Page 1 of 46

COLORADO
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 20

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 20

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 31

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 36

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 46

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 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 46

Executive Summary 

Colorado’s (5 year average) fatalities and fatal crash rates have increased in 2016. Both (5 year average) 

serious injuries and the serious injury crash rate have seen little change in 2016. 

In FY 2016, Colorado was notified as being non-compliant with 23 U.S.C. Section 164. CDOT requested that 

100% of the penalty amount be shifted from the National Highway Preservation Program (NHPP) and 100% of 

those funds be assigned to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The funding assigned to the 

HSIP is being used for eligible activities described in 23 U.S.C. Section 148 to correct hazardous locations, 

reduce identified safety problems, proactively address safety risks, and address safety emphasis areas 

identified in Colorado's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Additionally, High Risk Rural Roads and Local 

Agency safety improvements will be specifically focused on and incorporated in FY 2018 and going forward.

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

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

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

of new Highway Safety Manual concepts and systemic approaches are also being integrated into the HSIP 

program.

The SHSP implementation plan will target goals and devise strategies in each emphasis area to see where 

improvements can made in order to support the vision of moving towards zero deaths. In the next fiscal year, 

CDOT hopes to solicit a greater number of off system (non-state highway) locations with high potential for 

crash reduction with the help of local agencies partners and stakeholders.
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 46

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

headquarters. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas of focus. 

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

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

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

projects. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering 

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

Page 6 of 46

Within Transportation Systems Management & Operations (TSM&O)

Under HQ Traffic Safety & Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

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

through the central CDOT headquarters group. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hwy/freeway) locations.

Approximately one half of the HSIP funding is allocated toward off-system locations because approximately 

half of all statewide crashes occur off system. The allocation is based on statewide crash distribution. In 

recent years, there have not been enough off system safety improvement projects to use the full allocated 

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

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

their full allocation in the future. 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 46

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Operations 

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Office of Financial Management & Budget

Other-CDOT Regions

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

besides those mentioned on the listing. 

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

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

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

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

branch also works with OFMB to obtain status updates on HSIP obligation and expenditure amounts for 

ongoing projects. Approved HSIP projects are incorporated into the Integrated Safety Plan in coordination with 

the CDOT Office of Transportation Safety group and their safety programs. 

 

 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Other-Local Agencies

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

Page 8 of 46

LTAP does not have a formal role in this planning; however, LTAP periodically provides input to CDOT for 

HSIP planning and implementation. 

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

subsequent implementation of such safety improvement projects CDOT HQ Traffic & Safety Engineering 

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

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

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

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

specific to their particular region, and media relations. 

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

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

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

progress toward the goal of Zero Deaths. 

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

period?

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. 

In early FY 2016, Colorado was notified as being non-compliant with 23 U.S.C. Section 164. CDOT requested 

that 100% of the penalty amount be shifted from the National Highway Preservation Program (NHPP) and 

100% of those funds be assigned to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The funding assigned 

to the HSIP are being used for eligible activities described in 23 U.S.C. Section 148 to correct hazardous 

locations, reduce identified safety problems, proactively address safety risks, and address safety emphasis areas 

identified in the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

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:
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 46

HSIP_2016.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

HRRR

Other-General

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

HRRR would apply if the special rule is in effect annually. 

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/4/2017 

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

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Crash rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 46

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 

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

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

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

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

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 46

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

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

Program: Other-General 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2000 

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

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

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment 

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 46

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 5 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

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

Page 13 of 46

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

Other-Requests by local agencies for investigations

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through technology. 

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Appraisal (Benefit/Cost analysis), Predictive Methodology, Network Screening, etc.. 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 46

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

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

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

specific to Colorado roadways, highways, freeways, interchanges, and intersections. CDOT believes this 

method allows the agency to be better prepared to address the specific safety concerns on Colorado roadways 

with respect to Colorado ADT, specific driving conditions, and driving habits.
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 46

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) $14,511,267 $40,571,569 279.59%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $4,862,993 $10,781,528 221.71%

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 $19,374,260 $51,353,097 265.06%

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

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

amounts exceed programmed amounts. 

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

$2,235,461

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

$2,637,592

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

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

Page 16 of 46

$108,031

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

$103,080

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and priority for fund programming will be given to projects that can deliver on a timely basis.

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 OFMB is working with the HSIP program managers to find ways to manage Section 164 penalty funds so 

that those funds can be obligated immediately. It is anticipated that Section 164 penalty funding will continue 

into future fiscal years in Colorado.
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 46

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

C-470 TOLLED 

EXPRESS LANES 

SEGMENT 1

Roadway 13.7 Miles $6300000 $282002726 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

90,000 State Toll 

Authority

Spot Lane Departure

95th St: Isabelle to 

Valmont Rd.

Intersection 

geometry

1 Intersections $949500 $1055000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

US34 & Boyd Lake Ave. Intersection traffic 

control

0.5 Miles $495000 $1395000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

43,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Valmont & 29th Street 

HES

Intersection 

geometry

2 Locations $3375555 $3415555 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

21,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 96A - Arkansas 

River to US50B

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

4.6 Miles $1856000 $11659401 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

US 85 Resurf Ph-I, & SH 

392 Intersection

Intersection 

geometry

4.75 Miles $7300000 $20672141 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

14,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I-25/ARAPAHOE RD 

INTERCHANGE

Interchange 

design

2.7 Miles $1250000 $84550385 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

246,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 82 & El Jebel Road 

Intersection Impr

Intersection traffic 

control

1 Miles $1360000 $1360000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TELLER CR 1 HES IN 

CRIPPLE CREEK

Roadside 1 Locations $467352 $510836 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,100 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

I-25: 120th Avenue (SH 

128) to SH 7

Roadway 20.5 Miles $6500000 $96035444 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

120,000 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

SH95 SHERIDAN 

RESURFAING: 

Hampden to Ari

Roadway 6.8 Miles $544890 $7062284 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

36,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

FY14 Denver Traffic 

Signals

Intersection traffic 

control

4 Intersections $1100000 $1650000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 

Intersections

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

I-70 GW Canyon 

Variable Speed Signing

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

17 Miles $3400000 $5600000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

17,000 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Adaptive Signals US 287 

& SH 119

Intersection traffic 

control

2 Locations $1416321 $3089794 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

84th Ave & Grant St 

Intersection Rebuild

Intersection 

geometry

1 Intersections $2418563 $2418563 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

SH96 EAST OF 

FOUNTAIN RIVER PED 

XING IMP

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.3 Miles $91049.74 $91049.74 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

SH30:POTOMAC TO 

AIRPORT BLVD.

Roadway 1.9 Miles $30000 $5365719 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 46

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

I-70:C470 TO 32ND 

CABLE RAIL

Roadside 4.5 Miles $2589156 $2589156 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

9,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

REGION 2 GUARDRAIL 

PROJ (I-25, SH 115)

Roadside 30 Miles $2313796 $2313796 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

30,000 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

I-70 Wolcott East Roadway 9.5 Miles $2600000 $14369570 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

26,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SH224:SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection traffic 

control

3.6 Miles $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 83 & CNTY RD 404 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Interchange 

design

2 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,500 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH96 SAFETY 

UPGRADE MP85.44-

86.33

Roadside 1 Miles $1057175 $1057175 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,280 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

US 550/160 PCCP 

DIAMOND GRINDING

Roadway 

delineation

3.9 Miles $1214000 $6965944 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 24 CORRIDOR 

IMPROVEMENTS -

DESIGN

Roadway 3.4 Miles $100000 $1100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

35,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

POWERS BLVD -

BRADLEY & SB I-25 

SIGNALS

Intersection traffic 

control

2 Locations $875930 $928625 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

15,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH21 AND MESA 

RIDGE PKWY 

SIGNALIZATION

Intersection traffic 

control

2 Locations $418329 $741817 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

12,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

HWY 94 & PEYTON 

HWY

Intersection 

geometry

1 Miles $125000 $125000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

I-25 MEDIAN 

CABLERAIL PHS II

Roadside 24 Miles $542938 $642938 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

97,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

SH 83 AND WALKER 

RD NEW 

SIGNALIZATIONS

Intersection traffic 

control

1 Intersections $31671 $31671 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,500 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CDOT ROADWAY 

LIGHTING CONTROLS

Lighting 0 Numbers $40581 $40581 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple Locations 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data

SH95:52ND TO 

58TH/RALSTON(MM9.5-

MM10.1)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

0.6 Miles $200000 $3975734 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

49,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

2017 INTERSECTION 

SPF DEVELOPMENT -

FHU

Non-infrastructure 0 Numbers $249756 $249756 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 

Intersections

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data

INT. SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS CO. 

SPRINGS

Intersection traffic 

control

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

148)

Multiple 

Intersections

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 46

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

Page 20 of 46

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 548 466 450 447 474 481 488 547 608

Serious Injuries 3,580 3,399 3,091 3,163 3,241 3,212 3,219 3,186 2,871

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.148 1.008 0.959 0.959 1.016 1.024 0.996 1.085 1.169

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.501 7.352 6.585 6.787 6.949 6.839 6.571 6.317 5.520

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

157 149 129 135 166 157 171 187 225

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

1,035 929 880 918 995 961 1,004 1,045 901
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 22 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 23 of 46

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

Serious injuries totals for calendar year 2016 may show slightly lower totals than expected as a result of 

incomplete 2016 crash data.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 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

49.2 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

75.6 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 46

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 Arterial 43.4 0 0 0

Rural Minor Collector 16 0 0 0

Rural Major Collector 40 0 0 0

Rural Local Road or Street 22 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

37.8 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

18.4 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

121.8 0 0 0

Urban Minor Arterial 52.4 0 0 0

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 18.8 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or Street 24.2 0 0 0
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 46

Year 2015

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 298.8

County Highway Agency 85.6

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

2.2

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

97

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0

Other State Agency 0

Other Local Agency 3.4

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0

Railroad 0

State Toll Authority 0

Local Toll Authority 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

0

Indian Tribe Nation 0
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 46

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 46

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 46

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

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 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 46

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

At this time, fatality data is specifically tracked; however, in terms of data, at present CDOT does not 

distinguish between serious injury and other injuries. As such, no data is being provided under the category of 

Serious Injury.

Special notes regarding the above provided data:

"Rural Principle Arterial - Other" is listed as 0 because this is included within the value provided for "Rural 

Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways"

"Urban Minor Collector" is listed as 0 because this is included within the value provided for "Urban Major 

Collector"

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

Following the trend seen across the country, fatalities have seen a noticeable increase in Colorado in 

2016. Even with increased VMT, fatality rates have also increased. There were no specific areas where the 

increase of fatalities were over-represented. Serious injuries have remained relatively stable in this time with 

the rate continuing to decrease over the last several years.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 46

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 610.0 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs to reduce crashes in order to pursue the aspirational goal. The target of 610 

is the predicted five year rolling average. 

Number of Serious Injuries 3350.0 

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

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

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

various predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, including the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the aspirational goal. The target of 3350 is the predicted five year average. 

Fatality Rate 1.200 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rate. The SHSP is an aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero deaths and is 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 46

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

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

goal. The target of 1.2 is based on the five year moving average. 

Serious Injury Rate 6.790 

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

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

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

various predicted values. Contributing factors were considered, including the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

target of 6.79 is the predicted five year average. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 586.0 Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crashes in order to pursue the aspirational goal. The target of 586 is based on the five 

year moving average. 

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

For detailed information regarding the methodology for setting such performance targets, please contact CDOT 

Headquarters Traffic & Safety Engineering. 

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

targets. 

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

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

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

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

and Environment to evaluate historical crash data and develop the various models. CDOT and the MPO’s 

participated in FHWA training on the new rule making and requirements for establishing targets. Various 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 46

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

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

provide assistance in the establishment of individual MPO goals or adoption of the statewide goals. The 

MPO’s are on target to establish or adopt CDOT’s targets by the February 2018 deadline. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

57 52 47 52 63 52 59

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

189 178 202 241 250 228 226
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 46

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

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 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 46

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Lives saved

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

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

level evaluations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and compare to those calculated at the time of project HSIP funding eligibility review. Although some projects 

A final report describing the findings of this endeavor was generated in December, 2016. 

Additionally, CDOT completed a FHWA HSIP Self-assessment during the reporting period. The final draft of 

this report was issued in April, 2016. The results of this report were overall positive regarding the operation 

and administration of the program. Valuable feedback from FHWA was received within the content of this 

assessment regarding components which CDOT is doing well and excelling in as well as described areas of 

potential improvement. CDOT continues to work to address areas of improvement as described within this 

report. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

Other-Realized Positive B/C Ratio

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

Page 36 of 46

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

Yes

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

A special HSIP obligation of approximately $2.9M was required to address the increased fatality rate for 

Colorado High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) based upon notification from FHWA (23 USC 148(g)(l) - Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2018 High Risk Rural Roads - Special Rule) of such an increase occurring over the preceding 2-year 

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

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

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

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

apply, this HRRR solicitation will remain in place to help reduce fatalities on rural roads. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2015

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 53.2 194.4 0.11 0.4

Roadway Departure 209.2 942.6 0.44 1.97

Intersections 128.8 1,397.4 0.27 2.92

Pedestrians 62.2 292.4 0.13 0.61

Bicyclists 11.4 151.4 0.03 0.32

Older Drivers 54.6 229.4 0.11 0.48

Motorcyclists 89.6 540.8 0.19 1.13

Work Zones 8.8 39.4 0.02 0.08
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 46

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2007-2011 2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

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

Page 39 of 46

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

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

select projects was completed in the prior reporting period. The results of which indicated a relatively high 

level of effectiveness for HSIP overall. The primary indicator being the results of a review of 5 years of crash 

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

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

analysis / application review for HSIP funding eligibility. In general, overall benefic/cost ratios that were 

realized positively exceeded those projected during project application review. 

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

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

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

general. To that end, CDOT conducts periodic rather than annual countermeasure effectiveness evaluations. 

 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 46

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SH 82A - 7.00-

11.00 Garfield 

County CDOT 

Region 3

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Fencing 178.00 57.00 40.00 11.00 218.00 68.00 5.25

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

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

the project is designed to mitigate conflict between vehicles and wildlife in a corridor with particularly high collisions of this type. In this example, the wildlife fencing that was installed proved especially effective in reducing these 

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

studies were completed, please review the reports entitled "2015 Study" and "2016 Study" at the following CDOT public website: 

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

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

No
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 46

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/01/2015 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019 

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

 2019 

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

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

safety initiative: "Moving Toward Zero Deaths". 

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 100 0

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 50 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 50

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 50

AADT Year (80) 100 50

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 46

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

Interchange Type (182) 100 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 88.89 87.50 12.50 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

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

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

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

Due to the magnitude involved with collecting the missing data elements and the potential system changes that will need to be made, CDOT intends to utilize the next 2-3 years to research and assess various methodologies to meet the 10 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

which prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities he/she was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Included are 

severe lacerations, broken or distorted 

limbs, and internal injuries. This also 

includes an injured party transported to a 

hospital because of the severity of the 

injuries.

No Severe lacerations.

Broken or distorted limbs.

Internal injuries.

Injured transported to hospital.

No
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 46

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

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

which prevents the injured person from 

walking, driving or normally continuing the 

activities he/she was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Included are 

severe lacerations, broken or distorted 

limbs, and internal injuries. This also 

includes an injured party transported to a 

hospital because of the severity of the 

injuries.

No Severe lacerations.

Broken or distorted limbs.

Internal injuries.

Injured transported to hospital.

No

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

CDOT is updating the statewide crash form from the DR2447 to the DR3447. Along with the crash form, the officer's manual is also being updated to modify the definitions of the injury levels to be in compliance with the MMUCC 4th and 5th editions. Adoption of the new 

crash form and officer's manual is anticipated in 2018, prior to the required compliance date of April 2019.

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

CDOT is currently applying the NHTSA suspected serious injury conversion tables to help define serious injuries for Colorado.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/conversion_tbl/pdfs/co.pdf 

 

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

No

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

2019 

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

Currently the State is developing a process to evaluate the program as a whole. In the interim, to confirm the effectiveness of our efforts to increase safety, our Traffic & Safety Engineering group complete a self-assessment in April 2015 

on several statewide projects to gage overall effectiveness. 
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP_2016.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Colorado Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 46

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.