Page 1 of 43

VERMONT 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 43

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence ............................................................. 3

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................16

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................16

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................22

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................22

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................30

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

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

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

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................36

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................38

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................42

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................43
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 43

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. 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.”
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 43

Executive Summary

During the state fiscal year (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020), VTrans worked on the development of 15 projects 

and on the construction of 13 projects to remediate hot spot and corridor locations. VTrans further continued to 

work with local municipalities on systemic safety to address lane departure crashes at horizontal curves. 

For the state fiscal year, the total amount of funding that was obligated during the reporting period was 

$8,585,291. Of this amount, $6,481,619 was obligated from HSIP Section 148 and $2,103,672 was obligated 

from Section 164. 

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

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

illustrates this is the reduction in the five-year average of major crashes from the 2008-2012 baseline period for 

the current Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This five-year average is now down to 283 major crashes for the 

2015-2019 period from 367 major crashes for the 2008-2012 period. 

The five-year averages of the number of fatalities and serious injuries went down as well when compared to 

the Strategic Highway Safety Plan baseline period. For the same periods, the five-year average of the number 

of fatalities went from 70 fatalities to 61 while the five-year average of the number of serious injuries went from 

386 to 278 serious injuries.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 43

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The overall program structure is centralized. 

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

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

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

further considered. 

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

or design. 

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

process. 

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

by the Agency. 

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

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

Agency guidelines. 

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

after construction. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

HSIP Staff is part of the Data Unit under the Operations and Safety Bureau. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

 Other-Central Office via High Crash Location Reviews 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 43

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

Local roads that are part of the Federal Aid System are addressed the same way as state- maintained roads, 

using the approved HSIP ranking methodology for the identification of locations with potential safety problems. 

The local roads that rank within the subset of top locations are reviewed through an engineering study. Low 

cost remedial actions are implemented via a statewide project, while high cost solutions are implemented by 

VTrans through the regular design process. 

VTrans operates a Systemic Local Road Safety Program (SLRS) to enhance highway safety on local roads by 

implementing signage, beacon and marking improvements. The SLRS program addresses rural and or urban 

roads that are locally maintained by a municipality and focuses on risk factors rather than primarily on crash 

history to identify sites for improvements. Based on the analysis of crash data and contributing factors such as 

road alignment and intersection control, VTrans has determined that the focus of the SLRS program for this 

year should be on paved rural roads at curves with radii of less than 750 feet since these have the greatest risk 

for single motor vehicle crashes and since single motor vehicle crashes represent a large proportion of fatal 

and serious injury crashes. 

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

Upon the request of a municipality, VTrans will perform a road safety audit of any local road to assist the 

municipality with local safety concerns. A multidisciplinary team is put together, a site visit is performed and a 

report outlying suggestions is provided to the municipality. The municipality is responsible for implementing the 

suggestions at its discretions. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

by the lead investigator. For each site, along with a request to attend an on-site meeting, the lead investigator 

also sends relevant background information such as crash information and a general description of the 

problem. 

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

coordination of projects with other units happens during the review of the projects. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Law Enforcement Agency 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 43

 Local Government Agency 

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

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

along with a request to attend an on-site meeting, the lead investigator also sends relevant background 

information such as crash information and a general description of the problem. 

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

ROW and construction) as all VTrans projects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The delivery of low-cost projects on local roads, such as the installation of signs, markings and beacons (via 

HRRR or SLRS programs) has been an issue. While, since 2012, VTrans has been developing and contracting 

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

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

low cost improvements has been lengthy (two to five years). VTrans has been working on developing an 

alternative contracting process to accelerate the delivery of these low-cost projects using the Indefinite Delivery 

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) model. VTrans has been using the IDIQ process for a few years now but did not have 

the IDIQ category for sign work. VTrans has worked to set up and advertise an RFP for that scope of work. 

The first solicitation in spring 2020 received no proposals. The solicitation was re-advertised but did not provide 

an adequate number of qualified bidders for the sign category. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Horizontal Curve 

 HRRR

 Local Safety 

 Low-Cost Spot Improvements 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 43

 Sign Replacement And Improvement 

 Other-Major Project Spot Improvements 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:7/24/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Other-Surface Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Other-Systemic Approach

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 43

Projects under the systemic local road safety programs are implemented by soliciting volunteer towns in which 

high risk curves are reviewed and appropriate signage installed. High risk curves are identified using FHWA’s 

systemic approach. 

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-FAST Act Special Rules

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Funding set-aside only if special rules apply

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Other-Fatal and all injury 

crashes  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-statewide project for low cost improvements

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 43

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Volume  Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:10/3/2016

What is the justification for this program? 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 43

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Lane miles  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash rate

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

 Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Opeation & Safety Bureau Staff based on recommendations from Road Safety Audit 

Team 

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:2/9/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 43

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Other-Sign replacement needs

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Other-Average Sign Age

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Programed by Asset Management & Performance Bureau

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Major Project Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:2/19/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 43

 All crashes  Traffic

 Lane miles  Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

 Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Incremental B/C:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 0.0

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Horizontal curve signs 

VTrans implements the systemic approach for signage on high risk on horizontal curves on town-maintained 

roads (the Systemic Local Roads Safety Program– SLRS). However, no sign projects were constructed during 

the reporting period. 

Other improvements are implemented by policy or systematically: 

The safety edge and rumble strips are installed on all paving projects as per policy. 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 43

Shoulder widening is also considered on paving projects based on physical and cost constraints. 

VTrans has sign projects and pavement marking projects that are constructed yearly but systematically , on a 

statewide basis (and not based on the systemic approach). 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

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

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 Stakeholder input 

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

not specifically point to specific countermeasures. 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

The HSIP does not address ITS and automated vehicles directly. 

However, VTrans is deploying its first Connected Vehicle Corridor along US Route 7, one of the state’s most 

congested and crash-prone corridors. US 7 is the only major north-south route in Vermont’s Western Corridor 

which lacks a freeway but must carry a large volume of personal vehicles and trucks. It provides a critical 

connection to Chittenden County, the state’s economic engine with more than 26% of Vermont jobs. The 

project includes installation of DSRC communication that will support vehicle-to-infrastructure messages to 

improve the flow of traffic through the corridor while measuring and optimizing the performance of the traffic 

signals to meet demand in real time. The total investment in the project is $4.6 million. The first phase of the 

project will be implemented in 2021 and the second phase in 2022. 

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

Yes 

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

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

the HSIP. 

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

locations. 

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

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

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

Vermont is in the process of preparing an implementation plan for incorporating Safety Performance Functions 

and the utilization of the Empirical Bayes (EB) method into the safety management process. 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 43

Vermont uses the predictive equations presented in Part C of the HSM when conducting some site impacts 

analysis. A research project to calibrate the predictive equations for two-lane rural roads found in Chapter 10 of 

the HSM was completed in September 2019 by the UVM Transportation Center.

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

elaborate.

VTrans currently perform network screening and generate high crash locations using the critical rate method.

Our in-house algorithm is rigid and does not allow for specifying crash types or manner of crashes. As a result, 

our HSIP network screening is based on all crashes and cannot single out fatal and serious injury crashes or 

certain manner of collision, like single vehicle crashes.

The main concern about our HSIP ranking methodology for spot improvements continues to be that it only 

addresses roads or intersections that are Federal Aid System roads or intersections and does not include all 

local roads.

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

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

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

VTrans has been working towards implementing the use of Safety Performance Functions and the Empirical 

Bayes (EB) method within the HSIP process.

VTrans completed in September 2019, as part of a Traffic Records Committee Grant, the collection of MIRE 

data for all intersections on the Federal Aid System to further support the development of more advanced 

network screening methodologies. VTrans has a parallel project with regional planning commissions for the 

collection of the FDE’s at intersections on local roads with a two-to-five-year completion horizon.

VTrans had been working at implementing AASHTOWare SafetyAnalyst and had been working with the 

AASHTOWare consultant in creating a SafetyAnalyst data set. However, this effort came to a halt once it was 

learned that SafetyAnalyst would be sunset by 2022.

VTrans is now evaluating new ways of implementing the use of Safety Performance Functions.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 43

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $6,481,619 $6,481,619 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$2,103,672 $2,103,672 100%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $8,585,291 $8,585,291 100%

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

safety projects? 

4%

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

4%

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

0%

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

0%

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%
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 43

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0%

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

the future. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

outreach efforts. 

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

to gauge their effectiveness on reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries after completion.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 43

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

BARRE TOWN 

HES STPG 

6100(6) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

0.196 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,90

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

BERLINGUILDHALL 

NHG SIGN(59) - 

Complete

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

61.714 Miles $1015.01 $1015.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Infrastructue

s for all Users

BRATTLEBORO 

NH 2000(27) - 

Complete

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - refresh 

existing pavement markings

0.048 Miles $64800.27 $64800.27 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

BRATTLEBORO 

STP 2000(29) - 

Development

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1.25 Miles $35000 $35000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Bicycle or 

Pedestrian 

Improvement

BRIDPORTMIDDLEBURY 

HES RMBL(5) - 

Development

Roadway Rumble strips - center 7.354 Miles $15000 $15000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major Collector 0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Driver 

Compliance

CLARENDONRUTLAND 

TOWN NHG 

SGNL(56) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

4 Location

s

$35000 $35000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

COLCHESTER 

HES NH 

5600(14) - 

Development

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 1.025 Miles $1014426.6

4

$1014426.6

4

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,90

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Infrastructue

s for all Users

ESSEX STPG 

030-1(22) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

0.11 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,10

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

FAIR HAVENRUTLAND 

TOWN NHG 

SIGN(70) - 

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

37.658 Miles $200000 $200000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

FERRISBURGH 

NH 019-4(32) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.001 Miles $112372.12 $112372.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Infrastructue

s for all Users
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 43

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

HARTFORD 

HES 0113(77) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2.15 Miles $103500 $103500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Infrastructue

s for all Users

HINESBURG 

HES 021-1(19) - 

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.403 Miles $125000 $125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

HINESBURG 

HES 021-1(19) - 

Construction

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.403 Miles $156364.41 $156364.41 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,600 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

MILTON STP 

5800(3) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.61 Miles $340000 $340000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Collector 10,52

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

NEW HAVEN 

HES 032-1(8) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

0.3 Miles $141264.8 $141264.8 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

NORWICH 

STPG SGNL(57) 

- Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Location

s

$35000 $35000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Major Collector 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

PLAINFIELD NH 

028-3(41) - 

Development

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.11 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

SHELBURNESOUTH 

BURLINGTON 

NHG 

SGNL(51)C/1 - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

2.962 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

SOUTH 

BURLINGTONCOLCHESTER 

IM 089-3(79) - 

Development

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Congestion detection / traffic 

monitoring system

5.6 Miles $100000 $100000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate32,60

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Speed 

Management 

with ITS and 

Infrastructure

SPRINGFIELD 

STP 016-2(23) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0.32 Miles $799835.28 $799835.28 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 0 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(310) - 

Complete

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Location

s

$374794.62 $374794.62 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHEAST 

REGION STPG 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1630.722 Miles $20000 $20000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major Collector 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 43

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

MARK(314) - 

Construction

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(311) - 

Closing

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Location

s

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

NORTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(315) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1581.322 Miles $20000 $20000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTH 

REGION STPG 

MARK(316) - 

Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1447.313 Miles $20000 $20000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHWEST 

REGION STPG 

MARK(313) - 

Complete

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1 Location

s

$39598.6 $39598.6 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE - 

SOUTHWEST 

STPG SIGN(64) 

- Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

31.121 Miles $110870.83 $110870.83 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Older 

Drivers

Improve 

Infrastructue

s for all Users

STATEWIDE 

IMG MARK(117) 

- Construction

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

339.098 Miles $1152655.7

8

$1152655.7

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE 

IMG SIGN(61) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

364.37 Miles $348349.99 $348349.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STATEWIDE 

STP 2030(13) - 

Development

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Location

s

$20000 $20000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State & Local 

Agencies

Systematic Intersection

s

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings

STOWE STPG 

SGNL(52) - 

Development

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Location

s

$60000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Intersection

s

Improve 

Geometry

WALLINGFORD

-RUTLAND NHG 

SIGN(68) - 

Construction

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

20.834 Miles $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

23,30

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Signs and 

Markings
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 43

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

WEST 

RUTLAND 

STPG SGNL(50) 

- Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Location

s

$363798.95 $363798.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,10

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

WILLISTON STP 

5500(17) - 

Development

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.706 Miles $174999.99 $174999.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,40

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Improve 

Geometry

WILLISTON STP 

HES 5500(12) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

0.47 Miles $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,90

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

WILLISTON STP 

HES 5500(12) - 

Construction

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

0.47 Miles $1236644.2

6

$1236644.2

6

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor Arterial 18,90

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

Operations

All of the projects listed were obligated between 7/1/19 and 6/30/20. The list does not include projects that were obligated prior to that period.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 43

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 55 77 70 44 57 62 69 69 47

Serious Injuries 390 311 312 288 297 320 255 257 260

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.770 1.070 0.983 0.623 0.780 0.842 0.929 0.966 0.640

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.461 4.322 4.383 4.080 4.062 4.345 3.435 3.598 3.540

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

4 10 6 4 9 6 9 6 3

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

36 40 38 25 36 37 29 31 33
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 43

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 43

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

6.2 22 0.5 1.78

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

7.4 26.2 1.01 3.51

Rural Minor Arterial 11.6 52.8 1.19 5.41

Rural Minor Collector 2 9.4 0.96 4.57

Rural Major Collector 15 56 1.34 4.97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 43

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 Local Road or 

Street

10.4 34 1.11 3.64

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

1 5.8 0.18 1.04

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.6 1.6 1.04 2.72

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

3.6 25.8 0.66 4.86

Urban Minor Arterial 1 13.6 0.28 3.89

Urban Minor Collector 0 0

Urban Major Collector 1.2 15.2 0.44 5.65

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0.2 6.4 0.06 1.94
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 43

Year 2019

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

40.8 170

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

15.2 61.8

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

4.8 36.2

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

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

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

the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

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

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

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

listed in the SHSP. 

Over the years, leaving the road and crashes taking place at intersections have been the two crash types that 

have typically accounted for a large proportion of major crashes (fatal plus serious injury crashes) and those 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 43

that are more readily addressed by the HSIP. 

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

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

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

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

distracted driving.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:58.0

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

The trend line value for the 5-year average number of fatalities predicted for 2021 using a linear regression 

model is 60.4. The 2019 actual 5-year average number of fatalities was 60.8 and the 2019 target was 56 while 

the 2020 target was 58.A 2021 target of 58 provides a decrease in traffic fatalities by 4.6% from the five-year 

average of 60.8 in 2015 – 2019 to a five-year average of 58 by the end of calendar year 2021.The 2017-2021 

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

crashes with a goal of 10% reduction by 2021. This represents approximately a 2.5% reduction per year. The 

percentage reduction in fatalities expected by this target supports the goal of the SHSP by providing a 4.6% 

reduction in the five-year average over two years.

Number of Serious Injuries:275.0

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

The trend line value for the 5-year average number of serious injuries predicted for 2021 using a 2nd degree 

polynomial model is 270.6.The 2019 target was 265 and the actual 2019 5-year average number of serious 

injuries was 277.8. The 2020 target was 275.The propose 2021 target suggests a decrease in serious injuries 

by 1.0% from the five-year average of 277.8 in 2015 - 2019 to a five-year average of 275 by the end of 

calendar year 2021.The proposed target is a reduction in the 5-year serious injury rate, which supports the 

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

Fatality Rate:0.820

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

The trend line value for the 5-year average fatality rate predicted for 2021 using a linear regression model is 

0.815.The 2019 target was 0.800 and the actual 2019 5-year average fatality rate was 0.831.The 2020 target 

was 0.820.The proposed target suggests a decrease in the fatality rate per 100 million VMT by 1.3% from the 

five-year average of 0.831 in 2015 - 2019 to a five-year average of 0.820 by the end of calendar year 

2021.This proposed target is downwards and supports the overall reduction in fatal and serious crashes 

presented in the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Serious Injury Rate:3.650

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

The trend line value for the 5-year average serious injury rate predicted for 2021 using a linear regression 

model is 3.422.The 2019 target was 3.900 and the actual 2019 5-year average fatality rate was 3.796. The 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 43

2020 target was 3.750.The proposed target suggests a decrease in the injury rate per 100 million VMT by 

3.8% from the five-year average of 3.796 in 2015 - 2019 to a five-year average of 3.65 by the end of calendar 

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

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

percentage reduction in the serious injury rate expected by this target supports the goal of the SHSP by 

providing a 3.8% reduction in the five-year average over two years.

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

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

The trend line value for the 5-year average number of bicyclist/pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 

predicted for 2021 using a 3rd degree polynomial model is 33.817.The 2019 target was 35 and the actual 2019 

5-year average was 39.8. The 2020 target was 36.The proposed target suggests a decrease in the number of 

bicyclist/pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries by 9.5% from the five-year average of 39.8 in 2015 - 2019 to a 

five-year average of 36 by the end of calendar year 2021.The 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

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

reduction goal for each of these two emphasis areas in the 2017-2021 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a 10% 

reduction if fatal and serious injury crashes. The percentage reduction expected by this target supports the 

goal of the SHSP by providing a 9.5% reduction in the five-year average over two years.

With the exception of the target for serious injuries, all the other targets are the same as the 2020 targets.

All targets, with the exception of the one for the number of fatalities, have been set between the 2021 trend 

value and the 2019 actual 5-year average. The target for the number of fatalities was set slightly lower than the 

trend line to match the 2020 target which VTrans felt was a better target to aim for.

The targets for the number of fatalities and for the number of serious injuries in this HSIP report are different 

from the ones submitted for the HSP. The wrong numbers were provided in the HSP. VTrans is working with 

NHTSA to correct the numbers in the HSP.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

Highway Safety Office” and the Data Unit that is responsible for the HSIP reporting are both under the 

Operations & Safety Bureau.

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

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

were developed initially by the Data Unit using trend lines. The resulting measures were then reviewed 

between HSP and HSIP staff for appropriateness.

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

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

determined by the Data Unit and further reviewed by HSIP staff for appropriateness.

A coordination meeting was held with the Chittenden County MPO, the “State Highway Safety Office” and the 

Data Unit to discuss the draft targets and finalize the five measures.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 43

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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 56.0 60.8

Number of Serious Injuries 265.0 277.8

Fatality Rate 0.800 0.831

Serious Injury Rate 3.900 3.796

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

35.0 39.8

Vermont has determined that it has met or made significant progress towards meeting its 2019 safety 

performance targets. Vermont met one target (Serious Injury Rate) and exceeded the baseline performance on 

the other four targets (Fatalities, Number of Serious Injuries, Fatality Rate, Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries). 

Vermont did not meet the 2019 target for the number of fatalities. The actual 5-year average performance for 

2015-2019 (60.8) was higher than the established target for 2019 (56) and it was also not better than the 2013-

2017 baseline (60.4). The 2019 target was based on a trend line value derived for the period 2013-2017. The 

number of fatalities in 2014 was 44. It was historically low and much lower than the typical number of yearly 

fatalities that are occurring in Vermont and resulted in a lower trend line which would explain why Vermont did 

not meet the 2019 target for the number of fatalities. 

Vermont did not meet the 2019 fatality rate target. The actual performance for 2015-2019 (0.831) was higher 

than the established target for 2019 (0.800). However, the actual performance (0.831) was equal to the 2013-

2017 baseline (0.831). 

Vermont did not meet the number of serious injuries target. The actual performance for 2015-2019 (277.8) was 

higher than the established target for 2019 (265). However, the actual performance (277.8) was better than the 

2013-2017 baseline (294.4). 

Vermont did meet the rate of serious injuries target. The actual performance for 2015-2019 (3.796) was lower 

than the established target for 2019 (3.9). The actual performance (3.796) was also better than the 2013-2017 

baseline (4.061). 

Vermont did not meet the number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries. The actual 

performance for 2015-2019 (39.8) was higher than the established target for 2019 (35). However, the actual 

performance (39.8) was equal to the 2013-2017 baseline (39.8). 

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No

Vermont DID NOT activate the HRRR special rule. Vermont numbers dropped by .01. Therefore, Vermont is 

not required to do any special obligation with HRRR. 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 43

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

14 7 11 11 13 13 11

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

35 27 18 31 31 26 30
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 43

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

 Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

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

Strategic Highway Safety Plan). 

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

crashes on Vermont roads 

Fatal and Injury Crashes (Major Crashes): 

While the trend in the five-year average of the number of fatal crashes has been upward from the 2011-2015 

period to the 2015-2019 period passing from 54.8 fatal crashes to 56.2 fatal crashes, the five-year average of 

the number of serious injury crashes has been going down, passing from 265.8 serious injury crashes to 227.4. 

Overall, the trend in the five-year average of the number of major crashes has been downward from 320 major 

crashes to 283 major crashes. 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries: 

The five-year average of the number of fatalities went up when comparing the two periods, passing from 60.6 

to 60.8 fatalities. On the other hand, the five-year average of the number of serious injuries went down from 

318.4 to 277.8 serious injuries for these same periods. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 # RSAs completed 

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

No road safety audits were conducted during the reporting period. One had been scheduled in spring 2020 but 

was rescheduled to late July 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. 

High risk curves, that were identified via the systemic approach, were reviewed on 28 local roads. 

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

For example, the Asset Management Bureau has been seeking input from the HSIP group about safety issues 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 43

and potential improvements when summarizing “assets, needs and wants” along corridors for each new project 

being programmed. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 34.4 132.6 0.47 1.81

Intersections 9.8 61.4 0.14 0.84

Pedestrians 5.6 23.8 0.08 0.33

Bicyclists 1 9.8 0.01 0.13

Older Drivers 12 31.6 0.17 0.43

Motorcyclists 7.8 33.6 0.11 0.46

Work Zones 0.8 1.2 0.01 0.02
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 43

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 43

Project Effectiveness 

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDOBEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

COLCHESTER 

HES 028-

1(28)_US 2 @ 

Clay Point Rd - 

Colchester

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane3.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 5.00 1.84

FERRISBURGH 

NHG 

SGNL(42)_US 7 

@ Little Chicago 

Rd - Ferrisburgh

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.11

WATERBURY 

NHG SGNL(43) 

_VT 100 @ I-89 

NB off Ramp B 

Exit 10 - 

Waterbury

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

0

WINOOSKI 

HES 5100(13) 

_Winooski 

Circulator

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 102.00 62.00 1.00 8.00 4.00 110.00 67.00 2.73

BERLIN STPG 

SGNL(40)_VT 

62 @ Fisher Rd 

& Airport Rd - 

Berlin

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

23.00 10.00 4.00 5.00 27.00 15.00 0.07

BRISTOL HES 

021-1(28)_VT 

116 @ South St 

& North St - 

Bristol

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install 

new at intersection

2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 -0.22

Three years of before and three years of after crash data are displayed in the table. The projects shown were constructed between 2014 and 2016. 

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

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

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

average target of 186 major crashes for lane departure crashes. 

The latest five-year average (2015-2019) for lane departure and intersection crashes indicates that progress has been made beyond these goals. 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 43

The latest five-year average (2015-2019) for lane departure crashes is 160.4 major crashes and is below the SHSP target of 186 major crashes.

Similarly, the latest five-year average (2015-2019) for intersection crashes is 60.6 major crashes and is also below the SHSP target of 72 major crashes at intersections.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 43

Compliance Assessment

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

 04/26/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2021

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

 2022

Our anticipated timeline for the update of the SHSP includes a Completed SHSP on or before December 31, 2021, and a Signed and Approved SHSP on or before June 1, 2022. 

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

50 50

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 43

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

85 85

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

48 62

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

24 31

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

69 87

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

69 87

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

79 89

AADT Year (80) [82] 79 89

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 43

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 96.39 96.39 71.00 80.63 72.73 72.73 77.78 77.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

There are many MIRE FDEs that already exist on the federal aid system due to HPMS requirements, or are existing in datasets that support other programs within VTrans. These datasets can be updated and processed to match the 

MIRE data schema through automated process and developed the short term. There has been a continued effort to modify the data models to support HPMS and the MIRE data schemas, with more data being developed and validated on 

an annual basis or more frequently as needed. 

Some of the elements for the intersection data and other segment data may take time to develop and refine, with development in the medium term, and AADT collection and data on the more rural local roads may be a longer-term 

process. 
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 43

Over the course of the last year, VTrans has worked closely with the Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) in the development and validation of intersection data on non-local paved highways. The RPCs have worked to populate many 

of the gaps in the FDEs for this category of highway, as well as populating additional elements to support other programs with the Agency. This work is not complete, but is ongoing and VTrans has stood up review and validation 

processes to insure the data is accurately coded and meeting the data schema. 

Intersection data was developed for the state highways by a vendor and delivered to VTrans. This data has been mostly reviewed and validated, with some work remaining to insure standardization with the MIRE elements. The addition 

of the vendor intersection data and the RPC updates has greatly advanced the amount of data VTrans has available to meet the MIRE FDE requirements. 

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

dataset and fills gaps, the process for update and maintenance of the data is being implemented and this includes assessing additional gaps in the data. 

Tasks needed to comply with the 2026 deadline include: 

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

 Continue to develop validation tools and processes to insure the highest quality of data 

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

 Develop extract, transform and load (ETL) processes for data to reformat to the MIRE data element schema 

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

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

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

 Making the data accessible through the on-line geodata portal through web services.
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 43

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Vermont HSIP Manual February 19 2016.pdf

Vermont HSIP Low Cost Program October 2016.pdf

Systemic Local Road Safety Program.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Vermont Summary Table Progress MeetingTargets.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 43

Glossary

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

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

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

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

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

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

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

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