Page 1 of 44

COLORADO

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 44

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 18

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

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

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 28

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 31

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 32

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 33

Year 2016.............................................................................................................................................................. 33

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 38

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 39
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 44

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 44

Executive Summary

Colorado’s (5 year average) fatalities and fatal crash rates have increased in 2017. Both (5 year average) 

serious injuries and the serious injury crash rate have seen little change in 2017. 

Colorado uses HSIP resources to incorporate safety improvements across a broad range of maintenance, 

safety and non-infrastructure projects. Innovative methodologies developed and used by CDOT will continue to 

identify more locations, on a statewide scale, with the greatest potential for crash reduction. Applications of 

Highway Safety Manual concepts and systemic approaches are also being integrated into the HSIP program, 

with a focus in particular on developing a more defined application process with respect to the systemic 

approach. 

Colorado's current SHSP implementation plan targets goals and devises strategies in each emphasis area to 

see where improvements can made in order to support the vision of moving towards zero deaths. During 2017, 

CDOT made additional successful efforts to solicit off-system (non-state highway), local agency projects; over 

the next fiscal year, CDOT hopes to continue to solicit a greater number of off system locations with high 

potential for crash reduction with the help of local agencies partners and stakeholders.

High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) and Local Agency safety improvements will be specifically focused on and 

incorporated in FY 2018 and going forward. A separate HRRR solicitation occurred during FY2017 to address 

a required special allocation of just over $2.8 million to these project types in response to Colorado being 

notified that our fatality crash rate on these rural roads have increased and thus requires CDOT to make efforts 

to specifically address this issue. Project applications were received; however, response was not as hoped for. 

So CDOT is making efforts to increase outreach, education, and assistance to local agencies to increase the 

number of projects submitted and ultimately delivered. 

Additional solicitations for these specific type of local agency and HRRR projects will take place to help 

address local and more rural crashes occurring on Colorado's roadways. Additionally, CDOT intends to provide 

more guidance and detail regarding resources available to them to aid in their endeavors to secure HSIP 

funding for their projects. 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 44

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. 

Colorado's overall HSIP program is administered by the Traffic & Safety Engineering group at CDOT 

headquarters. 

Regional CDOT traffic and safety engineering staff work internally and in consort with local agencies to identify 

projects with safety improvement needs. Initial review and analysis occur at this regional level. Upon 

acceptance by the region as a viable and potentially necessary safety project, the region makes a request to 

HQ for final review and analysis and associated HSIP funding eligibility criteria. Upon completion of final review 

and quantitative and qualitative analysis by HQ traffic and safety engineering staff of projects submitted by 

CDOT Regional traffic and safety engineering, the projects are either approved or denied and budgeted 

accordingly against the projected regional allocation for the fiscal year in which the funding is needed. In an 

effort to increase safety overall across the state, thorough dialogue between HQ and the requesting region 

occurs on a project-by-project basis when additional information, background, or data are needed in the event 

that a project appears to fall short of eligibility. Additionally, because projects that are awarded HSIP funding 

are required to address individual areas of focus as defined within the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), 

as part of the review and analysis process, our group confirms that such projects do in fact fall within the SHSP 

areas of focus. 

Upon approval of such HSIP funding the CDOT regions are responsible for final project delivery on-system. In 

the event that a local agency is receiving HSIP funding for off-system safety improvements, the CDOT regional 

staff coordinate with such local agencies regarding HSIP funding to enable these local agencies to deliver 

these projects. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

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

Page 6 of 44

Within Transportation Systems Management & Operations (TSM&O)

Under HQ Traffic Safety & Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

HSIP funds are allocated to each CDOT Region based upon crash distribution and the program is 

administered through the central CDOT headquarters group. 

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

Under this program all public roadways are eligible for participation. Submittals for projects not located on the 

State Highway system are solicited from local authorities through the various Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPO's) and the Special Highway Committee of the Colorado Counties, Inc. and the Colorado 

Municipal League. These candidate proposals for safety improvement projects are submitted for locations 

identified using the locals’ own high hazard locations identification system. As with the Region applications, all 

submittals will be required to meet the minimum criteria. Copies of project applications received in the Safety 

and Traffic Engineering Office from locals are submitted to the Region offices for comments, evaluation and 

approval. The Region offices are specifically requested to verify project cost estimates, and when necessary, 

are also requested to make project cost adjustments with the submitting local authorities’ concurrence. In 

addition to CDOT's standard practice of soliciting local agencies, for FY 2017 CDOT issued a separate 

solicitation for High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) to facilitate safety improvements on off-network (non CDOT 

state hwy/freeway) locations. Few local applications were received under this solicitation and no applications 

for roadways on tribal lands were received. It is our hope that increased outreach and education by CDOT, in 

consort with local agency efforts, that more applications for HSIP funding will be received in future solicitations. 

Approximately one half of the HSIP funding is allocated toward off-system locations (including tribal lands) 

because approximately half of all statewide crashes occur off system. The allocation is based on statewide 

crash distribution. In recent years, there have not been enough off-system safety improvement projects to use 

the full allocated amount. In such cases, the state will apply those unused funds for state highway safety 

improvement projects. CDOT will look to offer more support in helping local agencies submit enough projects 

to account for their full allocation in the future. 

Finally, CDOT is working to develop a Local Road Safety Program (LRSP) to hopefully better serve our local 

agency partners in improving roadways safety for the traveling public. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 44

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-Office of Financial Management & Budget

Other-CDOT Regions

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The CDOT HQ Traffic and Safety Engineering (TSE) branch periodically produces a statewide composite 

listing of potential locations for crash reduction is compiled for all highway segments and intersections 

performing at a sub-standard level of service of safety (LOSS) as well as identifying crash patterns that are 

over-represented at those locations. This listing is provided to each CDOT Region where their traffic units, 

roadway design staff and transportation planners can coordinate and select appropriate safety improvement 

projects with the goal of reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The Regions use the listing along with 

other information such as their own operational reviews, input from citizens, staff and city/county personnel as 

well as other ongoing or scheduled construction activities in order to determine the most feasible and beneficial 

candidate safety projects. The Region may also choose to nominate other safety project locations besides 

those mentioned on the listing. 

Applications for new highway safety improvement projects are sent to TSE branch for evaluation to determine 

HSIP eligibility and level of funding. The TSE branch works with the Office of Financial Management & Budget 

(OFMB) to determine the amount of HSIP funding available for the current fiscal year as well as how much is 

anticipated to be available in future fiscal years for HSIP project planning and scheduling. The TSE branch also 

works with OFMB to obtain status updates on HSIP obligation and expenditure amounts for ongoing projects. 

Approved HSIP projects are incorporated into the Integrated Safety Plan in coordination with the CDOT Office 

of Transportation Safety group and their safety programs.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

FHWA

Other-Local Agencies

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

In an effort to maintain consistency in data, analysis, and understanding of safety needs statewide, and 

subsequent implementation of such safety improvement projects CDOT HQ Traffic & Safety Engineering staff 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 44

communicate and work directly with external entities and governing bodies such as FHWA, state and local law 

enforcement, other state agencies, MPO's, municipalities, counties, and other interested parties. 

Additionally, at the regional level, CDOT Regional traffic & safety engineering staff coordinate more directly 

with local government officials, the citizenry, other such stakeholders having traffic and safety concerns that 

are specific to their particular region, and media relations.

These individual areas of focus enable the regions to be more directly in touch with local needs for which HSIP 

funding may be eligible. This then translates to CDOT's overall ability to integrate HSIP funded solutions 

utilized within any specific region into the statewide efforts to reduce crash severity, crashes overall, and 

progress toward the goal of Zero Deaths. 

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

period?

Yes

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

In response to excellent feedback obtained from many partners both internal and external during a program 

assessment, we are endeavoring to improve our HSIP program by incorporating a systemic approach as a 

specific option to help address safety concerns statewide. We are also currently revisiting our HSIP manual to 

incorporate both improvements identified during the course of our recent HSIP Assessment completed by 

FHWA as well as improvements that we have identified internally which we believe will help deliver our HSIP in 

an effective and efficient way. Our overall administration practices are not anticipated to undergo any specific 

changes other than to incorporate methodology to account for the above mentioned systemic methodology.

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

Yes

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

CDOT was notified that our 5 year average fatality rate has increased on rural roadways, and thus would need 

to allocate, in this case, just over $2.8 million to specifically address this issue. In response, CDOT HQ Traffic 

& Safety Engineering prepared and issues a special solicitation for High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) in an effort 

to address this concern. We did receive applications that were good safety projects and were approved. 

However, the response was not as hoped for. Our office intends to include more education and outreach 

efforts on future solicitations of this type in order to encourage more participation on the part of local agencies.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 44

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

File Name:

HSIP_2016.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms)

HRRR

Other-General

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

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/4/2017 

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

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Crash rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 44

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2016 

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

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

Other-Regional Distribution By Crash Totals

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 44

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

Program: Other-General 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2000 

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

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

Other-Regional Distribution By Crash Totals

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 44

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 5

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 44

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

Wrong way driving treatments

Other-Ramp Metering

Other-Bike/Ped Access Improvements

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

Following implementation of our systemic methodology under development, we anticipate that the portion of 

total funding going to systemic improvements will increase beyond the approximate 5% that we have currently 

provided.

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input

Other-Requests by local agencies for investigations

Other-Independent Research & Peer State Communication

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

In addition to CDOT's employment of ITS technology statewide, CDOT is currently evaluating the potential 

safety benefits of proposed connected vehicle technology for on-system application and implementation. At 

this time the state is looking into potentially partially funding, through HSIP, specific aspects of emerging 

connected vehicle infrastructure and ITS technology which potentially presents safety benefits. 

At this time, CDOT is focused on awarding HSIP funding to proposed projects which incorporate proven and 

developed mitigation components. However, in light of CDOT's awareness of modern technology and the everchanging automotive and transportation industry in terms of technological advancement, it is the hope of the 

state of Colorado to ultimately realize academically predicted safety benefits such that it may continue to 

reasonably and responsibly provide funding through monies awarded by our HSIP to improve safety through 

technology. 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 44

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.

Quantitative analysis methodology as described within the 1st Edition (2010) of the Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM) is incorporated into the software, manual techniques, and systemic analysis processes that are 

employed by the CDOT Traffic & Safety Engineering staff who are charged with responsibly determining HSIP 

funding eligibility for safety related projects statewide. Subject matter from the HSM that is incorporated into 

CDOT's HSIP efforts includes but is not limited to the following: Fundamentals, Data Requirements, CMF/CRF 

Selection, Safety Performance Functions(s) (SPF's) Development, Diagnostics, Countermeasure Selection, 

Economic Appraisal (Benefit/Cost analysis), Predictive Methodology, Network Screening, etc..

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

In addition to the HSM methodology that Colorado has incorporated into the HSIP efforts, CDOT and its 

consultants have developed, and continue to develop and refine Safety Performance Functions (SPF's) 

baseline normative crash expectancy details that are specific to Colorado roadways, highways, freeways, 

interchanges, and intersections. CDOT believes this method allows the agency to be better prepared to 

address the specific safety concerns on Colorado roadways with respect to Colorado ADT, specific driving 

conditions, and driving habits.
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 44

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

State Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018)

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $3,903,345 $7,881,035 201.9%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,865,323 $1,865,323 100%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $11,592,970 $11,592,970 100%

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 $17,361,638 $21,339,328 122.91%

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

These totals include $881,190 of HRRR funding that was provided to a Central Federal Lands Project for 

improving safety along County Road 306 (non-state owned) in Chaffee County. This amount may not be 

accounted for in the CDOT financial system (SAP) or the Federal FMIS; however, this funding is considered 

programmed and obligated within this reporting period.

Obligation amounts also cover amounts programmed from previous fiscal years which explains why obligated 

amounts exceed programmed amounts.

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

$1,188,410

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

$5,060,006
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 44

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

These totals include $881,190 of HRRR funding that was provided to a Central Federal Lands Project for 

improving safety along County Road 306 (non-state owned) in Chaffee County. This amount may not be 

accounted for in the CDOT financial system (SAP) or the Federal FMIS; however, this funding is considered 

programmed and obligated within this reporting period.

Obligation amounts also cover amounts programmed from previous fiscal years which explains why obligated 

amounts exceed programmed amounts.

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

$1,195,903

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

$357,843

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$11,600,000

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

In this reporting period, $11,600,000 of HSIP funds was transferred out of the HSIP to CDOT's RoadX 

Program (see link below) as National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds as directed by CDOT's 

executive management and approved by Colorado's Transportation Commission. The amount transferred is 

the approximate equal to the amount of section 164 penalty funds that Colorado is required to obligate in FY 

2018.

https://www.codot.gov/programs/roadx

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

CDOT's Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB) does not typically obligate HSIP funding until the 

project has invoices submitted while under construction. The purpose of this is limit the possibility of having 

inactive projects. However, this does impact Colorado HSIP obligation rates as this tends to result in delayed 

obligation of funds for HSIP projects. There are longer than expected start up times for safety improvement 

projects, especially those run by local agencies. Special attention will now be given to construction scheduling 

and priority for fund programming will be given to projects that can deliver on a timely basis. 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 44

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

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

CDOT's Office of Financial Management & Budget (OFMB) is working with the HSIP program managers to find 

ways to manage Section 164 penalty funds so that those funds can be obligated immediately. It is anticipated 

that Section 164 penalty funding will continue into future fiscal years in Colorado.
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 44

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

US287 & 

Orchards 

Shopping Center 

HES

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $249999 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

28,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 85 Resurf PhI, & SH 392 

Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

left-turn lane offset

1 Intersections $7300000 $20251817 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

12,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

INT. 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ PLATTE & 

TEJON

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $103421 $114912 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

10,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

I-70 GW Canyon 

Variable Speed 

Signing

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 17 Miles $6015307 $8028773 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

17,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SH 340 Redlands 

Parkway 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $4879972 $5735971 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I-70 Wildlife 

Fencing MP 65-87

Roadside Fencing 4 Miles $1000000 $5747892 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

16,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Wild Animal

FY15 DENVER 

TRAFFIC 

SIGNALS

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

5 Intersections $1240200 $1378000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

60,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH96A 

ABRIENDO -

ORMAN Signals 

Improv

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $443323 $475942 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

23,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 85 

Resurfacing Eaton 

to Ault

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $400000 $23535413 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

6,600 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 24 AT 31ST 

STREET 

INTERSECTION

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $1839999 $2502398.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

31,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH83 LIGHTING: 

HARVARD TO 

MISSISSIPPI

Lighting Continuous roadway 

lighting

2 Miles $2436554 $2445265 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

31,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-25 MEDIAN 

CABLERAIL PHS 

II

Roadside Barrier - cable 24 Miles $3442373.21 $3653555.9 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

32,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

CDOT ROADWAY 

LIGHTING 

CONTROLS

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $54169 $55679 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Roadway 

Departure
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 44

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

US 160 WOLF 

CREEK PASS 

RSA

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

9 Miles $893029 $2584957 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

3,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Boulder 

Intersection 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

1 Intersections $79999 $80000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

36,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists

I-25 NB Off-Ramp 

Intersection with 

SH52A

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

acceleration lane

1 Intersections $443785 $484984 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

20,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Various Loveland 

Left Turn Signals

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

37 Intersections $48600 $54000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Isabelle Rd at 

US287 Intersect. 

Impvment

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Intersections $329999 $330000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

27,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH40 & SH83 

INTERSECTION 

SAFETY IMP

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify 

left-turn lane offset

1 Intersections $139999 $140000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

6,100 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 40 Fraser 

Pedestrian Trail

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

6 Raised Medians $607439 $1112432 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

11,000 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

TCS TRAINING Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

$99999 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Work Zones

I70 GENESEE 

MED BARRIER, 

MORRISON & 

I270

Roadside Barrier - cable 3 Locations $267454 $2331883 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SH67 SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

3 Curves $144999 $145000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,000 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US 24 SAFETY 

IMPRVMNTS, E 

OF FLORRISANT

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 1 Curves $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,600 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SH 21/OMAHA 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 1 Intersections $941397 $955623 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

60,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I-70 Exit 26 DDI 

Modifications

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1 Interchanges $124999 $125000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

16,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH2 & SH95 CCD 

SIGNALS & 

MEDIANS FY20

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 8 Intersections $304500 $509000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

R1 CORRIDOR 

SAFETY STUDY 

FY18

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$268042 $268043 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Spot Roadway 

Departure

R1 

INTERSECTION 

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$264999 $265000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Intersections
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 44

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SAFETY STUDY 

FY18

AURORA SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENT 

FY 18

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modify signal mounting 

(spanwire to mast arm)

2 Intersections $198500 $243743 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

44,000 State Highway 

Agency

Intersections

I-70 Median Cable 

Rail Installation

Roadside Barrier - cable 3 Miles $876921 $989080 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

20,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

MULLER SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits $149999 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

STOLFUS 

SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits $99998 $99999 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

LIGHTING 

DESIGN 

STANDARDS 

MULLER

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $110999 $111000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Roadway 

Departure

FHU SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits $120785 $120786 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

HSIP BEFORE 

AND AFTER 2018

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $73416 $73417 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Intersection 

Prioritization 

Study PH II

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$198650 $220722 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Intersections

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

Page 21 of 44

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 466 450 447 474 481 488 547 608 648

Serious Injuries 3,399 3,091 3,163 3,241 3,212 3,219 3,186 2,958 3,036

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.008 0.959 0.959 1.016 1.024 0.996 1.085 1.166 1.214

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.352 6.585 6.787 6.949 6.839 6.571 6.317 5.672 5.688

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

61 48 55 91 64 75 78 100 108

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

394 387 396 408 492 472 490 439 423
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 44

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 24 of 44

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

While completing this year's report for 2017, it was noticed that data within the following rows were incorrectly 

entered in the past:

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities 2009 through 2016

Number of Non-Motorized Serious Injuries 2009 through 2016

Correct data has been verified and entered for all years 2009 through 2017; subsequently, the 5 year averages 

have also been correctly recalculated.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

48.6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 44

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) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

81

Rural Minor Arterial 46

Rural Minor Collector 20.8

Rural Major Collector 34.8

Rural Local Road or Street 23.8

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

45.8

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

19.2

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

129.2

Urban Minor Arterial 57.2

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 20.2

Urban Local Road or Street 27.4

Trafficway Not in State 

Inventory

0.4
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 44

Year 2015

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 298.8

County Highway Agency 85.6

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

2.2

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

97

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0

Other State Agency 0

Other Local Agency 3.4

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0

Railroad 0

State Toll Authority 0

Local Toll Authority 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

0

Indian Tribe Nation 0
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 44

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

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

Following the trend seen across the country, fatalities have seen an increase in Colorado in 2017. Even with 

increased VMT, fatality rates have also risen. When comparing 2017 to the previous year, the data has shown 

that there are six specific areas where the percentage increase in fatalities were higher than the overall 

percentage in fatality increase. These areas are as follows:

Urban, Young Driver (Under 21 Years of Age), Pedestrian, Seat Belt Unrestrained, Off System, and 

Construction Zone. Serious injuries have remained relatively stable in this time with the rate continuing to 

decrease over the last several years.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 44

Number of Fatalities 644.0 

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

CDOT analyzed fatal crash data going back to 2002, developed multiple models, 

created best fit curves, and determined targets based on examination of the various 

predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, including the following: 

population growth, increases in VMT, economic growth, potential funding changes, 

and legislative changes. All of the models indicated future increases in fatal crash 

numbers, resulting in short term targets with an increase in fatal crashes. The SHSP is 

an aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero deaths and is the long term 

vision for the state. The targets recognize the uptick in fatalities and the need to focus 

on programs to reduce crashes in order to pursue the aspirational goal. The target of 

644 is the predicted five year rolling average. 

Number of Serious Injuries 2909.0 

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

CDOT analyzed serious injury crash data going back to 2002, developed multiple 

models, created best fit curves, and determined targets based on examination of the 

various predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, including the 

following: population growth, increases in VMT, economic growth, potential funding 

changes, and legislative changes. All of the models indicated future increases in 

serious injury crash numbers, resulting in short term targets with an increase in serious 

injury crashes. The SHSP is an aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero 

deaths and is the long term vision for the state. The targets recognize the uptick in 

serious injury crashes and the need to focus on programs to reduce crashes in pursuit 

of the aspirational goal. The target of 2909 is the predicted five year average. 

Fatality Rate 1.210 

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

CDOT analyzed fatal crash data going back to 2002, developed multiple models, 

created best fit curves, and determined targets based on examination of the various 

predicted values. The fatality rate is based on the assumption that fatal crashes and 

VMT are both increasing in the near term. Contributing factors were considered, 

including the following: population growth, increases in VMT, economic growth, 

potential funding changes, and legislative changes. All of the models indicated future 

increases in fatality rates, resulting in short term targets with an increase in the fatal 

rate. The SHSP is an aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero deaths and is 

the long term vision for the state. The targets recognize the uptick in the fatality rate 

and the need to focus on programs to reduce crashes in order to pursue the aspirational 

goal. The target of 1.21 is based on the five year moving average. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.575 

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals. 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 44

CDOT analyzed serious injury crash data going back to 2002, developed multiple 

models, created best fit curves, and determined targets based on examination of the 

various predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, including the 

following: population growth, increases in VMT, economic growth, potential funding 

changes, and legislative changes. The serious injury rate is based on the assumption 

that serious injury crashes and VMT are both increasing in the near term. The SHSP is 

an aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero deaths and is the long term 

vision for the state. The targets recognize the uptick in serious injury crashes and the 

need to focus on programs to reduce crashes in pursuit of the aspirational goal. The 

target of 5.575 is the predicted five year average. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 514.0 

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

CDOT analyzed the non-motorized fatalities and serious injury data going back to 

2007, developed multiple models, created best fit curves, and determined targets based 

on examination of the various predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, 

including the following: population growth, increases in VMT, economic growth, 

potential funding changes, and legislative changes. All of the models indicated 

increases in the non-motorized crashes. The SHSP is an aspirational goal of moving

Colorado towards zero deaths and is the long term vision for the state. The targets 

recognize the uptick in the fatality rate and the need to focus on programs to reduce 

crashes in order to pursue the aspirational goal. The target of 514 is based on the five 

year moving average. 

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

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

targets. 

The SHSP process reached out to over 1,000 individuals, inviting them to participate in the process in person 

or through online meetings, emails, focus groups, surveys, and emphasis area teams. Participants were also 

invited to the Colorado Traffic Safety Summit to review the emphasis areas and goals for the SHSP. The 

CDOT offices of transportation safety and traffic engineering coordinated with the Colorado Department of 

Health and Environment to evaluate historical crash data and develop various trend models. CDOT and the 

MPO’s participated in FHWA training on the new rule making and requirements for establishing targets. 

Various meetings have been held with CDOT management, planners, MPO’s, and CDPHE staff to review 

CDOT’s proposed targets. Meetings are ongoing with individual MPO’s to present data, review CDOT’s 

process, and provide assistance in the establishment of individual MPO goals or adoption of the statewide 

goals. The MPO’s continue to work toward establishing their targets or adopting CDOT’s targets. They are 

aware of the February 2019 deadline and are working toward this goal; however, achievement of this deadline 

is unclear at present. CDOT will continue to coordinate with these organizations to help motivate this effort.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 44

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

52 47 52 63 52 59 67

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

178 202 241 250 228 226 220

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 44

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Lives saved

Other-Before and After Studies

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

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

level evaluations.

Overall, the HSIP program in Colorado has had a positive impact on reducing crashes overall, as well as 

specifically reducing severe and fatal crashes. CDOT relies on crash data to effectively evaluate the overall 

impact that HSIP in the state of Colorado. Not only does CDOT consider the reduction in crashes overall and 

reduction is severe and fatal crashes, CDOT also primarily relies on the benefit/cost (B/C) ration that is 

ultimately realized on a statewide level to gain an understanding of the effectiveness of the HSIP. 

Prior to this reporting period, CDOT, in cooperation with an unbiased consultant team, evaluated 48 projects 

which have five years (2011-2015) of post-installation data available to determine realized B/C ration and 

compare to those calculated at the time of project HSIP funding eligibility review. A final report describing the 

findings of this endeavor was generated in December, 2016. 

CDOT has recently begun, in cooperation with an unbiased consultant team, the evaluation of what is 

anticipated to be up to 30 projects which have five years (2012-2016) of post-installation/construction crash 

data available to determine realized B/C ration and compare to those calculated at the time of project HSIP 

funding eligibility review. A final report describing the findings of this endeavor is expected to be generated 

toward the end of the first quarter of CY2019. 

Additionally, CDOT participated in an FHWA-led HSIP assessment during the reporting period. The final draft 

of this report was issued in May, 2018. The results of this report were overall positive regarding the operation 

and administration of the program. Valuable feedback from FHWA and engaged stakeholders was received 

within the content of this assessment regarding components which CDOT is doing well and/or excelling in, as 

well as described areas of potential improvement recommendations. CDOT continues to work to address areas 

of improvement as described within this report. We have recently issued an action plan to address the specific 

recommendations within this report. Implementation will be incremental dependent upon the specific of each 

recommendation and our ability to do so in a timely manner based upon organizational demands and 

capabilities. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 44

More systemic programs

Organizational change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

Other-Realized Positive B/C Ratio

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

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

Yes

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

In response to the special HSIP obligation of approximately $2.9M which was required to address the 

increased fatality rate for Colorado High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) based upon FHWA (23 USC 148(g)(l) -

Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 High Risk Rural Roads - Special Rule) - CDOT issued a special solicitation to address 

this concern. The qualifying criteria and analysis techniques for approving project applications for this HRRR 

funding is the same as for the HSIP qualifying overall. However, these funds are specifically set aside to 

address off-system rural roads in Colorado. If the rural road fatality rate should continue to increase, which 

CDOT is working diligently to avoid, and the aforementioned FHWA special rule continue to apply, this HRRR 

solicitation will remain in place to help reduce fatalities on rural roads.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 57.2 196.4 0.11 0.4 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 213.4 902.4 0.44 1.85 0 0 0

Intersections 145.4 1,390.4 0.29 2.84 0 0 0

Pedestrians 69.4 302.2 0.14 0.62 0 0 0

Bicyclists 13 156 0.03 0.32 0 0 0
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 44

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Older Drivers 61.8 235.8 0.13 0.48 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 98.8 531.2 0.2 1.09 0 0 0

Work Zones 8 40 0.02 0.08 0 0 0
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 44

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 44

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

During this year's reporting efforts, minor corrections in previously submitted data and rates were completed 

based upon updated data for years 2008-2016.

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 44

No

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

CDOT traffic & safety continually evaluates currently employed and proposed countermeasures for potential 

effectiveness based upon academic research as well as historical performance of such countermeasures that 

may have been implemented in other states under similar conditions to address similar crash patterns. Upon 

our determination as to the viability of such countermeasures for use on Colorado roadways, and if a viable 

CMF/CRF is available or able to be reasonably approximated, CDOT may award HSIP funding for installation 

dependent upon project circumstances and projected efficacy of the specific countermeasure with respect to 

the determined crash pattern(s) at the subject location(s).

Additionally, although CDOT has not completed a formal quantitative review of a specific countermeasure's 

realized effectiveness upon installation in this reporting period, it should be noted that a statewide evaluation 

on select projects was completed in the prior reporting years, and that a new study is underway for the same 

purpose. The results of the past report indicated a relatively high level of effectiveness for HSIP overall and we 

are hoping for the same for the current effort. The primary indicator being the results of a review of 5 years of 

crash data following installation of such countermeasures. This was compared both to 5 years of crash data 

preceding countermeasure installation and to the calculated benefit/cost ratio projected at the time of 

countermeasure analysis / application review for HSIP funding eligibility. In general, for the past statewide 

evaluation, overall benefic/cost ratios that were realized positively exceeded those projected during project 

application review. 

It is important to compile a statistically significant data set following installation of such countermeasures in 

order to conduct a thorough analysis of installed countermeasures. This generally includes a minimum of 3 

years of compiled data for areas with significant ADT, and at least 5 years of compiled data for all other areas 

in general. To that end, CDOT conducts periodic rather than annual countermeasure effectiveness evaluations. 
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 44

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

I-70 - Dowd 

Canyon, West of 

Vail

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Extend existing 

lane on ramp

140.00 82.00 27.00 21.00 167.00 103.00 16.11

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

The above described project is one example of a before and after evaluation that was recently completed by CDOT & its consultants to evaluate and aide in understand the overall effectiveness of the program in Colorado. In the case of 

the example, the project is designed to mitigate conflict between vehicles and wildlife in a corridor with particularly high collisions of this type, additionally, lane departure and sideswipe same direction crashes were focused upon at this 

location. In the interest of being concise for this portion of this annual HSIP report, we have only provided this one example; however, for further examples of various crash pattern mitigation projects for which before and after studies were 

completed, please review the reports entitled "2015 Study" and "2016 Study" at the CDOT public website below. Additionally, it is anticipated that by mid-2019, a new "2018 Study" will also be posted to this location as we have a new 

study currently underway which will cover additional projects. Note: In the table above, "Serious Injury" is combined within "All Other Injuries", and these are crash totals, not actual injured persons. In this case, injured persons before was 

42 and injured persons after was 27. The B/C is calculated based upon total injuries prevented, rather than injury crashes. 

https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/hsip/studies

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

No
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 44

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/01/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019

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

 2019

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

Individual strategic focus areas as defined within the SHSP undergo consistent review and updates as data becomes available with the intended goal of meeting the vision defined within the Strategic Highway Safety Program and 

Colorado's safety initiative: "Moving Toward Zero Deaths".

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

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) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 44

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 100 0

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 50 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 50

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 50

AADT Year (80) 100 50

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 44

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

Interchange Type (182) 100 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 88.89 87.50 12.50 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

CDOT does not believe that there are any interchanges or grade-separated ramps that are currently under non-state jurisdiction within Colorado. CDOT has AADT on all Fed-Aid roads. There are 8,752 miles of Rural Collectors that we do 

not have AADT data on. Most notably we are missing data on Non-State, Non-local paved intersections of which we have approximately 10,000.

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.

Due to the magnitude involved with collecting the missing data elements and the potential system changes that will need to be made, CDOT intends to utilize the next 2-3 years to research and assess various methodologies to meet the 

10 year deadline for providing the required information. This planning stage will consist of the following assessment activities:

1. Contact other State DOT’s and survey what methodologies they are employing to meet these requirements.

2. Research and monitor 3rd party big data providers. Technology and data collection is progressing rapidly; there is a possibility that companies aware of these requirements may move to collect this information for retail sale.

3. Research other potential sources for the required data elements, including local jurisdictions and MPOs.

4. If 3rd party data is not available and other potential sources do not exist, we will move forward with developing a long term plan for collection, including locating and procuring funding.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form 03 Evident Incapacitaing Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual 03 Evident incapacitating injury No This is an injury other than a fatal injury 

which prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities he/she was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Included are 

severe lacerations, broken or distorted 

limbs, and internal injuries. This also 

includes an injured party transported to a 

No Severe lacerations.

Broken or distorted limbs.

Internal injuries.

Injured transported to hospital.

No
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 44

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

hospital because of the severity of the 

injuries.

Crash Database 03 Evident incapacitating injury Yes N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary 03 Evident incapacitating injury No This is an injury other than a fatal injury 

which prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities he/she was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Included are 

severe lacerations, broken or distorted 

limbs, and internal injuries. This also 

includes an injured party transported to a 

hospital because of the severity of the 

injuries.

No Severe lacerations.

Broken or distorted limbs.

Internal injuries.

Injured transported to hospital.

No

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

CDOT is updating the statewide crash form from the DR2447 to the DR3447. Along with the crash form, the officer's manual is also being updated to modify the definitions of the injury levels to be in compliance with the MMUCC 4th and 

5th editions. Adoption of the new crash form and officer's manual was anticipated in 2018, prior to the required compliance date of April 2019. However, the actual adoption of the new crash form has not yet occurred; CDOT continues 

efforts to reinforce the importance of adoption of this updated crash form and officer's manual for MMUCC compliance by April 2019. 

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

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

The State of Colorado did not conduct a self-assessment during the reporting period. However, FHWA did conduct an assessment on Colorado's HSIP during the reporting period. The resulting report issued by FHWA in May of 2018 did 

yield a positive listing of best practices as well as areas of improvement. CDOT is currently working to address the improvement recommendations and have recently submitted an action plan in response to FHWA's Assessment Report. 

We look favorably upon the detailed information and insight obtained through this assessment process and look forward to striving toward continuous improvement of Colorado's HSIP. 

The final report is available on the FHWA website for anyone wishing to learn more specific detail on the assessment process, involved stakeholders, best practices, and recommendations; however, among other recommended 

improvements, we would like to very briefly point out a few key areas which we will be placing special focus on in order to improve our program. Those areas are as follows:

1. Develop a systemic approach to include in our HSIP for addressing statewide safety concerns that may better be addressed through systemic improvements over spot locations. 

2. Improve local agency participation through providing better education, assistance, and engagement. 

3. Improve overall crash data access and basic, high-level analysis tools for local agencies to help identify and submit eligible safety improvement projects for HSIP funding.
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 44

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP_2016.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 44

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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