Page 1 of 40

VERMONT

2019 ANNUAL REPORT

Photo Source: 

Photo image courtesy of VTrans
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 40

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 40

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 

purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed 

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

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

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

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court 

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence 

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 40

Executive Summary

During the state fiscal year (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019), VTrans conducted six road safety audits at hot 

spot locations in collaboration with law enforcement officers and other safety partners around the states. The 

Agency further continued to work with local municipalities on systemic safety to address local road safety with 

emphasis on horizontal curves.

For the state fiscal year (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019), the total amount of funding that was obligated during 

the reporting period was $14,597,927. Of this, $9,888,085 was obligated from HSIP Section 148 and 4,709,842 

was obligated from Section 164.

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

crashes (fatal + serious injury crashes) on Vermont roads. One of the principal measures of success that 

illustrates this is the reduction in the five-year average of major crashes which passed from 367 major crashes 

for the 2008-2012 period to 288 for the 2014-2018 period.

The five-year averages of the number of fatalities and serious injuries went down for the same periods as well. 

The five-year average of the number of fatalities went from 70 fatalities to 60 while the five-year average of the 

number of serious injuries went from 386 to 284 serious injuries.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 40

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. 

The overall program structure is centralized. 

HSIP staff review high crash locations on the federal aid network and identify potential projects. Solutions are 

proposed to mitigate crash patterns and crash types. Crash modification factors and benefits-to-costs ratios 

(B/C ratio) are used to determine the best solutions. A project must have a B/C ratio of greater than 1 to be 

further considered. 

A group of senior management review the recommendations for further advancement of the projects to scoping 

or design. 

Major HSIP projects are designed by consultants or Agency staff following the normal project development 

process. 

Small projects such as signage, markings, beacons and brush cutting are implemented via work orders done 

by the Agency. 

Statewide projects related to signs and markings are contracted out yearly. 

The Agency incorporate the SafetyEdge and centerline rumble stripes on all paving projects according to 

Agency guidelines. 

Projects are evaluated using before and after crash data for a period of three-years before and three years 

after construction. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

HSIP staff is now part of the Operations and Safety Bureau following a reorganization in December 2018.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 40

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-Central Office via High Crash Location Reviews

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

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. 

VTrans operates a program called Systemic Local Roads Safety Program (SLRS). This program targets all 

urban and rural local roads with traffic volumes of less than 5000 vehicles per day. This program includes 

town-maintained roads that are not necessarily on the Federal-Aid Systems. For this SLRS program, locations 

are identified by the regional planning commissions using crash risk factors (such as presence of a horizontal 

curve), crash data, and anecdotal information. For these locations, safety corridor reviews are performed to 

identify signing and marking improvements. These low cost treatments are designed and implemented via a 

statewide project. The methodology used to select the SLRS projects was attached as an uploaded document 

under the Program Methodology Section. 

Approximately $800,000 of HSIP funds are used for the SLRS program.

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 (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) 

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Depending on the characteristics of the site to be reviewed, Design, Operations and Maintenance staff as well 

as the Governor’s Highway Safety Office Enforcement Liaison are asked to take part to the visit of the site and 

to formulate some recommendations. Key individuals are contacted several weeks in advance usually by email 

by the lead investigator. For each site, 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.

Pavement markings and sign projects are designed by VTrans Traffic Design Section or their consultants. The 

coordination of projects with other units happens during the review of the projects.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 40

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

As with internal partners, external partners are involved during the conduct of road safety audits and safety 

reviews. They are asked to take part to the visit of the sites and to formulate some recommendations. Key 

individuals are contacted several weeks in advance usually by email by the lead investigator. For each site, 

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.

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

elaborate. 

There has been a continued challenge in the deployment of HSIP countermeasure projects in that they follow 

the same design process as every other road and bridge projects at VTrans. The solution may be identified 

quickly, however there is no priority put on an HSIP projects compared to other projects and therefore, 

implementation can take several years as the safety project works through the same design process (PE, 

ROW and construction) as all VTrans projects.

HSIP funds are used to implement projects that come out directly from the HSIP planning process performed 

by the Operations and Safety Bureau. However, HSIP funds are also used by other business units at VTrans 

such as Traffic Design, Roadway Design and the Municipal Assistance Bureau, to design and construct other 

safety projects in accordance with strategies of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

The Assets Management & Programming Bureau at VTrans is responsible for programming projects and 

therefore the Operations and Safety Bureau is not directly responsible for programming safety projects. 

The delivery of low-cost projects, such as the installation of signs or the upgrade of signal equipment on town 

highways has been an issue as well. While, since 2012, we have been developing and contracting regional 

projects to implement these low-cost solutions on town and city owned roads (thus making sure that federal 

procurement procedures are followed), the time lag between the road reviews and the installation of the low 

cost improvements has been lengthy (two to four years). In addition, preparing formal plans for contacting 

purposes has also been time consuming and expensive. VTrans is working on developing an alternative 

contracting process to accelerate the delivery of these low-cost projects using an on-call contractor (and work 

order style plans). It was anticipated that this process for signs and markings would be in place for the 2019 

construction season, However, the process will not be available until 2020.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

Vermont HSIP Manual February 19 2016.pdf

Vermont HSIP Low Cost Program October 2016.pdf
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 40

Systemic Local Road Safety Program.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Other-Major Project Spot Improvements

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-FAST Act Special Rules

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set-aside only if special rules apply

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fatal and all injury crashes Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-statewide project for low cost improvements

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 40

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:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

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:100

Total Relative Weight:100
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 40

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:10/3/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Lane miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Office of Highway Safety Staff based on recommendations from Road Safety Audit 

Team

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:100

Total Relative Weight:100
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 40

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:2/9/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Sign replacement needs 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Average Sign Age

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Programed by Asset Management & Performance Bureau

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:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Major Project Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 40

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Lane miles Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Incremental B/C:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 0

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

The safety edge and rumble strips are installed on all projects as per policy.

VTrans has a systemic improvement program that focuses on horizontal curves on town-maintained roads (it is 

called Systemic Local Road Safety – SLRS). However, no projects were constructed during the reporting 

period (as explained later in this report).
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 40

VTrans has sign projects and pavement marking projects that are constructed from year to year but 

systematically (74% of HSIP funds).

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

The SHSP provides general guidance for certain type of issues (for example, improve signalization) but does 

not specifically point to specific countermeasures.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

The HSIP does not address ITS or automated vehicles directly. However, HSIP funds are being used on traffic 

signal projects that consider autonomous vehicles and ITS technologies.

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. 

Vermont has been using the overall safety management process discussed in Part B of the HSM to conduct 

the HSIP. 

Vermont has been using the critical rate method to screen the roadway network when identifying high crash 

locations. 

Vermont has been using the methodology shown in Appendix 4a to updates its crash cost estimates. 

Vermont has been using crash modification factors for estimating the crash reduction benefits when calculating 

benefits/costs ratios (B/C ratio) for evaluating alternatives. 

Vermont is in the process of preparing an implementation plan for incorporating AASHTOWARE SafetyAnalyst 

into the safety management process.

Vermont has used at some occasions the predictive equations presented in Part C of the HSM when 

conducting some site impacts analysis. However, the fact the equations are not calibrated to Vermont 

conditions has limited the use of these tools.

In FFY2019, Vermont has been working with the UVM Transportation Center to calibrate the predictive 

equations for two-lane rural roads found in Chapter 10 of the HSM. This project will be completed by 

September 30, 2019. 
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 40

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

elaborate. 

The main challenge concerning our HSIP ranking methodology for spot improvements continues to be that it 

does not address roads that are off the Federal Aid System. The current HSIP ranking methodology generates 

locations based on the high crash locations that are generated by VTrans’ Highway Safety Data Section. The 

data that the Highway Safety Data Section uses 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. 

Given that Vermont is a rural state with crashes that tend to be dispersed, another ongoing challenge with our 

current sport improvement methodology is that it tends to identify rural locations with very few crashes or urban 

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

VTrans is working towards the implementation AASHTOWare SafetyAnalyst within our HSIP process. In 

FF2017, a consultant was hired to review Vermont’s existing data availability and quality, to conduct a gap 

analysis between existing data sets and the Safety Analyst data requirements and to prioritize the data 

collection and transformation needs for implementation. 

VTrans hired a consultant in FF2018 to collect MIRE intersections data for all intersections on the Federal Aid 

System to further support the development of more advanced network screening methodologies. This project 

will be completed by September 2019. VTrans has a parallel project with regional planning commissions for the 

collection of the FDE’s at intersections on local roads but with a longer completion horizon of 2 to 5 years. In 

the longer term, we are hoping to include all public roads while implementing the AASHTOWare SafetyAnalyst 

methodology. In the shorter term, the implementation of the AASHTOWare SafetyAnalyst would only include 

the Federal Aid Network. 

.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 40

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,888,085 $9,888,085 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$4,709,842 $4,709,842 100%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $14,597,927 $14,597,927 100%

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

safety projects?

8%

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

8%

The percentage above does not include the portion of some projects were the ownership is both state or local. 

34% of funds is used on markings projects for which roads are owned by the state or a municipality. These 

projects are for the installation of new pavement markings, centerlines and edgelines on NHS, State routes, 

and centerlines on Class 1 and 2 roads (owned by municipalities).

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

0%

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

0%
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 40

No funds were obligated for data, planning or SHSP support in SFY 2019. No funding programmed prior to 

FAST Act is still active.

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%

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

the future. 

VTrans currently does not have any difficulty obligating its HSIP funds as there are some significant safety 

projects which will be going to construction in the next two to three years. 

Once these large projects are completed, VTrans may have some challenges spending its HSIP dollars. 

VTrans has made great progress over the past decade or so on intersection crashes. If intersections eventually 

cease to be a SHSP focus area, VTrans may have some additional challenges in spending HSIP funds. 

When flexibility was allowed, VTrans flexed a very small percentage of overall HSIP funding for education and 

outreach efforts.

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

The 2016 FHWA lead HSIP review recognized that HSIP funds were used by other VTrans business units 

(other than by section responsible for the HSIP) to develop and implement safety projects. VTrans will be 

working in the future to develop a process to track all projects that uses HSIP funds during implementation and 

to gauge their effectiveness on reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries after completion.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 40

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

BARRE CITY 

HES 037-1(8) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.229 Miles $25000 $25000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,500 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

BARRE TOWN 

STP HES 

0169(8) - 

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

0.01 Miles $536144.01 $536144.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 5,200 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

BENNINGTON 

STP 1000(21) - 

Development

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

1 Numbers $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

BRATTLEBORO 

NH 2000(27) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - refresh 

existing pavement markings

0.048 Miles $13758.56 $13758.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

BRATTLEBORO 

NH 2000(27) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - refresh 

existing pavement markings

0.048 Miles $128715.74 $128715.74 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

BRATTLEBORO 

NHG SIGN(53) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

0.242 Miles $87828.99 $87828.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,400 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

BRATTLEBORO 

NHG SIGN(53) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

0.242 Miles $738806.96 $738806.96 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,400 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

BURLINGTON

HES 5000(18) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

0.04 Miles $175000 $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,300 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Intersections Improve 

Operations

BURLINGTON 

HES 5000(18) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

0.04 Miles $75646.59 $75646.59 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,300 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Intersections Improve 

Operations

CHARLOTTE 

NHG SGNL(49) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

0.055 Miles $469609.75 $469609.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Intersections Improve 

Operations

COLCHESTER 

HES 028-1(28) - 

Complete

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.02 Miles $15534.91 $15534.91 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

COLCHESTER 

HES NH 

5600(14) - 

Development

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1.025 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,800 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

COLCHESTER 

HES NH 

5600(14) - 

Development

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1.025 Miles $20321 $20321 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,800 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

FERRISBURGH 

NH 019-4(32) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 0.001 Miles $80000 $80000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

HARTFORD NH 

020-2(44) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Numbers $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

HINESBURG 

HES 021-1(19) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.3 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

HINESBURG 

HES 021-1(19) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.3 Miles $158635.59 $158635.59 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

MILTON STP 

5800(3) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.31 Miles $135000 $135000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,520 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

MORRISTOWN 

STP HES 030-

2(28) - 

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

0.01 Miles $470313.61 $470313.61 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,200 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

NEW HAVEN 

HES 032-1(8) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.3 Miles $100000 $100000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

SOUTH HERO 

STP HES 028-

1(22) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.01 Miles $72000 $72000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,900 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(310) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $500959.94 $500959.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Mix of State, 

City and 

Town

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

SIGN(66) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

43.435 Miles $272649.98 $272649.98 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHEAST 

STPG SIGN(62) 

- Closing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

60.696 Miles $2083.85 $2083.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

1,000 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(311) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $2021098 $2021098 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Mix of State, 

City and 

Town

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

SIGN(65) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

46.304 Miles $375874.99 $375874.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHWEST 

STPG SIGN(63) 

- Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

52.918 Miles $391632.47 $391632.47 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(312) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $954610.12 $954610.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Mix of State, 

City and 

Town

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(312) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $822320.79 $822320.79 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 Mix of State, 

City and 

Town

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

SIGN(67) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

40.155 Miles $549999.99 $549999.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(313) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $900000 $900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHWEST 

STPG SIGN(64) 

- Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

31.121 Miles $412000 $412000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

STATEWIDE 

HES HSIP(9) - 

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0.999 Miles $71463.6 $71463.6 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 40

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

STATEWIDE 

HES RMBL(4) - 

Construction

Roadway Rumble strips - center 176.328 Miles $375000 $375000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

Infrastructues 

for all Users

STATEWIDE 

IMG MARK(117) 

- Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

339.098 Miles $1451395.3 $1451395.3 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE 

IMG SIGN(61) - 

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Numbers $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE 

IMG SIGN(69) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

1 Numbers $105397.49 $105397.49 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Older Driver 

Improvement

WALLINGFORDRUTLAND NHG 

SIGN(68) - 

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) - 

new or updated

20.834 Miles $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Statewwide Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

WEST 

RUTLAND STPG 

SGNL(50) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Numbers $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,800 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

WILLISTON STP 

5500(17) - 

Development

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.706 Miles $125000 $125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Geometry

WILLISTON STP 

HES 5500(12) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.47 Miles $804123.57 $804123.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,900 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

WILLISTONESSEX STPG 

SGNL(46) - 

Complete

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

4.494 Miles $655001.95 $655001.95 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther1,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

All of the projects in the HSIP report were obligated between 7/1/18 to 6/30/19. This list does not include projects obligated prior to that.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 40

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 71 55 77 70 44 57 62 70 69

Serious Injuries 410 387 311 308 290 296 322 255 256

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.980 0.770 1.070 0.983 0.623 0.780 0.840 0.940 0.970

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.660 5.419 4.322 4.327 4.108 4.049 4.372 3.430 3.580

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

5 4 10 6 4 9 6 9 6

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

33 36 40 38 25 36 37 29 31
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 40

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 24 of 40

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

5.8 24.8 0.47 2.05

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

8.2 27.8 1.14 3.82

Rural Minor Arterial 11.6 50.2 1.2 5.17

Rural Minor Collector 2.2 9.2 1.05 4.41

Rural Major Collector 13.2 57.2 267.55 954.05

Rural Local Road or 

Street

10 35.6 1.06 3.78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 40

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)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

1.6 5.4 0.3 0.98

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.8 1.6 1.39 2.72

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

3.8 24.8 0.57 4.84

Urban Minor Arterial 1 17 0.28 4.8

Urban Minor Collector 0 0

Urban Major Collector 1.4 12.4 1.94 15.25

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 5.6 0 1.68
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 40

Year 2018

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

40.8 179

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

13.4 62.6

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

5.8 36.4

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

Vehicle miles traveled are not available by ownership levels.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

A unique element of safety implementation in Vermont is the collaborative effort of a group of public and 

private organizations under the Vermont Highway Safety Alliance (VHSA). The efforts of the VHSA are led by 

the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Another uncommon aspect of safety implementation in Vermont is that VTrans not only manages the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program but it also operates the Governor’s Highway Safety Program. This has facilitated 

the coordination and implementation of behavioral countermeasures targeted at the Critical Emphasis Areas 

listed in the SHSP.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 40

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 (fatal plus serious injury crashes) and those 

that are more readily addressed by the HSIP.

For several years, VTrans has been implementing statewide policies related to the inclusion of centerline 

rumble stripes and the SafetyEdge on all paving projects. The most recent Highway Safety Plan prepared by 

the Governor’s Highway Safety Program includes projects that are targeted at driver behaviors that lead to the 

occurrence of leaving the roadway including reducing impaired driving, reducing speeding and reducing 

distracted driving. 

In spring 2019, VTrans continued its safety corridors effort and identified four new safety corridors (two along 

the interstate and two along two-lane rural roads) where high speeds are an issue. Education and enforcement 

efforts include message boards along with radar speed feedback signs and increased enforcement.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:58.0

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

The trend line used for this performance measure utilizes a linear model to establish the 2020 target. 

This trend suggests a decrease in traffic fatalities by 3% from the five-year average of 62.0 in 2014 - 

2018 to a five-year average of 58 by the end of calendar year 2020. The 2017-2021 Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan measures success in term of overall crash reduction in serious and fatal 

crashes with a goal of 10% reduction by 2021. The percentage reduction in fatalities expected by this 

target supports the goal of the SHSP by providing a 3% reduction in the five-year average over two 

years.

Number of Serious Injuries:275.0

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

The trend line used for this performance measure utilizes a 2nd degree polynomial model to establish 

the 2020 target. This trend suggests a decrease in serious injuries by 2.9% from the five-year 

average of 283.2 in 2014 - 2018 to a five-year average of 275 by the end of calendar year 2020. The 

2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan measures success in term of overall crash reduction in 

serious and fatal crashes with a goal of 10% reduction by 2021. The proposed target reduces the 

number of serious injuries by 2.9% in the five-year average over two years and supports the goal of 

the SHSP.

Fatality Rate:0.820

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

The trend line used for this performance utilizes a logarithmic model to establish the 2020 target. This 

trend suggests a decrease in the fatality rate per 100 million VMT by 1.2% from the five-year average 

of 0.83 in 2014 - 2018 to a five-year average of 0.82 by the end of calendar year 2020. This proposed 
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 40

target is downwards and supports the overall reduction in fatal and serious crashes presented in the 

2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Serious Injury Rate:3.700

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

The trend line used for this performance measure utilizes a 2nd degree polynomial model to establish 

the 2020 target. This trend suggests a decrease in the injury rate per 100 million VMT by 5.1% from 

the five-year average of 3.9 in 2014 - 2018 to a five-year average of 3.7 by the end of calendar year 

2020. The proposed target is a reduction in the 5-year serious injury rate, which support the overall 

reduction in fatal and serious crashes presented in the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:36.0

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

The trend line used for this performance measure utilizes a 3rd degree polynomial model to establish 

the 2020 target. This trend suggests a decrease in the number of bicyclist/pedestrian fatalities and 

serious injuries by 5.8% from the five-year average of 38.2 in 2014 - 2018 to a five-year average of 36 

by the end of calendar year 2020. The 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan considers 

pedestrians and bicyclists as two separate emphasis areas with their own sets of strategies. The 

reduction goal for each of these two emphasis areas in the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

is a 10% reduction if fatal and serious injury crashes. The proposed target is downward and 

contribute to the overall goal of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

The target for the number of serious injuries in this HSIP report is different from the one submitted for the HSP. 

The reason is that an error was detected and the wrong number was provided in the HSP. A revised target for 

the HSP will be provided to NHSTA by the State Highway Safety Office.

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

safety performance targets. 

In Vermont, the “State Highway Safety Office” is part of the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The “State 

Highway Safety Office” and the unit that is responsible for the HSIP reporting are managed by the same 

individual.

The three safety performance measures that are common to both the NHTSA’s Highway Safety Plan and 

FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (Number of fatalities, Fatality rate, Number of serious injuries) 

were developed initially by the highway safety data analyst using trend lines. The resulting measures were 

then reviewed between HSP and HSIP staff for appropriateness.

The other two measures (Serious injury rate and Pedestrian & Bicycle Fatalities and Serious Injuries) are 

required only for FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program. These two measures were also originally 

determined by the data analyst and further reviewed by HSIP staff.

The 2020 target measures were sent to the Chittenden County MPO for their concurrence.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 40

In future reporting, VTrans will send draft targets to the Chittenden County MPO before submitting them to 

NHTSA and FHWA for review and comments in order to improve the collaboration between the two entities in 

setting these targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Vermont does not wish to establish separate targets for the urbanized areas.

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Vermont has determined to have made significant progress towards meeting its 2018 targets. 4 out of the 5 

safety performance targets were met and the actual outcome for the other target was better than the baseline 

performance.

• The number of fatalities target (58.0) was not met, but the actual performance in 2014-2018 (60.2) was 

better than the 2012-2016 baseline (62.0). The number of fatalities in 2014 was 44. It was historically 

low and much lower than the typical number of yearly fatalities that are occurring in Vermont and would 

explain why Vermont did not meet the 2018 target for the number of fatalities. 

• The fatality rate target (0.830) was met. The actual performance in 2014-2018 (0.820) was also better 

than the 2012-2016 baseline (0.859). 

• The number of serious injuries target (290) was met. The actual performance in 2014-2018 (283.2) was 

also better than the 2012-2016 baseline (305.4). 

• The rate of serious injuries target (4.3) was met. The actual performance in 2014-2018 (3.901) was also 

better than the 2012-2016 baseline (4.230). 

• The number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries target (40.1) was met. The 

actual performance in 2014-2018 (38.2) was also better than the 2012-2016 baseline (42.2). 

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

10 12 14 7 14 16 14

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

26 28 35 27 42 39 45
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 40

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

The overall effectiveness of the HSIP is measured by changes in the number of fatalities and serious injuries 

as well as by changes in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes (referred to as major crashes in the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan). 

The trend in the five-year average of the number of fatal crashes has been down from the 2010-2014 period to 

the 2014-2018 period passing from 57.4 fatal crashes to 55.8 fatal crashes. 

Similarly, the five-year average of the number of serious injury crashes has also been going down passing 

from 281.6 serious injury crashes to 232.8. 

The five-year averages of the number of fatalities and serious injuries went down for these same periods as 

well. The five-year average of the number of fatalities went from 63.4 fatalities to 60.4 while the five-year 

average of the number of serious injuries went from 341.2 to 283.8 serious injuries.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Six road safety audits were conducted during the reporting period.

The level of awareness of safety while developing other types of projects within VTrans continues to increase. 

For example, the Pavement Management Unit has been requesting crash data and has been seeking input 

from the HSIP group when developing paving projects.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2018

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 35.2 137.4 0.48 1.89

Intersections 9 60.4 0.13 0.83
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 40

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)

Older Drivers 12 32.2 0.17 0.44

Motorcyclists 8 35.4 0.11 0.49

Work Zones 0.6 1.4 0.01 0.02
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lane Departure Intersections Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Lane Departure Intersections Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 40

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Lane Departure Intersections Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Lane Departure Intersections Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 40

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

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

Of the seven emphasis areas identified in the SHSP, lane departure crashes and intersection crashes are the two areas that specifically relate to engineering and the HSIP. 

The 2017-2021 SHSP has target reductions for intersection and lane departure major crashes that have been set at 10% of 2012 thresholds. In terms of numbers, this represents a five-year target of 72 major crashes for intersection 

crashes and a five-year average target of 186 major crashes for lane departure crashes.

The latest five-year average (2014-2018) for lane departure crashes is 150 major crashes, which is below the SHSP target of 186 major crashes. 

For the emphasis area concerning intersections, the latest five-year average (2014-2018) is 59 major crashes. This five-year average is below the SHSP target of 72 major crashes at intersections.
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 40

Compliance Assessment

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

 04/26/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2022

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

50 50

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 85 85

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

Page 36 of 40

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

90 90

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

35 46

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

3 5

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

1 2

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

25

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

25 25

AADT Year (80) 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

90 90

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 40

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

Interchange Type 

(182)

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): 96.39 96.39 36.75 35.38 72.73 72.73 77.78 77.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Note that in this table, there are 0% values that should be read as NA, Not Applicable, as percentages do not apply. For example, Local Paved Roads - 0 = NA for state owned facilities (local municipalities own them all).

Since the VTrans has not received the intersection data form its vendor for the data inventory project that is due to be completed by the end of FFY2019, much of the non-local paved numbers are the same to the previous reporting period 

or only slightly adjusted. Once the intersection data is received in a few months and joined with the master data, these numbers will increased to 100%.

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. 

There are many MIRE FDEs that already exist on the federal aid system due to HPMS requirements, or existing collection to support other programs within VTrans. These can be updated and process to define the MIRE data schema 

within the short term. There has been an effort to modify data models to support HPMS and the MIRE data schemas.

Intersection data and other segment data may take time to develop and require medium term, and AADT collection and data on the more rural local roads may be a longer-term process. 

Some elements have not been collected on state and municipal highways, but there is coordination with regional planning commissions, who work directly with towns, cities, the gores within Vermont. Funding was received in FFY 2018 

and FFY 2019 from the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee to inventory every intersection on the Federal Aid Road Network. Data for the intersection on the federal aid system, which includes all paved state highways and the nonlocal paved non-state highways has been completed by the vendor and is expected to be delivered in September 2019. This should complete a significant gap in the MIRE FDEs and leave a small number of elements to complete.

With MIRE and the data for Safety Analyst in general, the VTrans Mapping Section has been working with all the Regional Planning Commissions in Vermont to buildout additional intersection data for the remainder of the public road 

network (over 60,000 intersections) through the Transportation Planning Initiative work program. This effort is currently taking place and will be continued in the next federal fiscal year (2020). This goes beyond the requirements of the 

MIRE FDEs and creates data on local paved and local un-paved highways.

It is uncertain to what extent the other agencies that own the roads will collect MIRE FDEs at this time and an assessment of this may be done as part of the planning process for the FDEs collection.

Tasks needed to comply with the 2026 deadline include: 
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 40

• Perform a rigorous assessment of what exists, identify gaps and develop a data acquisition plan. 

• Identify the technology and methodologies including GIS technology for collecting the MIRE FDEs. 

• Determine a process for data exchange with other agencies that will collect data. 

• Estimating the costs, levels of staffing, or resource requirements to collect the MIRE FDEs. 

• Identifying funding for the collection, storage, and maintenance of the MIRE FDE data. 

• Making the data accessible through the on-line geodata portal through web services. 

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

No

An HSIP review was conducted by FHWA in May 2016.

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

2021
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 40

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Systemic Local Road Safety Program.pdf

Vermont HSIP Manual February 19 2016.pdf

Vermont HSIP Low Cost Program October 2016.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 40

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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