2.49

Pedestrians 29.2 53.6 0.31 0.57
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 50

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Roadway Departure Intersections Pedestrians

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

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

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data is unavailable for calendar year 2016. As 

such, 2016 fatality and serious injury rates were calculated based on projected 2016 VMT values. 2016 VMT 

was projected from known 2015 VMT using FHWA's VMT forecasting growth rates (May 2016 release), which 
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 50

indicates a 0.92% annual growth rate for the 20-year period from 2014-2014 for "baseline economic growth". 

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

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

Highway Safety Plan.

As shown, the number of roadway departure fatalities (based on 5-year rolling averages) decreased from 2011 

to 2014 and increased in 2015 and 2016; however, the number of roadway departure serious injuries has 

decreased from 2011 through 2016. The number of intersection fatalities has remained consistent from 2011 

through 2016; however, the number of intersection serious injuries has generally decreased from 2011 through 

2016. Pedestrian fatalities have increased since 2011 and pedestrian serious injuries have remained relatively 

consistent since 2011. 

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

Yes

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

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: Install HFST at horizontal curves. 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 23 

Number of Installations: 23 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 11.05 

Years After: 1.12 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

Before/after crash data shows that 

roadway departure crashes decreased at 

83% of the HFST locations and by an 

overall average of 56%. Benefit/cost 

analysis indicates an overall B/C ratio of 

23.97.

File Name: HFST Supporting Documentation.pdf
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 50

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Statewide ALL Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

66.23 52.00 66.23 52.00 23.97

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

For the HFST program, before/after crash data was categorized by total crashes, wet weather crashes, and roadway departure crashes - regardless of the crash severity. The values reported under the PDO category are the sum of the yearly 

average number of crashes at 23 different installation locations. However, additional information shows that the total number of wet-weather crashes per year decreased at 91% of the locations and by an overall average of 55%. The total 

number of crashes per year decreased at 70% of the locations and by an overall average of 21%. The total number of roadway departure crashes per year decreased at 83% of the locations and by an overall average of 56%. The overall 

benefit/cost for all locations where HFST was installed is 23.97 and 70 percent of the 23 locations experienced a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0. For additional details on Delaware's HFST program and the before/after crash analyses, 

please refer to the attached document included in Question 44. At all but one location, the number of wet-weather roadway departure crashes per year decreased.

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

No
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 50

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/31/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 80

Surface Type (23) 100 0 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 0
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 50

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

Access Control (22) 100 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 80

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 50

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 Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 72.22 100.00 87.50 90.91 100.00 100.00 84.44 100.00 100.00

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

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

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

completed in October 2015. Delaware’s Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) is working towards meeting the FDE requirement by September 2026.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 50

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

No

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

2018

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

DelDOT is continually assessing its HSIP as evident by the recent introduction of systemic-based improvement programs like its high-friction surface treatment, rumble strip, and median barrier programs. DelDOT anticipates completing a 

formal program assessment within the next year.
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 50

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2017 HSIP Annual Report HEP Site Selection.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

HSIP Q32 (Functional Class).xlsx

Evaluation:

HFST Supporting Documentation.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 50

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.