Delaware

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: DE
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 24

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 24

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 27

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 28

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 28

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 43

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................47

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 49

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 54

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 59

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 65

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 67
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has prepared this Annual Report for state fiscal 

year 2015 (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015) to demonstrate the success of their safety program. Crash 

statistics reported in this Annual Report are for calendar year 2014 (January 1, 2014 – December 31, 

2014). During the 2015 reporting period, DelDOT continued its successful core HSIP programs – Hazard 

Elimination Program (HEP), Highway Rail-Grade Crossing Program (HRGX), and Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP). Additionally, DelDOT continued pursing systemic-based programs for the 

installation of longitudinal rumble strips, median barrier, and high-friction pavement surface treatments. 

DelDOT also began reviewing signing and pavement markings at all horizontal curves for MUTCDcompliance to identify low-cost improvements at these locations.

On an annual basis, HEP sites are selected using the Critical Rate methodology to identify high crash 

locations for all HSIP components. The Critical Ratio method (also known as the Rate Quality Control 

Method) uses a statistical test to determine whether the crash rate at a particular location is 

significantly higher than a predetermined average crash rate for locations of similar characteristics. A 

total of 15 corridors were studied under HEP and 5 highway-grade crossings were studied under HRGX. 

Both programs continued to identify both low-cost remedial improvements and long-term safety 

improvement needs. Pedestrian safety audits were completed along two corridors with identified 

pedestrian crash trends and short-term and long-term improvements are being pursued at this time. 

The success of these programs is demonstrated by the number of fatalities and serious injuries (based 

on 5-year rolling averages) gradually decreasing from 2010 to 2013. In 2014, the total number of 

fatalities and serious injuries increased slightly (less than 2 percent); however, remains below 2012 

values. In addition, DelDOT continued working on improvements to its recently developed crash analysis 

reporting system, and continued to identify future program-level needs and changes related to the 

MAP-21 legislation. In 2015, DelDOT and the other coordinating agencies and stakeholders initiated the 

development of the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which was last updated in 2010.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

All roadways throughout the state are eligible for safety funding; however, the calculations used to 

identify high crash locations for the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) include state roadways in 

DelDOT's road inventory where traffic volumes are available. Traffic volume data is required in order to 

calculate crash rates required for the critical ratio calculations and is not available on subdivision streets 

and municipal roadways. Based on a review of statewide crash data on all public roadways from 2009 to 

2011, only 4 percent of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes occur on subdivision streets and municipal 

roadways, indicating that crashes reported on these roadways would not likely meet the minimum crash 

criteria for the various HSIP elements.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) - Delaware’s SHSP is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that 

provides a comprehensive framework, identifies specific goals and objectives, and integrates the four E's 

- engineering, education, enforcement and emergency medical services (EMS). Delaware’s SHSP core 

agencies include DelDOT, Office of Highway Safety (OHS), and Delaware State Police (DSP). Additionally, 

several other stakeholders (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles, 

Delaware Department of Justice, Delaware Office of Emergency Medical Services, Delaware Transit 

Commission, WILMAPCO, Dover/Kent County MPO, City of Wilmington, and Delaware T2/LTAP Center) 

provide input and expertise towards the development of the SHSP. Together, the SHSP core agencies 

and stakeholders review fatal and serious injury crash data to identify emphasis areas to focus resources 

with the goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Additionally, working groups consisting of 

representatives from the relevant core agencies and stakeholders, meet to discuss implementation 

plans for specific emphasis areas.

Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) - Fifteen spot locations throughout the state are chosen for safety 

studies as part of the HEP. For each site selected, DelDOT’s Traffic Section reviews crash data, performs 

a field review, and identifies potential safety improvement alternatives. For candidate locations where 

improvements are in project development, design, or construction, a safety audit is performed to 

confirm that the proposed improvements will address the identified crash problem. The HEP 

committee, which includes representatives from DelDOT (Traffic, Planning, Project Development, and 

the Maintenance Districts), DSP, FHWA, MPOs, and the counties and municipalities, meets to reach a 
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

consensus on the recommended safety improvements. Traffic control device improvements (i.e., 

signing, striping, lighting, and traffic signal upgrades) are then designed by DelDOT’s Traffic Section and 

implemented by DelDOT’s maintenance forces and/or on-call contractors. Projects requiring detailed 

design, public involvement, or resulting in right-of-way or environmental impacts are forwarded to 

DelDOT’s Project Development section for prioritization and inclusion in the Capital Transportation 

Program (CTP).

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Federal Highway Administration

Other: Other-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Other: Other-Office of Highway Safety

Other: Other-Delaware State Police

Other: Other-Department of Justice

Other: Other-Delaware Office of Emergency Medical Services

Other: Other-University of Delaware T2 / LTAP Center

Other: Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-No change
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

would like to elaborate.

During FY 2015 (July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), components of Delaware’s HSIP included the Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), and the Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Safety Program (HRGX). In 2015, Delaware began working towards the development of the 

2015 Delaware SHSP. In addition, continued development of severalsystemic-based programs continued, 

including programs to install longitudinal rumble strips, high-friction pavement surface treatments, 

freeway median barrier, and MUTCD-compliant signing and pavement markings at horizontal curves.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Longitudinal 

Rumble Strips

Other: Other-Dark Criteria Other: Other-High Friction 

Surface Treatment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes, head-on crashes, and 

cross-median crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Roadway Miles Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-All horizontal curves to be evaluated.

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-All pedestrian crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 34

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 33

Cost Effectiveness 33
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 7/27/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Roadway Miles Other-Roadway Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 25

Available funding 25

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 25

Cost Effectiveness 25
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Program: Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-all roadway departure 

crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Roadway Miles Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Other 

Program: Other-Dark Criteria

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-All roadway departure 

and intersection crashes on wet 

pavement or during dark/unlit 

conditions

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Roadway Miles Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

Program: Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-all wet weather 

roadway departure crashes

Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Roadway Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Other 

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

17

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Horizontal Curve Pavement 

Marking and Signing
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Please see attachment for the methodology on the HSIP Site Selection Process
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 7774600 35 % 5578030 38 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 277800 1 % 1377122 9 %

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

2265000 10 % 1508075 10 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

0 0 % 2322024 16 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

10325000 47 % 2473085 17 %

State and Local Funds
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Other National 

Highway Systems

1479600 7 % 1481386 10 %

Other Urbanized Areas 

Surface 

Transportation 

Program

0 0 % 87400 1 %

Totals 22122000 100% 14827122 100%

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

$2,277,297.00

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

$2,277,297.00
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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

period?

$0.00

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

No impediments at this time.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None at this time.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See attached 

spreadshet

The reported total project costs and HSIP costs shown are the costs for the reporting period (i.e., FY 2015). Please see spreadsheet attached to 

this section of the report for project listing.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 121.6 112.8 112.4 108.2 109.6

Number of serious injuries 708.8 680.8 657 640 643.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.33 1.24 1.25 1.19 1.2

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.74 7.49 7.29 7.04 7.04

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2014. As 

such, 2014 crash rates were calculated based on 2013 VMT values. If needed, please see attached 

spreadsheet for crash data.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -

INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -

OTHER FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1.6 8 0.32 1.63

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -

OTHER

37 176.8 1.13 5.43

MINOR ARTERIAL 17.4 100.8 1.32 7.65

MINOR COLLECTOR 22.4 106.6 1.67 7.95

MAJOR COLLECTOR 4.8 12.4 4.24 11.11

LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

21 116 1.55 8.55

UNKNOWN 0 94.6 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

0 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

EXPRESSWAYS

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Year - 2010

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Urban vs. rural crash data by functional classification is not readily available at this time; therefore, functional classifications that combine urban 

and rural are shown. Additionally, crash data by roadway ownership is not readily available for this reporting period and is not provided. At the 

time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2014. As such, 2014 crash rates were calculated based on 

2013 VMT values. If needed, please see attached spreadsheet for the crash data.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

As shown, the number of fatalities and serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) per year 

declined each year from 2010 through 2013. In 2014, the number of fatalities increased from 108 to 110, 

an increase of approximately 2 percent and the number of serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling 

averages) increased from 640 to 643, an increase of approximately 0.5 percent. Statewide vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT; based on 5-year rolling averages) gradually decreased from 2008 to 2012; however, 

increased slightly in 2013 (2013 VMT increased to slightly more than 2011 VMT). Fatality and serious 

injuries per VMT followed similar trends as described above. Similar to statewide trends, fatality and 

serious injury rates by functional classification generally declined or remained relatively the same from 

2010 to 2014. The raw number of fatalities and serious injuries per year for the State of Delaware are 

relatively low; therefore, there is greater potential for larger fluctuations in fatality rates and serious injury 

rates as compared to other states and national rates, even though the raw number of fatalities and serious 

injuries may only differ by a few on a year-to-year basis.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.11 0.1 0.09 0.09 0.09

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.34 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.33

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.45 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.42

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

Sample calculation methodology is provided below for fatality and serious injury rates (per capita). 

Similar calculations were used for individual fatality and serious injury rates. The number of fatalities 

reported are according to NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the number of serious 

injuries reported are according to Delaware's Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS). At the time of 

reporting, 2014 data has not been published by FARS. As such, 2014 values are omitted.

2009 Rate: [(# 2009 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older/2009 Population Figure*) + (# 2008 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2008 Population Figure*) + (# 2007 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2007 Population Figure*) + (# 2006 Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2006 Population Figure*)]/4
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Please note that FHWA’s Online Reporting Tool (ORT) automatically calculates the 5-year rolling average 

based upon yearly inputs; however, 2005 data for serious injuries is not currently available in Delaware’s 

crash database. As such, the reported 5-year rolling average for 2009 (fatality and serious injury rate) is 

inaccurately being reported as 0.36 compared to the correct value of 0.43.

2010 Rate (similar calculations used for 2011, 2012, and 2013 rates): [(# 2010 Fatalities and Serious 

Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population Figure*) + (# 2009 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2009 Population 

Figure*) + (# 2008 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and 

older/2008 Population Figure*) + (# 2007 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 

years of age and older/2007 Population Figure*) + (# 2006 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and 

Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2006 Population Figure*)]/5

* Number of People 65 Years of Age and Older (per 1,000 Total Population) per Attachment 2 from 

FHWA’s Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance (2/13/13) accessed August 2015.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Please note that FHWA’s Online Reporting Tool (ORT) automatically calculates the 5-year rolling 

average based upon yearly inputs; however, 2005 data for older drivers and pedestrian serious injuries is 

not currently available in Delaware’s crash database. As such, the reported 5-year rolling averages for 

2009 were manually edited to reflect a 4-year rolling average. If needed, please see attached spreadsheet 

for the crash data.

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Fatality and serious injury rates have declined between 2010 and 2013, increasing less 

than 2 percent in 2014 as compared to 2013

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Systemic programs were implemented

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

During the FY 2015 reporting period, DelDOT continued efforts to develop and implement systemicbased programs to supplement its other HSIP programs.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure 39.4 125.4 0.43 1.37 0 0 0

Intersections 27 245.4 0.3 2.69 0 0 0

Pedestrians 24.8 58.4 0.27 0.64 0 0 0

Work Zones 0.6 4.4 0.01 0.05 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2014. As such, 2014 crash rates were calculated 

based on 2013 VMT values.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

See Optional 

Description

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Refer to Question #24 for general safety performance measures for the segment (i.e., Hazard Elimination Program) subprogram. Refer to question 

#32 for performance measures for Pedestrian Safety. The freeway median barrier, longitudinal rumble strip, high friction surface treatment, and 

horizontal curve programs are all intended to reduce roadway departure crashes. Refer to question #32 for performance measures for roadway 

departure crashes.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

See Optional 

Description

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

The median barrier, longitudinal rumble strip, and horizontal curve programs are all intended to reduce roadway departure crashes. Refer to 

question #32 for performance measures for roadway departure crashes.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No elaboration at this time.
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

No 

Elaboration 

at this time
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Program Structure: Program Methodology 2015 HSIP Annual Report HEP Site Selection.pdf

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing

of Projects

HSIP_Q23 DE (2015).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

HSIP_Q25 DE (2015).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

HSIP_Q24 DE (2015).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Application of Special Rules

HSIP_Q27 DE (2015).xlsx
2015 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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