Page 1 of 58 

VERMONT
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 58 

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 ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 19

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 21

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 26

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 26

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 40

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 42

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 44

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 45

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 50

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 51
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 58

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lists, or data.” 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary

During the state fiscal year (July 1, 2016 to June 30 2017), VTrans conducted ten road safety audits at hot spot 

locations in collaboration with law enforcement officers around the states. The Agency further continued to 

work with local municipalities and implemented a systemic safety program to address local road safety.

For the state fiscal year (July 1, 2016 to June 30 2017), the total amount of funding that was obligated during 

the reporting period was $13,312,845. Of these, $9,761,465 was obligated from HSIP Section 148 and 

$3,551,379 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). 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 305 for the 2012-2016 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 62 while the five-year average of 

the number of serious injuries went from 386 to 305 serious injuries.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 58

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 by the Office of Highway Safety 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? 

 Engineering

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

HSIP staff is located under the Highway Division within the Office of Highway Safety. See the attached PDF 

Organization Chart for a clarification. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 58

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Other-Central Office via High Crash Location Reviews

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

HSIP funds are used to construct statewide pavement markings and signs projects. They are also used to 

implement projects as a result of the review of High Crash Locations. In additions, they are used to implement 

engineering design projects that are related to SHSP specific critical emphasis areas. 

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. 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. 

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.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-VTrans Office of Higway Safety

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

These groups are mostly involved during the conduct of road safety audits and road safety reviews. 

The Office of Highway Safety is responsible for maintaining the crash data and generating high crash locations 

lists. 

Describe coordination with internal partners.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 58

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.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Other-Municipalities

Other-Regional Planning Commissions

Other-Law Enforcement

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

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.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

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.

There are other business units at VTrans other than the Office of Highway Safety that are using HSIP funds. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 58

The Assets Management & Programming Bureau at VTrans is responsible for programming project and the Office of 

Highway Safety 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 two to 

four years. In addition, preparing formal plans for contacting purposes has also been time consuming. VTrans is working 

on developing an alternative contracting process to accelerate the delivery of these low cost projects using an on-call 

contractor. It is anticipated that this process will be in place during construction season 2018.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

FFY18 Systemic Local Road Safety.pdf

Vermont HSIP Manual February 19 2016.pdf

Vermont HSIP Low Cost Program October 2016.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

HRRR

Other-School Zone Safety

Other-Major Project Spot Improvements

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

Local Safety refers to our Systemic Local Road Safety Program (this program is an extension of our former HRRR 

program. SLRS addresses all local town owned roads. There are still projects that are being developed or about to be 

constructed from locations that were reviewed under the former HRRR program). 

HRRR refers to the HRRR Special Rules under FAST Act that requires a State to obligate a certain amount of funds on 

HRRRs if the fatality rate on its rural roads increases. This program is not active at this time in Vermont as Vermont has 

not been penalized. 

Low-Cost Safety Improvements refer to the implementation of the low-cost, short-term countermeasures identified 

during the road safety audits done at hot spot locations. Major Project Spot Improvements refer to the design of the 

higher cost projects that were identified during the road safety audits.

School Zone Safety is the review of school zones for uniform signage and markings. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 58

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/19/2016 

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

Other-FAST Act Special Rules

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

Other-Funding set-aside only if special rules apply

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Fatal and all injury crashes Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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 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
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 58

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

As per the HSIP Manual, if VTrans is penalized by the Special Rule for HRRR safety, then the HRRR Program becomes effective for the required 

period of time. Under the HRRR Program, VTrans may utilize a combination of site-specific, systemic, and corridor projects to address the identified 

issues as appropriate. VTrans defines “significant safety risks” as those rural major and minor collectors and rural local roads with three or more 

fatal and injury crashes per mile over a five-year period.

What VTrans used to call HRRR in the past, is now done under the expended Systemic Local Road Safety Program 

as was explained in the clarification to question 14.

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/19/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 58

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

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

The SLRS program addresses rural and urban roads that are locally maintained 

by a municipality and have less than 5,000 vehicles per day, and focuses on 

risk factors rather than primarily crash history to identify sites for 

improvements.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/3/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 58

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?

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

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

This program implements the low cost countermeasures identified during the 

review of high crash locations. Part of the execution of the HSIP includes 

prioritizing mitigation measures based on cost. The low cost solutions typically 

center around minimally invasive changes. This low cost program seeks to 

facilitate VTrans’ ability to implement these changes expeditiously.

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/9/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 58

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Sign replacement needs 

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

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?

Yes

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

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

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

The goal is to construct 100 road miles per year via sign replacement projects.

Program: Other-School Zone Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

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

Other-Addresses pedestrian safety in school zones

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 58

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Presence of a School 

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

Other-Participation in the safe route to school program

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?

Other-All sites are advanced for signs and markings

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

Other-All sites are advanced : 1

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

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) has developed a School Zone Safety Initiative to 

help achieve uniform applications of traffic control devices within Vermont’s local school zones for 

the purpose of enhancing the safety of road users through these school zones. This program has 

been in operation since 2014. However due to lack of personal, VTrans is considering eliminating 

this program in the future.

Program: Other-Major Project Spot 

Improvements 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

Date of Program Methodology: 2/19/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

Incremental B/C : 2
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

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

Potential major projects that have been identified during the road safety audits of high crash locations are 

reviewed by a selection committee. The selected projects are programed based on funding availability. 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 55.3

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

apply.

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

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

VTrans has developed and implemented policies for centerline rumble strips and the SafetyEdge on all paving 

projects. 

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

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

Countermeasures are identified based on a review of the crash history (e.g., crash summary tables and 

collision diagram), existing conditions (e.g., traffic operations, roadway design, and adjacent land use), past 

studies, planned future developments and designs, and a field study to observe road user behaviors.

Crash modification factors are used to estimate the potential crash reduction that could be achieved by each 

countermeasures. 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Autonomous vehicles are not addressed by the HSIP.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

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.

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.

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 acquired a license for AASHTOWare SafetyAnalyst and we are working on an implementation plan to 

incorporate it within our HSIP process. A consultant was hired to review Vermont’s existing data availability 

and quality, conduct a gap analysis between existing data sets and the Safety Analyst data requirements and 

prioritize the data collection and transformation needs for implementation. We are hoping to include all public 

roads while implementing this methodology. We are expecting that SafetyAnalyst will solve the issues 

mentioned previously. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 58

VTrans and the Vermont FHWA Division Office hosted the conduct of an HSIP review by a team of FHWA 

representatives in May 2016. The purpose of the review was to assess the status of HSIP planning, 

implementation and evaluation efforts, with a focus on streamlining HSIP project delivery, identifying safety 

efforts beyond the HSIP and advancing HSIP evaluation efforts. The review team prepared a final report 

documenting recommendations. VTrans developed an action plan to implement the recommendations over 

the next few years.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,761,465 $9,761,465 100%

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) $3,551,379 $3,551,379 100%

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 $13,312,844 $13,312,844 100%

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

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

25%

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

25%

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

24.56% of HSIP funding is programmed and obligated to local (non-state owned and operated) safety projects

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 58

1%

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

1%

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

0.75% of HSIP funding is programmed and obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

VTrans has several large HSIP funded projects that are currently in the development process. When all of 

these projects reach construction as anticipated, there will not be enough HSIP funds available to construct 

these projects. VTrans is working to develop a better system to track Section 164 and 148 funded project 

through its Project Navigation System. VTrans will be working on developing a prioritized list of projects for 

construction. 

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. 

The 2016 FHWA lead HSIP review recognized that HSIP funds were used by other VTrans business units (other than the Office of 

Highway Safety) 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.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

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

MORRISTOWN 

STP HES 030-

2(28) -

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

0.01 Miles $13500 $13500 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 $130000 $130000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

BARRE TOWN 

STP HES 0169(8) 

- Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

0.01 Miles $94500 $94500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,200 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

WILLISTON STP 

HES 5500(12) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.47 Miles $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,900 40 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Improve 

Operations

HARTFORDROYALTON IMG 

SIGN(48) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

21.32 Miles $1480029.96 $1480029.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

24,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve Signs 

and Markings

WINOOSKI HES 

5100(13) -

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.03 Miles $1211704.75 $1211704.75 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,000 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Pedestrians Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

PLAINFIELD NH 

028-3(41) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.11 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

ROCKINGHAMHARTFORD IMG 

SIGN(54) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

34 Miles $1260862.79 $1260862.79 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

19,200 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve Signs 

and Markings

MORRISTOWN 

STPG SGNL(47) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.6 Miles $1069567.53 $1069567.53 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

11,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHWEST 

STPG SIGN(64) -

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

31.121 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

STATEWIDE -

NORTHWEST 

STPG SIGN(63) -

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

52.918 Miles $120000 $120000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

HARTFORD NH 

020-2(44) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE HES 

GARD(2) -

Construction

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Numbers $613499.96 $613499.96 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

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

LYNDON STPG 

SGNL(48) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0.095 Miles $648730.76 $648730.76 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE HES 

SHSP(7) -

Planned

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Numbers $100371.23 $100371.23 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Private (Other 

than Railroad)

Spot Intersections Improve Signs 

and Markings

BARRE CITY 

HES 037-1(8) -

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.02 Miles $65000 $65000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

6,900 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

COLCHESTER 

HES NH 5600(14) 

- Development

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1.025 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

22,800 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

COLCHESTER 

HES 028-1(28) -

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.02 Miles $391931.11 $391931.11 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

COLCHESTERESSEX STPG 

SGNL(45) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

4.656 Miles $98509.56 $98509.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Improve 

Operations

WILLISTONESSEX STPG 

SGNL(46) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

4.494 Miles $370000 $370000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE -

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

SIGN(58) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

41.066 Miles $13600 $13600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

1,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

NORTHEAST 

STPG SIGN(62) -

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

60.696 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

1,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic 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 

Arterial - Other

9,800 40 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Improve 

Operations

ARLINGTON STP 

319-1(29) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

2,900 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

BARRE TOWN 

HES STPG 

6100(6) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

0.196 Miles $100000 $100000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,900 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

WATERBURY 

STP SGNL(18) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

0.036 Miles $19411.57 $19411.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,650 25 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

HINESBURG 

HES 021-1(19) -

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.3 Miles $248719.92 $248719.92 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,600 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

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

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

SIGN(47) -

Closing

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Numbers $149.02 $149.02 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

STATEWIDE 

STPG TMNG(6) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

general retiming

1 Numbers $85000 $85000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Improve 

Operations

FERRISBURGH 

NHG SGNL(42) -

Closing

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.02 Miles $158139.81 $158139.81 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

WATERBURY 

NHG SGNL(43) -

Closing

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.01 Miles $20037.81 $20037.81 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 40 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Improve 

Operations

LUDLOW HES 

SGNL(44) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0.02 Miles $47456.34 $47456.34 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(312) -

Development

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(313) -

Development

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(309) -

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $516760.25 $516760.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve Signs 

and Markings

CHARLOTTE 

NHG SGNL(49) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Numbers $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

BENNINGTON 

STP 1000(21) -

Development

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

ST. GEORGE 

STP 021-1(36) -

Development

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE -

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(310) -

Development

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(311) -

Development

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 58

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

BERLINGUILDHALL NHG 

SIGN(59) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

61.714 Miles $90300 $90300 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

STATEWIDE IMG 

SIGN(61) -

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Numbers $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Older Drivers Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE IMG 

MARK(116) -

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $1020000 $1020000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(306) -

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $530000 $530000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(307) -

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE -

SOUTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(308) -

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Numbers $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Systemic Lane Departure Improve Signs 

and Markings

STOWEBERKSHIRE 

STPG SIGN(49) -

Closing

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

44.946 Miles $45133.06 $45133.06 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

RUTLAND TOWN 

NHG 019-3(60) -

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

0.07 Miles $485453.96 $485453.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Improve 

Operations

COLCHESTER 

STP 5600(19) -

Development

Roadway Roadway - other 1.05 Miles $135000 $135000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Improve 

Geometry

WINOOSKICAMBRIDGE 

STPG SIGN(55) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

23.94 Miles $262874.99 $262874.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

STOWE HES 

0235(22) -

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.048 Miles $94993.87 $94993.87 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry

STATEWIDE -

SOUTH REGION 

STPG SIGN(57) -

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post)

- new or updated

55.514 Miles $472269.96 $472269.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Older Drivers Improve 

Infrastructues for 

all Users

HYDE PARK HES 

030-2(23) -

Complete

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 0.02 Miles $4336.86 $4336.86 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,700 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve 

Geometry
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

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

STATEWIDE HES 

HSIP(2) -

Development

1 Numbers $10000 $10000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 Spot Intersections Improve Signs 

and Markings

STATEWIDE HES 

HSIP(7) -

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

42.023 Miles $80000 $80000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Improve Signs 

and Markings

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

The projects above were all obligated during the reporting period (State Fiscal Year). 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 73 74 71 55 77 70 44 57 62

Serious Injuries 427 395 410 387 311 308 290 296 322

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.017 0.982 0.980 0.770 1.070 0.983 0.623 0.780 0.840

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.950 5.241 5.660 5.419 4.322 4.327 4.108 4.049 4.372

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

1 5 5 4 10 6 4 9 6

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

29 35 33 36 40 38 25 36 37
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 28 of 58

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 29 of 58

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

The number of fatalities is based on FARS. 

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

4.4 23.8 0.36 18.19

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

11 28 1.55 8.36

Rural Minor Arterial 10.2 45.4 1.06 18.42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 30 of 58

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 Minor Collector 3 12.6 1.41 5.93

Rural Major Collector 13.8 60.2 1.2 17.1

Rural Local Road or Street 9.8 41.6 1.02 4.31

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

1.6 4 0.32 0.82

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0.6 2.4 1.03 3.99

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

2.8 30.2 0.6 6.46

Urban Minor Arterial 1.8 18.8 0.5 5.21

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 1.8 13.8 0.73 5.57

Urban Local Road or Street 0.8 10.6 0.2 2.91
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 42.2 191.6 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

16.6 74.6 0 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

3.2 32.8 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 58

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 58

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway

Agency

City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 58

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway

Agency

City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 58

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway

Agency

City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 58

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

Note that the data for State Highway Agency also include some crashes that took place on Vermont Class I 

Roads that would be owned by towns and cities. 

Note also that HMVTMs by Roadway Ownership are not available.

In addition, urban boundaries were changed from 2013 to 2014 which could result in changes in mileage when 

compared to previous years. 

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.

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. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency Town or Township Highway

Agency

City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 58

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 2017, VTrans identified four safety corridors along the interstate where high speeds were an issue. 

During summer 2017, from June to September, message boards along with radar speed feedback signs were 

installed and increased enforcement was provided by the State during this period.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 58.0 

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

2014 was a historical low for fatalities in Vermont. Since then, Vermont has observed 

two years of increasing numbers of fatalities, which mirrors the rise that has been 

realized across the nation. In addition, two states in New England have legalized 

marijuana, which could have an impact on Vermont. The trend line used for this 

performance measure is based on over 10 years of data and utilizes a linear model to 

establish the 2018 target. 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 over three years. 

Number of Serious Injuries 290.0 

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

The long-term trend for serious injuries has been continually trending down. However, 

since 2012 the number of serious injuries has not varied greatly. The trend line used 

for this performance measure is based on over 10 years of data and utilizes a linear 

model to establish the 2018 target. 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 reduce the number of serious 

injuries by 8% over three years. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 58

Fatality Rate 0.830 

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

Following an historical low for fatalities in Vermont in 2014, Vermont has seen an 

increase in the number of fatalities the last two years. The number of Vehicle Miles 

Traveled in Vermont has been somewhat stable in recent years. The trend line used for 

this performance measure is based on over 10 years of data and utilizes a linear model 

to establish the 2018 target. Our proposed target is a reduction in the 5-year fatality 

rate, which support the overall reduction in fatal and serious crashes presented in the 

2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.300 

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

The long-term trend for serious injuries has been continually trending down and since 

2012, the number of serious injuries has not varied greatly. The number of Vehicle 

Miles Traveled in Vermont has been somewhat stable in recent years. The trend line 

used for this performance measure is based on over 10 years of data and utilizes a 

linear model to establish the 2018 target. Our 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 40.1 

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

The number of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries is a value that has 

been steadily increasing in recent years. While there has been a surge of bicycle 

fatalities, pedestrian crashes represent the largest problem. Crashes involving 

bicyclists currently account for approximately 3.5% of all major crashes and this 

number is likely to increase as the bicyclist population increases. On average, 10% of 

the total major crashes involve pedestrians. From 2011 through 2015, the average 

annual crash rate for pedestrian fatalities was reported to be six crashes per year. 

Different types of trend lines were explored to determine a reasonable trend. A 3rd 

degree polynomial trend line provided the best fit, which projected a slight decrease in 

2018. The 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan considers pedestrians and 

bicyclists as two separate emphasis area 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. Our 

proposed target is downward and contribute to the overall goal of the Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan. 

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

Page 42 of 58

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

targets. 

Under MAP-21 FHWA and NHTSA were required to develop some National Performance Targets for various areas. In the 

area of highway safety, FHWA and NHTSA settled on five performance measures. Initial goals for these 5 performance 

measures are to be set by August 31, 2017.

FHWA, in an effort to assist states with the generation of performance measures, developed different workshops/training 

courses for states to take advantage of these resources in their process of setting targets. On January 10th, 2017, Vermont 

conducted the “Safety Performance Target Setting Workshop.” The outcome of this workshop led to the establishment of 

the Target Setting Task Force and subsequent proposed targets.

Following the model suggested in the target setting workshop, VTrans established a multi-disciplinary task force to evaluate 

the data and propose the 2018 safety target goals. Data for each of the five performance measures was tracked from 2005 

to the most recent year that data was available. Utilizing the five-year running average data, a best-fit trend line was 

established and projected out to 2018. The task force then considered external pressures that could move the target up or 

down from the projected value ending with a performance measure goal. 

The established performance measure goals were vetted by the Vermont AOT, Policy Planning and Intermodal 

Development Division, prior to receiving final approval by Vermont AOT Executive Staff and the Vermont Highway Safety 

Alliance Board of Directors.

The task force included representatives from the VTrans Office of Highway Safety, Governor’s Highway Safety Program, 

VTrans Highway Safety Plan Coordinator, VTrans Highway Safety Improvement Plan Engineer, VTrans Transportation 

Planning Coordinator, VTrans Bike & Pedestrian Coordinator and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 58

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

16 16 10 12 14 7 11

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

36 41 26 28 35 27 18

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 58

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

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.

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 2008-2012 period 

to the 2012-2016 one passing from 63 fatal crashes to 57 fatal crashes. 

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

313 serious injury crashes to 253. 

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 62 while the five-year average of 

the number of serious injuries went from 386 to 305 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

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

Twelve road safety audits were conducted specifically for the HSIP in 2015 and twelve were conducted in 

2016. 

There has been an increase in the level of awareness of safety while developing other types of projects within 

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

input from the Office of Highway Safety when developing paving projects.

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

No
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 58

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 35.8 145.2 0.5 2.01

Intersections 8 67.4 0.11 0.93

Pedestrians 6 23.2 0.08 0.32

Bicyclists 1 12 0.01 0.16

Older Drivers 14.4 33.2 0.2 0.46

Motorcyclists 8.2 36 0.11 0.5

Work Zones 0.6 1.2 0.01 0.02
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 47 of 58

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

The following factors were considered when presenting the data. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

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

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 48 of 58

Older Driver Emphasis Area: Occupants of ALL ages w/major injuries in all vehicles involved in a Major Crash 

whereby a 65+ YO operator was involved. Occupants of ALL ages w/fatal injuries in all vehicles involved in a 

Major Crash whereby a 65+ YO operator was involved.

Lane Departure: Includes Vehicle Collided With overturned, guardrail/curb, tree, pole./sign, ledge/boulder, 

and other fixed object and sequence of events Ran off Road and Overturned/rollover

Intersections: 4 way, T, Y, Circle/roundabout and 5 way

Motorcyclists: PlateType

Work Zones: Road Condition = work zone

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

Yes

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

CounterMeasures: Roundabout 

Description: 

In May 2016, VTrans summarized 

crash data at roundabouts in Vermont. 

For each site, the same number of 

before and after crash data was used. 

For example, for a site that had only 

one year of crash data available 

following construction, one year of 

before crash data was used. Crashes 

were summarized by severity levels. 

No statistical analysis was performed. 

This was a simple before and after 

crash data analysis. The roundabouts 

included in this analysis included all 

known roundabout in operation. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 11 

Number of Installations: 11 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 1 to 5 per site 

Years After: 1 to 5 per site 

Methodology: Simple before/after 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

Results: 

The evaluation showed a crash reduction in all 

fatal and injury categories and an increase in 

property damage only (PDO) crashes. Overall, the 

total number of crashes went down by 5%. 

Fatal Incap 

Inj

NonIncapPossible 

Injury PDO Total

Before 2 7 22 15 63 109

After 0 2 10 10 82 104

Change -

100% -71% -55% -33% 30% -5%

File Name: Vermont Roundabouts BeforeAfter May 2016.xlsx
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

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

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

Yes

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

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 (2012-2016) for lane departure crashes is 148 major crashes, which is below the SHSP target of 186 major crashes. 

For the emphasis area concerning intersections, the latest five-year average (2012-2016) is 66 major crashes. This five-year average is below the SHSP target of 72 major crashes at intersections. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 58

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?

 2021

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

The 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan was endorsed by Vermont Secretary of Transportation, Joe Flynn, on April 26, 2017. On May 16, 2017, FHWA Vermont Division Administrator, Matthew Hake, approved the process that was 

followed by Vermont to produce the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

The 2017-2021 SHSP can be viewed by clicking this link. 

The process for developing the next Strategic Highway Safety Plan will be initiated in 2021. The next Strategic Highway Safety Plan will be due in 2022 and will cover the period 2022-2026.

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 0 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 0 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 0 100
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 58

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

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 50 50

Functional Class (19) 100 100 0 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 50 50

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 0 50 50 50

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

25 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

25 25

AADT Year (80) 25 25

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 58

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

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

50 50

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

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):

94.44 94.44 9.38 6.25 68.18 68.18 0.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

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

Note that in this table, there are 0% values that should be read as NA, Not Applicable, as percentages do not apply. 

Local Paved Roads - NA for state owned (locals own them all).

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.

In September 2016, the Mapping Section sent out a spreadsheet of the MIRE elements among the Agency (VTrans) to make an assessment of what MIRE fundamental data elements (MIRE FDEs) the Agency has, which section maintains 

it and which elements may need to be built. 

In September 2016, VTrans also received a draft geodatabase template of the MIRE database that Rhode Island DOT is having built by Esri to give us a point of beginning as the assessment of MIRE moves forward.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

Several data experts from different Agency of Transportation units met on June 11, 2017 to discuss the status of the MIRE FDEs data.

The group compiled a chart that shows what data the Agency currently had and what state the data was. Some of the MIRE FDEs data can be extracted by reconfiguring existing data sets. This group estimated that Vermont currently 

collected 80-90% of the necessary data elements required in the MIRE FDEs schema. Data is stored in GIS format in ArcSDE as features or event tables. Current data may not be stored in the MIRE schema and may require translation to 

meet MIRE requirements.

There are some 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 defined to meet the MIRE data 

schema within the short term. 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 are not being collected on state and municipal highways, but there is coordination with regional planning commissions, who work directly with towns, cities, the gores and grant within Vermont. As a plan is formulated, 

there will be an initiative to move forward in data collection, with coordination with the RPCs and locals as needed. Vermont does have federal highways, under several federal agencies, which will need to be coordinated to gain this 

data.

It is uncertain at this time to what extent the other agencies that owns 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.

The largest missing data set in Vermont’s roadway data is the intersection data. There currently exists no single comprehensive system to identify all Vermont intersections and their corresponding traffic controls and associated 

elements. For example, The Agency has separate intersection databases for traffic counting and traffic signals. These system identifiers will need to be merged into the new system in order to maintain the current business 

processes. Some new intersection control data will require coordination with local communities and/or the Regional Planning Commissions to collect the needed data. 

Vermont will focus on developing a system that will give each intersection a unique identifier that will permit to merge the existing numbering schemes. This intersection schema will be the highest priority to addressed before any other 

work with intersecton can be accomplished.

The Agency has secured 405c funds from the Traffic Records Coordination Committee for FY2018 to develop an inventory of intersections. 

The group that met on June 11, 2017 identified the following potential schedule for completed an intersection database on the federal-aid system. 

• Develop intersection numbering system and database elements - (August - October 2017)

• Link other database numbering systems into new database - (September -October 2017)

• Collect Intersection data with temporary employees via Google Maps and or other similar databases. ( January -December 2018)

• Obtain the remainder of intersection data via field visits to sites that do not have a photo log option. ( January -December 2018)

Other tasks needed to comply with the 2026 deadline include:

Build on the July 11, 2017 meeting and preform a rigorous assessment of what exists, identify gaps and develop a data acquisition plan. The listing of the MIRE FDEs with collection status is in process of being developed as an inventory 

of existing data sources is being created across a series of sections within the Vermont Agency of Transportation.

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.

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. 
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes Suspected Serious Injury (A) - (previously 

Injury – Incapacitating) is any injury, other 

than fatal, which results in one or more of 

the following: 

Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood 

Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) 

Crush injuries 

Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations 

Significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of the body) 

Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene 

Paralysis

Yes Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood 

Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) 

Crush injuries 

Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations 

Significant burns (second and third degree 

burns over 10% or more of the body) 

Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene 

Paralysis

Yes

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

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

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

Vermont does not have an overall crash data dictionary. The crash form instructions manual contains the definitions related to the fields listed on the form and this is what has been used mostly (NHSTA 2016 Traffic Records Assessment 

concluded that “while the WebCrash data dictionary alone did not contain the necessary information, when combined with the Investigator's Guide for Completing the State of Vermont Uniform Crash Report, all data elements and 

allowable values were covered in great detail.) As just mentioned, the developer of the crash database has a WebCrash data dictionary related to the system and we might be able to use it as a starting point for developing a 

comprehensive crash data dictionary. 

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

Vermont does not have a crash data dictionary. Definitions are listed in the Crash Report Form Instruction Manual. 

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.

A Vermont’s HSIP program assessment was conducted May 17-19 2016.

The objectives of the review were: 1. Determine the status of HSIP planning, implementation and evaluation efforts for compliance with 23 CFR part 924. 2. Recognize safety efforts beyond HSIP. 3. Identify opportunities to streamline HSIP project delivery. 4. Identify opportunities to enhance HSIP evaluation 

practices.

The recommendations of the assessment for objective 1 are listed below:

1.1 Document current processes to include all business units that identify, select and deliver HSIP projects. 1.2 Develop a system that will produce a prioritized program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects for the next 3 years. 1.3 Create a staffing plan, standard operating procedures for each safety position 

and determine the optimal mix of in house staff, on call contractors/consultants and university partnerships to effectively implement the program. 1.4 VTrans develop a Safety Analyst implementation plan to ensure that VTrans dedicates enough resources to implement and maintain Safety Analyst.

As a result of the assessment, for objective 1: 

VTrans is currently working to implement the use of the Safety Analyst program. As a part of the implementation plan for the SA program, VTrans will develop an HSIP analysis process. (18 Months)

VTrans is working to develop a better system to track Section 164 and 148 funded project through VPINs which will assist us in providing information for HSIP annual report.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 58

In the area of Highway Safety, VTrans will develop a staffing plan in three-year time. VTrans will likely have to rely on Consultants and University contracts to carry much of the Safety Analyst and other programmatic implementation 

work.

The recommendations for objectives 2, 3 and 4 are listed below:

2.1 Develop a prioritized list of safety projects for review and eligibility determination by the Division Office. This prioritized list should identify the funding source and business unit that is responsible for implementation and completion 

of the project. 3.1 Develop and implement an on-call contract for low cost safety projects. 4.1 Develop a systematic process to perform project and HSIP evaluations, to communicate results to stakeholders (e.g. Maintenance Districts, 

RPC’s, Program Delivery and the general public) and to provide feedback to the planning process for future projects.

As a result of the assessment, for objectives 2, 3 and 4: 

VTrans is workingwith FHWA on an on-call contracting procedure for simple limited scope projects that would focus on signs and pavement marking projects. Implementation is expected for the 2018 construction season.

VTrans will develop a standard methodology for conducting post mitigation crash evaluation in twelve months.
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Vermont HSIP Staff Location Org Chart.pdf

FFY18 Systemic Local Road Safety.pdf

Vermont HSIP Manual February 19 2016.pdf

Vermont HSIP Low Cost Program October 2016.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Vermont Roundabouts BeforeAfter May 2016.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

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.