Vermont

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: VT
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................2

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................5

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................14

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 14

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................49

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................75
iv
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

There are different reporting periods used in this report. The report presents processes, and 

methodologies and programmed and obligated funding for the state fiscal year July 1, 2012 to June 30, 

2013 while crash data and trends are presented on a calendar year basis. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program was implemented following the typical methodology 

established in 2005. The Agency further continued to work with local municipalities in the review of 

high risk local roads and in the constructions of low cost improvements.

For the state fiscal year (July 1, 2012 to June 30 2013), the total amount of funding that was 

obligated during the reporting period was $5,373,566. Of these, $2,705,375 was obligated from 

HSIP Section 148, $621,957 was obligated from HRRRP SAFETEA-LU and $2,046,234 was 

obligated from Section 164.

During the reporting period, fifteen projects were in a design stage and six were completed or being 

constructed.

The Vermont Highway Safety Alliance , a partnership whose make-up is a diversity of organizations and 

agencies, public and private that represent the 4 Es of Highway Safety (Education, Engineering, 

Enforcement, and Emergency Services), was created in August 2012 and now oversees the development 

of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. One of the first accomplishments of the Alliance was the 

development and adoption of a new Strategic Highway Safety Plan in March 2013.

Over the years, the HSIP and other related safety efforts have been efficient at reducing the number of 

major crashes (fatal + serious injury crashes). One of the principal measures of success that illustrates 

this is the reduction in the five-year average of major crashes which passed from 433 major crashes for 

the 2004-2008 period to 375 for the 2008-2012 period. This represents approximately a 13% reduction 

in the five-year average. Furthermore, since the implementation of the SHSP in 2006, major crashes at 

intersections have been below the 105 crashes per year target set by the 2006 SHSP. Similarly, the 2006 

SHSP target for the number of major run-off-the-road crashes was set to 205 crashes per year and the 

number of major crashes in each of the last four years has been below this target. 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Local roads that are part of the Federal Aid System are addressed the same way as state 

maintained roads, using the approved HSIP ranking methodology for the identification of 

locations with potential safety problems. The local roads that rank within the subset of top 

locations are reviewed through an engineering study. Low cost remedial actions are 

implemented via a statewide project, while high cost solutions are implemented by VTrans 

through the regular design process. 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

During the reporting period, local roads that were functionally classified as 7 (major collector), 

8 (Minor collector) and 9 (local) were considered for evaluation and improvement under our 

state high risk rural roads program. Locations were identified by the regional planning 

commissions using crash data as well as anecdotal information. For these locations, safety 

corridor reviews were performed to identify signing, markings and guardrail improvements. 

These low cost treatments will be designed and implemented via a statewide project. 

Upon the request of a municipality, VTrans will perform a road safety audit of any local road to 

assist the municipality with local safety concerns. A multidisciplinary team is put together, a site 

visit is performed and a report outlying recommendations is provided to the municipality.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Depending on the characteristics of the site to be reviewed, Design, Operations and/or 

Maintenance staff are asked to take part to the visit of the site and to formulate some 

recommendations. Key personal in Design and/or Maintenance are contacted several weeks in 

advance usually by email by the lead investigator. Along with a request to attend an on-site 

meeting, the lead investigator also sends relevant background information such as crash 

information and a general description of the problem.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Municipalities

Other: Other-Regional Planning Commissions

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-There has been no change since the last reporting period. We are planning to write our 

HISP procedure in the coming months.

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

In the past, a significant challenge in administering the HSIP had been the implementation of 

low cost projects on town or city maintained roads as well as having municipalities follow 

federal procurement procedures. As of 2012, VAOT has been developing and contracting 

regional projects to implement low cost solutions on town or city owned roads. 

Another challenge in the deployment of the HSIP and of its overall effectiveness at the spot 

location level is the design and construction of countermeasure projects in an accelerated 

manner. While this remains an issue for large project, whenever possible, low to mid range 

projects are incorporated in paving projects or other existing projects. 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 3/12/2009

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Anecdotal information Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-All the locations that are reviewed get funded for signage

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/28/2005

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 9/18/2007

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Incidental to Class II 

Highway Grant Projects

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Age of signs along a 

corridor

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Districts' Class II Highway Grant Awards

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

In the case of FY 2010 Class II 

paving projects, projects were 

also funded for MUTCD sign 

2
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

upgrades

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

30

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

One significant challenge concerning the HSIP ranking methodology is that it does not address 

roads that are off the Federal Aid System. The HSIP ranking methodology currently built upon 

the high crash locations generated by VTrans’ Highway Research Section using their 

computerized algorithm. The data that they use as input are only for 

the roads that fall under the Federal Aid highway system. Consequently, only locally 

maintained roads that are on the Federal Aid systems are considered as part of the ranking 

methodology of the HSIP. 

A consultant has been hired to review our HSIP ranking process with the aim of being able to 

analyze all local roads in the future. A key issue is the localization of crashes on roads that are 

off the Federal Aid System. The use of GPS by law enforcement is growing and this has 

permitted to locate crashes on local roads. As more years of data are available more significant 

analysis will be able to be performed. A second issue is the development of a computerized 

analysis tool that would incorporate the roads that are off the Federal Aid System. A linear 

reference system for local roads has been developed in the past but has not yet been 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

integrated with an analysis tool. 

Another significant challenge is that in Vermont, rural crashes are dispersed. Our current spot 

improvement methodology requires an average on one crash per year to flag a high crash 

location along with a critical ratio of above 1 when compared to the average ratio of similar 

roads. These conditions either tend to identify rural locations with very few crashes or urban 

locations with a large number of crashes at high traffic intersections. 

We are using SafetyAnalyst to implement the project evaluation methodology of the Highway 

Safety Manual.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 2705375 50 % 2705375 50 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 621957 12 % 621957 12 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

2046234 38 % 2046234 38 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds

Totals 5373566 100% 5373566 100%

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

20 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

20 %

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

20 %

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

15 %
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

period?

10 %

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

period? 

0 %

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

Safety projects should have a quick turnaround to have a significant impact. Major 

construction projects that follow the rigid design process are an impediment to obligating 

funds. Producing more systemic projects with little or no right-of-way and little environmental 

impacts is one way to design and construct more projects and thus spending more money on 

safety.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Beginning in 2012, we have started to design and contract statewide low cost projects as part 

of the HSIP to implement countermeasures on roads with municipal jurisdiction. 

A consultant will be helping us reviewing our HSIP methodology in the next reporting period.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

BARRE CITY 

HES 037-

1(8) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

93937

5

93937

5

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

4900 25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

BARRE 

TOWN HES 

STPG 

6100(6) -

Preliminary

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0 

Numbe

rs

15617

00

15617

00

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2700 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

BERLIN 

STPG 

SGNL(40) -

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

1 

Numbe

67500

0

67500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1145

9

50 State 

Highway 

Improving 

the design 

and 

Improve 

Operatio
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Design nt rs n 148) Other Agency operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

ns

BRISTOL 

HES 021-

1(28) -

Design

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

95000

0

95000

0

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

5900 30 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

BURLINGTO

N HES 5200 

(18) -

Design

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

27350

00

27350

00

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1940

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

CAMBRIDG

E STP 030-

2(27) -

Design

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

22878

39

22878

39

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

7150 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

Improve 

Operatio

ns
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

intersecti

ons

COLCHESTE

R HES028-

1(28) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

2 

Numbe

rs

56000

0

56000

0

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1145

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

COLCHESTE

R HES NH 

5600(14) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometry -

other

2 

Numbe

rs

69348

00

69348

00

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2115

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

ESSEX STPG 

SGNL(41) -

Constructio

n

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

38542

5

38542

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1320

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

ESSEX 

TOWN STP 

HES 5400(5) 

- Design

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

1 

Numbe

rs

10381

99

10381

99

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

8950 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

FERRISBUR

GH NHG 

SGNL(42) -

Design

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection traffic control 

- other

1 

Numbe

rs

47000

0

47000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1230

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

HINESBURG 

HES 021-

1(19) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

2 

Numbe

rs

22217

95

22217

95

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

8550 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

JERICHO 

STP HES 

030-1(21) -

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

0 0 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1014

9

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

Improve 

Geometr

y
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Design operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

LOW COST 

SAFETY 

IMPROVE -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

6 

Numbe

rs

3690.5

1

3690.5

1

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Various 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Visibility

MILTON 

HES 028-

1(27)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs and 

traffic control - other

0.3 

Miles

6500 6500 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

55 9500 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

MORRSITO

WN STP 

HES 030-

2(20)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

1 

Numbe

rs

12750

0

12750

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

6700 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

NEW 

HAVEN HES 

032-1(8) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

1 

Numbe

rs

10500

00

10500

00

Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

4050 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

SOUTH 

BURLINGTO

N HES 

5200(20) -

Design

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

long vehicle detection

4 

Numbe

rs

10400 10400 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

6350 25 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Operatio

ns

SOUTH 

HERO STP 

HES 028-

1(22) -

Design

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

13000

00

13000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

6950 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation 

of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

Improve 

Geometr

y

STATEWIDE 

HES CRSH

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

92423 31179

1

Penalt

y 

Transf

Not 

Applicable

, Crash 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informati

on and 

Improve 

Data 

Quality
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

er –

Section 

164

Managem

ent

decision 

support 

systems

STATEWIDE 

HES SFTY(6) 

CLASS II TH 

TRAFFIC 

CONTROL

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

45 

Miles

26544 26544 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Section 

164

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

STPHRRR(1

2) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

10.757 

Miles

86493 86493 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

STPHRRR(1

3) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

34.827 

Miles

18645

5

18645

5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

STPHRRR(1

4) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

12.456 

Miles

10621

7

10621

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

STPHRRR(1

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

12.799 11666 11666 HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Major, 

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

Keeping 

vehicles in 

Local 

Roads, 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

5) -

Cpmpleted

(including post) - new or 

updated

Miles 4 4 n 148) Minor and 

Local 

Roads

p 

Highway 

Agency

the 

roadway

Visibility

Statewide 

HES HSIP(3) 

-

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

0.421 

Miles

3912 3912 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

HES HSIP(4) 

-

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

5.094 

Miles

29871 29871 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban &

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

HES HSIP(5) 

- C 

ompleted

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1.239 

Miles

4799 4799 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility

Statewide 

HES HSIP(6) 

- C 

ompleted

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

3.248 

Miles

67657 67657 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban & 

Rural 

Major, 

Minor and 

Local 

Roads

0 0 Town or 

Townshi

p 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Local 

Roads, 

Visibility
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

STPG 

SIGN(33) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

33.11 

Miles

22339

1

22339

1

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Visibility

STPG 

SIGN(35) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

30.77 

Miles

12126

7

12126

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Visibility

STPG 

SIGN(37) -

Completed

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

21.46 

Miles

86035 86035 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Visibility
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General 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

Number of fatalities 79 74 74 68 70

Number of serious injuries 444 435 419 399 384

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.05 0.99 1 0.92 0.97

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5.88 5.79 5.64 5.44 5.29

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2012

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

8 46 0.01 3.76

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

12 55 0.02 7.72

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

8 80 0.01 8.56

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

3 15 0.01 7.07

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

16 106 0.01 9.01

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

11 71 0.01 6.79

URBAN PRINCIPAL 2 5 0 1.39
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1 3 0.01 4.93

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

3 43 0.01 9.91

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

3 39 0.01 10.93

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

2 19 0.01 8.52

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

1 12 0 3.02

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

43.2 200.2 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

18.8 116.4 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 3 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 7 50 0 0

OTHER 7 50 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Note that the data for Town or Township Highway Agency also include numbers for City of Municipal Highway Agency. Also note 

that HMVTMs by Roadway Ownership are not available for years prior to 2010 and that five-years rolling average cannot be 

computed yet, since we have only three years of data.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

The crash data analysis reviewed included reported crashes from the five-year periods between 

the years 2004 and 2012. Major crashes are defined as crashes that either resulted in a fatal 

injury or in an incapacitating injury.

The number of major crashes five-year average has declined from 433 major crashes for the 

2004-2008 period to 375 for the 2008-2012 period. This represents a 13% reduction in the fiveyear average.

Over the years, leaving the road and crashes taking place at intersections have been the two 

crash types that have typically accounted for a large proportion of major crashes. For the latest 

five-year period, these proportions represented 50% and 21% of all major crashes respectively. 

Small reductions in these crash types have taken place. The five-year average for the number of 

major crashes in which a vehicle left the roadway passed from a high of 202.8 crashes for the 

2004-2008 period to a low of 186.6 crashes during the 2008-2012 period. Similarly, crashes at 

intersections went down from 87.8 to 80.2 over the same two periods. 

Drivers aged less than 21 and those aged more than 64 years of age were involved in 18% and 

16% of all major crashes. Significant improvements were achieved in the realm of young drivers 

as the five-year average for the number of major crashes involving a young driver went down 

from 96.8 to 69.6. In contrast, the five-year average for older drivers remained relatively stable 

(63.2 to 61.4). 

Impaired driving remains an important contributing factor in the occurrence of major crashes. 

The five-year average for the number of major crashes involving an impaired driver went from 

107.6 crashes per year to 101.6 crashes per year between the 2004-2008 period and the 2008-

2012 period. During the same periods, the number of major crashes in which car occupants 

were not wearing a seat belt decreased from 116.8 crashes to 98.0.

Aggressive driving, distracted driving, crashes involving trucks and those involving motorcycles 

have shown downwards trends between the 2004-2008 period and the 2008-2012 one.

Non-motorist crashes account for a very small proportion of major crashes. Non-motorists include 

pedestrians and bicyclists. The five-year average for the number of major crashes involving a pedestrian 

remained stable at around 27.2 crashes per year between the 2004-2008 period and the 2008-2012 

period. On the other hand, the five-year average for the number of major crashes in which a bicyclist 

was involved slightly increased from 10.2 crashes per year to 12.2 over the same two periods.

Application of Special Rules
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0.09 0.1 0.09 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 0.25 0.27 0.27 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

The Injury A, Incapacitating Injury, category was use to represent Serious Injuries.

The number of people 65 years of age and older (per 1,000 total population) for each year was obtained 

from Attachment 2 of Section 142: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance dated 

February 13, 2013.

The five year average Fatal (F) and Serious Injuries (SI) per capita for Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years 

of age and older for year ending in 2011 and 2009 was calculated for the following periods respectively, 

2011 (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007) and 2009 (2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005).

For each period, the rate was calculated by summing up the fatal and serious injuries for a given year 

and dividing the total for that year by the population figure for the year. The rates for the period were then 

summed up and divided by 5 to obtain the five year average for the two ending year (2009 and 2011). 

All rates were calculated to the hundredths after the decimal point and then rounded to the nearest 

tenths. 

The 2009 rate was 0.4 and the 2011 rate was 0.3. There is no increase and therefore the rule does not 

apply.

The calculations are shown below.

Fatalities

Drivers Peds

2005 8 2
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

2006 15 0 15

2007 13 1 14

2008 7 0 7

2009 14 2 16

2010 14 2 16

2011 7 3 10

Serious Inj

2005 30 4 34

2006 31 3 34

2007 37 7 44

2008 27 5 32

2009 29 7 36

2010 38 3 41

2011 21 5 26

Five Year Average

Total F+SIPop Rate 100ths Rate 

2005 44 128 0.34 0.3

2006 49 133 0.37 0.4

2007 58 135 0.43 0.4

2008 39 140 0.28 0.3

2009 52 144 0.36 0.4

2010 57 146 0.39 0.4

2011 36 149 0.24 0.2

5 Yr Avg

2005-2009 0.4

2007-2011 0.3

Note: Disregard the tables below. 

They are duplicates of the ones above 

and do not format well in the final 
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

report. Not able to delete them. 

Fatalities

Fatalities

D

r

i

v

e

r

s

Peds Total

2005 82 10

2006 1

5

0 15

2007 1

3

1 14

2008 70 7

2009 1

4

2 16

2010 1

4

2 16

2011 73 10

Serious Inj

2005 3

0

4 34

2006 3

1

3 34

2007 3

7

7 44
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

2008 2

7

5 32

2009 2

9

7 36

2010 3

8

3 41

2011 2

1

5 26

Five Year Average

T

o

t

a

l

F

+

S

I

Pop Rate 100ths Rate 10ths

2005 4

4

128 0.34 0.3

2006 4

9

133 0.37 0.4

2007 5

8

135 0.43 0.4

2008 3

9

140 0.28 0.3

2009 5

2

144 0.36 0.4

2010 5

7

146 0.39 0.4

2011 3

6

149 0.24 0.2
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

5

Y

r

A

v

g

2005-2009

0

.

4

2007-2011

0

.

3
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Overall reduction in certain type of crashes such as at intersections or leaving off the 

road.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Formation of the Vermont Safety Alliance to oversee the SHSP
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

A number of programmatic changes have taken place since the last reporting period. 

The Vermont Highway Safety Alliance was created in August 2012 and oversees the development of the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan. It is a partnership whose make-up is a diversity of organizations and 

agencies, public and private that are committed to Highway Safety. The primary goal is to reduce major 

highway crashes with major crashes defined as those resulting in a fatality or incapacitating injury.

Through greatly enhanced communication and cooperation with a combination of resources, the VHSA 

hopes to achieve this goal at a faster pace than when our partners were working individually. The 

Alliance is made up of partners from the 4 Es of Highway Safety: Education, Engineering, Enforcement, 

and Emergency Services.

A dedicated position was created among the agency of transportation to assist with the coordination of 

the strategic highway safety plan and its implementation.

A new strategic highway safety plan was adopted in March 2013.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

Drivers aged 20 

years old or 

less in major 

crashes

6 34 0.08 0.47 69.6 0 0

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

Drivers aged 65 

years old or 

older in major 

crashes

12 33 0.17 0.45 61.4 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Major crashes 

with erratic 

maneuver, 

above speed 

limit or too fast

23 98 0.31 1.35 94 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

Major Crashes 

alcohol & drugs

25 64 0.35 0.88 101.6 0 0

Keeping drivers alert Major Crashes 

with 

distraction, 

inattention, 

4 40 0.05 0.55 24.6 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

fatigue

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

Major crashes 

with F or SI No 

Restraint or 

Helmet Used

29 82 0.4 1.13 91 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Major crashes 

with Ped 

involved

5 22 0.06 0.31 27.2 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Major crashes 

with Bike 

involved

0 12 0.03 0.17 12.2 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

Major crashes 

with Moto 

involved

8 45 0.09 0.51 50.6 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

Major crashes 

with Truck 

involved

1 4 0.01 0.05 19.6 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

Major crashes 

Overturned, 

GuardRail/Curb, 

Tree, Pole/Sign, 

Ledge/Boulder, 

Other Fixed 

36 172 0.49 2.37 186.6 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Object, ROR

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway intersections

Major crashes 

at intersections

10 81 0.13 0.08 80.2 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Groups of similar project types
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rural State 

Highways

All Rural 

Road Major 

Crashes 

(AOT 

Groups 

3,4,6)

17 89 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Systemic Treatments
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove 

Traffic Signal

Major 

Crashes 

Signalized 

Intersections 

State Roads

1 22 0.02 0.31 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement 

Marking and/or Delineation

Major 

Crashes Lane 

Departure

36 172 0.49 2.37 0 0 0
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

Of the seven emphasis areas identified in the SHSP, run-off-the-road crashes and 

intersection crashes are the two areas that specifically relate to engineering and the 

HSIP. 

The first version of the SHSP suggested to reduce, by 2010, the number of intersection 

related major crashes by 3% and runoff- the road major crashes by 5% compared to 

2004 levels.

Since the implementation of the SHSP in 2006, major crashes at intersections have 

been below the 105 crashes per year target set by the SHSP. Similarly, the SHSP 

target for the number of major run-off-the-road crashes was set to 205 crashes per year 

and the number of major crashes in each of the last four years has been below this 

target. 

The five year-average of fatal and serious injury crashes passed from 433 crashes for 

the 2004-2008 period to 375 crashes for the 2008-2012 period. The five-year average is 

trending downwards and is getting closer to the 350 target set as a goal in the original 

SHSP.

The newly adopted version of the SHSP (March 2013) sets new targets for the coming 

years. The target reduction for the 5-year rolling average for both intersection and runoff-the-road crashes is now10% by 2016, For intersection crashes, this translates into a 

5-year average target of 72 crashes. For run-off-the road crashes, the target is 186 

crashes.

Overall, the new target reduction for major crashes is also a 10% reduction in the 5-year 

rolling average for the 2008-2012 period when compared to the 2012-2016 one.
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

HSIP05004,S01061304,3.68 Rural 

Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

0 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 1 0.17

HSIP03009,U302-1202,2.55 Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

0 1 2 4 7 0 0 0 1 1 -0.0247

HSIP03012,V120-0607,8.21 Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew 

angle

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2117

HSIP04028,V116-0407,4.56 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control 

- other

0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 2 2 -0.357

HSIP04028,V116-0407,4.41 Rural 

Minor 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0.5351
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Arterial right-turn 

lane

HSIP04045,V078-0615,7.68 Rural 

Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1.3417

HSIP03004,V063-1202,0.95 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

0 3 4 11 18 0 0 6 5 11 -0.75

HSIP00722, V015-

0805,1.827

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

0 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.1311

STP5800(2),U007-

0410,5.88

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0783
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are 

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.