Vermont

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

  

   

Prepared by: VT

  
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............................................................................................................. 14

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 14

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 32

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 32

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 47

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) .......................................... 50

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 52

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 57

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 62

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................68

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................70
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The development of Highway Safety Improvement Projects was implemented following the

methodology established in 2005.  The Agency further continued to work with local municipalities in the

review of high risk local roads and in the constructions of low cost improvements.

For the Federal Fiscal year the total amount of funding that was obligated during the reporting period

was $10105953. Of these, $7,096,325 was obligated from HSIP Section 148 and $3,009,628 was

obligated from Section 164.

During the reporting period, 37 projects were in a design stage and 27 were completed or being

constructed.

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

major crashes (fatal + serious injury crashes). One of the principal measures of success that illustrates

this is the reduction in the five‐year average of major crashes which passed from 386 major crashes for

the 2007‐2011 period to 337 for the 2010‐2014 period.
2015 Vermont     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.

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.  

During the reporting period, rural local roads were considered for evaluation and improvement under

our state high risk rural roads program. Locations were identified by the regional planning commissions
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

using crash data as well as anecdotal information. For these locations, safety corridor reviews were

performed to identify signing, markings and guardrail improvements. These low cost treatments will

be designed and implemented via a statewide project. The methodology used to select the HRRR

projects is attached as an uploaded document under the Program Methodology Section.   

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

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

and a report outlying recommendations is provided to the municipality.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other:  

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners.  

Depending on the characteristics of the site to be reviewed, Design, Operations and/or Maintenance

staff are asked to take part to the visit of the site and to formulate some recommendations. Key

personal in Design and/or Maintenance are contacted several weeks in advance usually by email by the

lead investigator. Along with a request to attend an on‐site meeting, the lead investigator also sends

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

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Other: Other‐Municipalities

Other: Other‐Regional Planning Commissions

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‐There has been no change since the last reporting period. We have almost completed

the rewriting ouf our HSIP procedures.

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

would like to elaborate.

There is a challenge in the deployment of HSIP countermeasure projects in that they follow the same

design process as every other road and bridge project at VTrans. The solution may be identified quickly,

however there is no priority put on an HSIP projects and therefore,  implementation can several years as

the project works through the same design process (PE, ROW and construction) as all VTrans projects.  

This problem has also been an issue, to a lesser extent, with the delivery of low cost projects, such as the

installation of signs or the upgrade of signal equipment on town highways.  

While, since 2012, we have been developing and contracting regional projects to implement these low

cost solutions on town and city owned roads (thus making sure that federal procurement procedures

are followed), the time lag between the road reviews and the installation of the low cost improvements

has been around two years.  In addition, preparing formal plans for contacting purposes has also been

time consuming.  
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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‐School Zone

Safety

   

   

   

Program: Low‐Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/28/2005

    

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
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

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

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 3/12/2009

    

What data types were used in the program methodology?  

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other   Lane miles Roadside features

Other   Other‐"rural" like roads

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

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
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

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 100

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

   

Program: Other‐School Zone Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

    
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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‐Presence of a School

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

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other‐Participation in the safe route to school program

Are local roads (non‐state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other‐All sites are advanced for signs and markings

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C   

Available funding   

Incremental B/C   

Ranking based on net benefit   

Other    

All sites are advanced 1
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

13   

   

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  

   

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures?  

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other:  
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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: Other‐No change

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

would like to elaborate.  

The main challenge concerning our HSIP ranking methodology for spot improvements continues to be

that it does not address roads that are off the Federal Aid System. The current HSIP ranking

methodology generates locations based on the high crash locations that are generated by VTrans’

Highway Safety Data Section. The data that the Highway Safety Data Section uses as input are only for

the roads that fall under the Federal Aid highway system. Consequently, only locally maintained roads

that are on the Federal Aid systems are considered as part of the ranking methodology of the HSIP.  

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

with our current sport improvement methodology is that it tends to identify rural locations with very

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

A consultant has been reviewing our HSIP ranking process and has proposed a new process that will

better align with the SHSP. We hope to be implementing this process in the next reporting period.  
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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) 7096325.57   70 % 7096325.57   70 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA‐LU)       

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer	‐	

Section 154

      

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

3009628.54   30 % 3009628.54   30 %

Incentive Grants	‐		

Section 163

      

Incentive Grants

(Section 406)

Other Federal‐aid

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

      

State and Local Funds
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Totals 10105954.11 100% 10105954.11 100%

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

26 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

26 %

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

1 %

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

1 %

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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.

Safety projects should have a quick turnaround to have a significant impact. Major construction projects

that follow the rigid design process are an impediment to obligating funds. Producing more systemic

projects with little or no right‐of‐way and little environmental impacts is one way to design and

construct more projects and thus spending more money on safety.

Our updated Draft HSIP Manual, that is currently being worked on by a consultant, suggests that VTrans

explores alternative contracting methods for low cost safety improvements.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

A consultant has been helping us reviewing our HSIP methodology. As part of this review, a mechanism

to track progress will be developed.   
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

General Listing of ProjectsList each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period.

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t

HSIPCost

TotalCost

FundingCategory

FunctionalClassification

AADT

Speed

RoadwayOwnership

BARRE CITYHES 037‐1(8)‐ Design

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

1635000

1635000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

UrbanMajor

Collector

4900

25 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

BARRETOWN HESSTPG6100(6)	‐	Preliminary

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

1665000

1665000

PE:PenaltyTransfer –Section 164,ROW:HSIP(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

2700

35 State

HighwayAgency

BERLINSTPG

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

1Numb

20200 20200 HSIP

(Sectio

UrbanPrincipal

114 50 State

Highway
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

SGNL(40)	‐	Design

signal ‐ modernization/replacement

ers 00 00 n 148) Arterial ‐ 

Other

59 Agency 

BRISTOLHES 021‐1(28)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ modernization/replacement

1Numbers

820000

820000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMinorArterial

5900

30 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

BURLINGTON HES5000 (18)	‐	

Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control ‐ 

all‐way stop toroundabout

1Numbers

2835000

2835000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ 

Other

19400

30 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

CAMBRIDGE STP 030‐2(27)	‐Complete

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control ‐ all‐way stop toroundabout

1Numbers

2230000

2230000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMinorArterial

7150

40 State

HighwayAgency

COLCHESTERHES028‐1(28)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

2Numbers

855000

855000

PenaltyTransfer –Sectio

Rural

PrincipalArterial ‐ Other

11450

55 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

n 164

COLCHESTER HES NH5600(14)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryIntersection geometry ‐ other

2Numbers

9800000

9800000

PE:PenaltyTransfer –Section 164,ROW:HSIP(Section 148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

21150

30 State

HighwayAgency

ESSEXSTPGSGNL(41)	‐	Complete

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ modernization/replacement

1Numbers

385425

385425

HSIP(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

13200

40 State

HighwayAgency

ESSEXTOWN STPHES5400(5)	‐	Complete

Intersection trafficcontrol Intersectiontraffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

1038199

1038199

HSIP(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

8950

40 State

HighwayAgency

FERRISBURGH NHGSGNL(42)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Intersection

traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

660000

660000

HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

12300

40 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

HINESBURG HES 021‐1(19)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

2Numbers

2120000

2120000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMinorArterial

8550

40 State

HighwayAgency

JERICHOSTP HES030‐1(21)	‐	

Design

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐

turn lane

1Numbers

2280000

2280000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

10149

50 State

HighwayAgency

MILTONHES 028‐1(27)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signsand traffic control ‐ other

0.3Miles

30000 30000 Penalt

yTransfer –Section 164

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

9500

55 State

HighwayAgency

MORRISTOWN STPHES 030‐

2(28)Design

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

1Numbers

146000

146000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

MinorArterial

6700

50 State

HighwayAgency

NEWHAVENHES 032‐1(8)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

1580000

1580000

PenaltyTransfer –Sectio

RuralMinorArterial

4050

45 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

n 164

SOUTHBURLINGTON HES5200(20)	‐	Complete

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ add long vehicle

detection

4Numbers

10400 10400 Penalt

yTransfer –Section 164

UrbanMinorCollector

6350

25 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

SOUTHHERO STPHES 028‐1(22)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryAuxiliary lanes ‐ add left‐turn lane

1Numbers

1800000

1800000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

6950

35 State

HighwayAgency

STATEWIDE HESCRSH

Non‐infrastructureData/traffic records

1Numbers

29137 29137 Penalt

yTransfer –Section 164

NotApplicable, Crash

Management

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(16)	‐	Complete

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

17.9Miles

290000

290000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajor,Minor andLocalRoads

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(17)	‐	

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

23.3

Miles

260000

260000

HSIP(Sectio

Rural

Major,Minor and

0 0 Town or

Township
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Complete updated n 148) Local

Roads

HighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(18)	‐	Complete

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

9.56Miles

180000

180000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajor,Minor andLocalRoads

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(19)	‐	Complete

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

17.339Miles

335000

335000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

Major,Minor and

LocalRoads

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(22)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

0 Miles 45000

0

450000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajor,Minor andLocalRoads

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSTPHRRR(23)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

0 Miles 45000

0

450000

HSIP

(Section 148)

Rural

Major,Minor and

LocalRoads

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSouthwestSTPGSIGN(47)		‐	

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new or

32.8Miles

245000

245000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajorCollector

0 0 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Complete updated StatewideSouthwestSTPGSIGN(51)	‐	Construction

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

22.7Miles

306000

306000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

MinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Stowe‐BerksireSTPGSIGN(49)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

33.9Miles

436000

436000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Alburgh‐ColchesterSTPGSIGN(45)	‐	SubstantiallyComplete

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

39Miles

335000

335000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

MinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

BarreTown STPHES0169(8)	‐	Design

Intersection geometryIntersection geometrics ‐ modify skew angle

1Numbers

480000

480000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajorCollector

4500

35 State

HighwayAgency

Barton‐DerbySTPG

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

25.3

Miles

210000

210000

HSIP(Sectio

Rural

Major

0 0 State

Highway
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

SIGN(46)	‐	SubstantiallyComplete

updated n 148) Collector Agency 

Brattleboro NHGSIGN(53)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

1Numbers

565000

565000

HSIP(Section 148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

13200

30 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

Calais‐Greensboro STPGSIGN(50)	‐	Construction

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

22.52Miles

220000

220000

HSIP(Section 148)

Rural

MinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

ColchesterSTPG5600(17)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ modernization/replacement

1Numbers

5300000

5300000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

11700

50 State

HighwayAgency

Colchester‐Essex STPGSGNL(45)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ modernization/replacement

4Numbers

135000

135000

HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Essex STP Intersection traffic 1 16800 16800 HSIP Urban 110 40 State 
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

5400(7)	‐	Design

control Modify trafficsignal ‐ modernization/replacement

Numbers

00 00 (Sectio

n 148)

MinorArterial

00 Highway

Agency

EssexSTPG 030‐

1(22)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

1340000

1340000

HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

11500

35 State

HighwayAgency

Guilford‐Rockingham IMGSIGN(44)	‐	Construction

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

39Miles

2265000

2265000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

HartfordSTP0113(59)S‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control ‐ 

modifications to

roundabout

1Numbers

3167000

3167000

HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

9400

40 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

Hartford‐RoyaltonIMGSIGN(48)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

21.32Miles

1840000

1840000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Hyde Park Intersection traffic 1 33000 33000 HSIP Rural 780 40 State 
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

HES 030‐

2(34)	‐	Design

control Modify control ‐ 

modifications to

roundabout

Numbers

0 0 (Sectio

n 148)

MinorArterial

0 Highway

Agency

LudlowHESSGNL(44)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

650000

650000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

6750

50 State

HighwayAgency

Milton STP5800(3)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

3850000

3850000

HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanMinorArterial

11100

25 State

HighwayAgency

Randolph‐BerlinSTPGSIGN(52)	‐	Construction

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

23.45Miles

300000

300000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMajorCollector

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideHESGARD(2)	‐	Design

Roadside Barrier ‐ other 16

Miles

1425000

1425000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

Rural

MinorArterial

0 0 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

StatewideIMGMARK(114)	‐	Complete

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

339Miles

766734

766734

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideNorth HESMARK(402)	‐	Complete

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

1147Miles

880000

880000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMajorCollector

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSouth HESMARK(401)	‐	Complete

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

1017Miles

766484

766484

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralLocalRoad orStreet

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

StatewideSouth HESMARK(403)	‐	Compelete

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

1022Miles

655000

655000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMajorCollector

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

WaterburyNHGSIGNL(43)‐	

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ miscellaneous/other/uns

2Numbers

306000

306000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

14000

40 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Compelete pecifiedWaterburySTPSGNL(18)	‐	Complete

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify control ‐ 

two‐way stop to

roundabout

1Numbers

5085000

5085000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

10450

25 Town or

TownshipHighwayAgency

WaterburyArea STPWKZN(9)	‐	Design

Work Zone 0 98500

0

985000

HSIP(Section 148)

VariousRoads

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

WillistonSTPG5500(14)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

1425000

1425000

HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

18700

40 State

HighwayAgency

WinooskiHES5100(13)	‐	Design

Pedestrians and bicyclistsPedestrian beacons

1Numbers

870000

870000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

22200

25 City of

MunicipalHighwayAgency

RutlandTown NHG019‐3(60)	‐	

Design

Intersection traffic

control Modify traffic

signal ‐ modernization/replacem

1Numbers

370000

370000

HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

21500

40 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

ent

Statewide	‐	NorthRegionSTPGMARK(302)	‐	Construction

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

0 Miles 19800

00

1980000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide	‐	SouthRegionSTPGMARK(303)	‐	Construction

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

0 Miles 14600

00

1460000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideIMGMARK(115)	‐	Construction

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

0 Miles 27450

00

2745000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideHESMARK(404)	‐	Constructi

Roadway delineationLongitudinal pavementmarkings ‐ remarking

0 Miles 28850

00

2885000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 Town or

TownshipHighway
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

on AgencyRockingham	‐	HartfordIMGSIGN(54)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

34Miles

1700000

1700000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Interstate

0 65 State

HighwayAgency

Winooski	‐	CambridgeSTPGSIGN(55)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and traffic

control Roadway signs

(including post) ‐ new or

updated

23.9Miles

300000

300000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

Statewide	‐	NortheastSTPGSIGN(56)	‐	Design

Roadway signs and trafficcontrol Roadway signs(including post) ‐ new orupdated

56.3Miles

435000

435000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 State

HighwayAgency

WillistonSTP5500(16)	‐	Construction

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify traffic

signal ‐ miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1Numbers

90000 90000 HSIP

(Section 148)

UrbanPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

12300

35 State

HighwayAgency

Williston	‐	Essex STPGSGNL(46)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Modify trafficsignal ‐ modernization/replacem

15Numbers

1100000

1100000

HSIP(Section 148)

0 0 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

ent

PlainfieldNH 028‐3(41)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Intersection

traffic control ‐ other

1Numbers

890000

890000

HSIP

(Section 148)

RuralPrincipalArterial ‐ Other

7000

30 State

HighwayAgency

SpringfieldSTP 016‐2(23)	‐	Design

Intersection trafficcontrol Intersectiontraffic control ‐ other

2Numbers

600000

600000

HSIP(Section 148)

RuralMinorArterial

9900

40 State

HighwayAgency

StatewideHESRMBL(2)Complete

Roadway delineationRoadway delineation ‐ other

0 Miles 20200

0

202000

PenaltyTransfer –Section 164

RuralMinorCollector

0 0 State

HighwayAgency
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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 74 68 70 69 63

Number of serious injuries 419 399 385 361 339

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.89

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

5.64 5.44 5.31 4.98 4.74

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

33
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

FunctionClassification

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

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATE

4.28 12.6 5.67 27.89

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHERFREEWAYS ANDEXPRESSWAYS

0.6 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

8.8 18.8 6.4 10.78

RURAL MINORARTERIAL

7 28 8.14 40.05

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

4.17 7.4 2.92 3.39

RURAL MAJORCOLLECTOR

12.57 41 11.67 28.83

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR

STREET

8.31 28.8 8.79 2.93

URBAN PRINCIPAL 2.39 2.4 1.11 0.59
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

ARTERIAL ‐ INTERSTATEURBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

FREEWAYS AND

EXPRESSWAYS

2.2 1.8 0.33 2.95

URBAN PRINCIPALARTERIAL ‐ OTHER

4.95 22 5.96 5.02

URBAN MINOR

ARTERIAL

5.59 15.4 5.51 4.34

URBAN MINORCOLLECTOR

2.6 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR

COLLECTOR

5.31 12 3.32 5.38

URBAN LOCAL ROADOR STREET

4.06 9 1.2 2.24
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Year ‐ 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of

fatalities

Number of seriousinjuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

SH

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 33.4 160.8 0 0COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 12 57.6 0 0CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 3.6 32.4 0 0STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0RAILROAD 0 0 0 0STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT,

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

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

The crash data analysis reviewed included reported crashes from the five‐year periods between the

years 2007‐2011 and 2010‐2014. Major crashes are defined as crashes that either resulted in a fatal

injury or in an incapacitating injury.

The number of major crashes five‐year average has declined from 386 major crashes for the 2007‐2011

period to 337 for the 2010‐2014 period.  This represents a 12.7% reduction in the five‐year average.

Over the same two periods, there has been a 7.4% decline in the five‐year average of the total number

of fatalities (from 68 to 63).  

In a similar manner, there has been a 15.0% reduction in the five‐year average of the total number of

serious injuries (from 399 to 339).  

These reductions are also reflected in the fatality rate per HMVMT and for the serious injury rate per

HMVMT. While the five‐year average fatality rate was 0.99 for the 2007‐2011 period, it is now 0.95 for

the 2010‐2014 period. Similarly, the serious injury rate was 5.65 for the 2007‐2011 period and it is now

5.22 for the 2010‐2014 period.

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.

Very small reductions in the number of fatalities and serious injuries for these two crash types have

taken place. The respective five‐year averages for fatalities and serious injuries at intersections were 9.8

fatalities and 83.6 injuries for 2007‐2011 and 9.2 and 76.0 for 2010‐2014. For Lane departure crashes,

the five‐year averages for fatalities and serious injuries at were 35.0 fatalities and 178.4 injuries for

2007‐2011 and 35.2 and 157.8 for 2010‐2014.  

The five‐year average for the number of fatalities involving a pedestrian increased between the 2007‐

2011 period and the 2010‐2014 period from 3.6 to 5.6. Similarly, the average for the number of injuries

involving a pedestrian also increased from 22.8 to 25.4. On the other hand, the five‐year average for the

number of bicycle fatalities remained the same at around 0.2 while the number of serious injuries

involving a bicyclist decreased from 10.8 to 9.0 over the same two periods.

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)

0.09 0.096 0.088 0.084 0.092
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Serious injury rate

(per capita)

0.268 0.27 0.252 0.222 0.218

Fatality and serious

injury rate (per capita)

0.356 0.366 0.34 0.304 0.308

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

The Injury A, Incapacitating Injury, category was use to represent Serious Injuries.

  

The number of people 65 years of age and older (per 1,000 total population) for each year was obtained

from Attachment 2 of Section 142: Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Interim Guidance dated

February 13, 2013.

  

The five year average Fatal (F) and Serious Injuries (SI) per capita for Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of

age and older for year ending in 2013 and 2011 was calculated for the following periods respectively,

2013 (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009) and 2012 (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007).

  

For each period, the rate was calculated by summing up the fatal and serious injuries for a given year

and dividing the total for that year by the population figure for the year. The rates for the period were

then summed up and divided by 5 to obtain the five year average for the two ending year (2011 and

2013).  

  

All rates were calculated to the hundredths after the decimal point and then rounded to the nearest

tenths.  

  

The 2011 rate was 0.3 and the 2013 rate was 0.3. There is no increase and therefore the rule does not

apply.

  

The calculations are shown on the attached document to this question.
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state?  

No
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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‐A reduction in the number of crashes

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:  

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

51

The Office of Highway Safety was created within VTrans during the reporting period. The creation of this

Office brought the Governor’s Highway Safety Program to VTrans from the Department of Public Safety

and consolidated existing sections within VTrans that dealt with crash data and safety analyses. The

formation of this Office brings under one roof, the 4E’s (Education, Engineering, Enforcement and

Emergency Services) and creates efficiencies in implementing various programs.

Specifically, the Office of Highway Safety is composed of the Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP), Vermont Highway Safety Alliance (VHSA), Governor’s Highway Safety Program (GHSP) and

Highway Data.
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP‐related SHSPEmphasis Areas

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Lane Departure All 35.2 157.8 0.49 2.21 0 Intersections All 9.2 76 0.13 1.06 0 Pedestrians All 5.6 25.4 0.08 0.36 0 Bicyclists All 0.2 9 0 0.13 0 Older Drivers All 59 31.4 0.16 0.44 0 Motorcyclists All 7.6 40 0.11 0.56 0 Work Zones All 0.4 1.6 0.01 0.02 0 
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Groups of similar project typesPresent the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year ‐ 2014

HSIP Sub‐programTypes

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Low‐Cost Spot

Improvements

Run‐off‐road

35.2 157.8 0.49 2.21 0 
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Systemic TreatmentsPresent the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year ‐ 2014

Systemicimprovement

TargetCrash Type

Number offatalities

Number ofserious injuries

Fatality rate (perHMVMT)

Serious injury rate(per HMVMT)

Ot1

Install/ImproveSigning

All 15.4 76.4 0.66 3.29 0 
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

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

which you 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 current SHSP has target reductions for intersection and lane departure major crashes that have

been set at 10% of 2012 thresholds. In terms of numbers, this represents a five‐year target of 72 major

crashes for intersection crashes and a five‐year average target of 186 major crashes for lane departure

crashes.

The latest five‐year average (2010‐2014) for lane departure crashes is 173 major crashes, which is below

the SHSP target of 186 major crashes.  

For the emphasis area concerning intersections, the latest five‐year average is 73 major crashes. This

five‐year average is just above the SHSP target of 72 major crashes at intersections.  

Overall, the SHSP has the goal of reducing major crashes by 10% by 2016. The baseline five‐year average

from the 2008‐2012 period for fatal and serious injury crashes is 376 major crashes. The current five‐

year average (2010‐2014) is 337 major crashes and is just below the 2016 five‐year target of 338 major

crashes.  
2015 Vermont Highway Safety Improvement Program

Project EvaluationProvide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).

Location Functional

Class

ImprovementCategory

ImprovementType

Bef‐Fatal

Bef‐SeriousInjury

Bef‐AllInjuries

Bef‐PDO

Bef‐Total

Aft‐Fatal

Aft‐SeriousInjury

Aft‐All

Injuries

AP
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Program Structure: Program Methodology 2014 HRRR TPI Task Prioritization

Methodology.pdf

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets:

Application of Special Rules

Question 27 Calculations.xls

   
2015 Vermont     Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

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 non‐

infrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities,

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.