Delaware

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: DE
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

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

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

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 10

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 10

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 12

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 13

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 13

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 23

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................25

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 27

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 32

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 37

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 39

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 41
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

2016 (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016) to demonstrate the success of their safety program. Crash statistics 

reported in this Annual Report are for calendar year 2015 (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015). During the 

2016 reporting period, DelDOT continued its successful core HSIP programs – Hazard Elimination Program 

(HEP), Highway Rail-Grade Crossing Program (HRGX), and Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). As part 

of its recently developed systemic safety program, DelDOT continued installation of longitudinal rumble 

strips and awarded their first contract for the installation of high-friction pavement surface treatment. Also, 

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

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

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

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

higher than a predetermined average crash rate for locations of similar characteristics. A total of 15 corridors 

were studied under the HEP and 2 highway-grade crossings were studied under HRGX. Both programs 

continued to identify both low-cost remedial improvements and long-term safety improvement needs. Shortterm and long-term improvements identified by two pedestrian safety audits completed in 2015 are in the 

design and implementation phase. The success of these programs is demonstrated by the number of fatalities 

and serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) gradually decreasing from 2010 to 2013. In 2014, the 

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

2012 values. In 2015, the total number of fatalities and serious injuries decreased to their lowest levels since 

2009. In addition, DelDOT continued working on improvements to its Crash Analysis Reporting System 

(CARS), and continued to identify future program-level needs and changes related to the MAP-21 and FAST 

Act legislation. In December 2015, DelDOT and the other coordinating agencies and stakeholders finalized 

the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which was last updated in 2010.

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 
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

criteria for the various HSIP elements.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/LTAP Center) 

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

and stakeholders review fatal and serious injury crash data to identify emphasis areas to focus resources 
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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

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

plans for specific emphasis areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Maintenance Districts), DSP, FHWA, MPOs, and the counties and municipalities, meets to reach a 

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

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

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

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

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

Program (CTP).

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other-Federal Highway Administration

Other-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Other-Office of Highway Safety

Other-Delaware State Police

Other-Department of Justice

Other-Delaware Office of Emergency Medical Services

Other-University of Delaware T2 / LTAP Center

Other-Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

the last reporting period.

Other-No change

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

would like to elaborate.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

During FY 2016 (July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016), components of Delaware’s HSIP included the Strategic 

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

Safety Program (HRGX). In December 2015, DelDOT and the other coordinating agencies and stakeholders 

finalized the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which was last updated in 2010. In addition, FY 2016 

marked significant advances in DelDOT’s systemic safety programs. DelDOT continued installation of 

longitudinal rumble strips and awarded their first contract for the installation of high-friction pavement 

surface treatments. DelDOT continued its evaluation of horizontal curves throughout the state for MUTCDcompliant signing and pavement markings.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Horizontal Curve Pedestrian Safety

Segments Other-Longitudinal Rumble 

Strips

Other-High Friction Surface 

Treatment

Other-Dark Criteria

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes, head-on crashes, and 

cross-median crashes

Volume Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Other-Roadway Miles Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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 
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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 50

Ranking based on net benefit 50

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Probability of specific crash types

Other-All horizontal curves to be evaluated.

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Prioritized based on functional classification

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other-All pedestrian crashes Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding 34

Ranking based on net benefit 33

Cost Effectiveness 33

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Volume

Other-Roadway Miles

Other-Roadway Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Critical rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects 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 
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

Ranking based on B/C 25

Available funding 25

Ranking based on net benefit 25

Cost Effectiveness 25

Program: Other-Longitudinal Rumble Strips

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-All roadway departure 

crashes

Volume Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

Other-Roadway Miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Program: Other-High Friction Surface Treatment

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-All wet weather roadway 

departure crashes

Volume

Other-Roadway Miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on net benefit 1

Program: Other-Dark Criteria

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Other-All roadway departure 

and intersection crashes on wet 

pavement or during dark/unlit 

conditions

Volume

Other-Roadway Miles

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

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

No
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on prioritization and funding availability

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 2

Ranking based on net benefit 1

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

33%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Install/Improve Lighting

Other-Horizontal Curve Pavement Marking and 

Signing

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

last reporting period.

Systemic Approach

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

would like to elaborate. 

Please see attachment for the methodology on the HSIP Site Selection Process for the Hazard 

Elimination Program (HEP).

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $8,287,900.00 18 % $1,475,527.00 27 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $367,200.00 1 % $495,786.00 9 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

$2,265,000.00 5 % $251,973.00 5 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$0.00 0 % $2,787,957.00 52 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$6,173,500.00 13 % $0.00 0 %

Other National Highway 

Systems

$29,640,000.00 63 % $389,889.00 7 %

Totals $46,733,600.00 100% $5,401,132.00 100%
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

$404,993.00

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

$404,993.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

No impediments at this time.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None at this time.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See attached 

spreadshet

The reported total project costs and HSIP costs shown are the costs for the reporting period (i.e., FY 2016). Please see spreadsheet attached to this 

section of the report for project listing.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 112.8 112.4 108.2 109.6 115.6

Number of serious injuries 680.8 657 640 643.2 612.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.24 1.25 1.19 1.2 1.24

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 7.49 7.29 7.04 7 6.57

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

14
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2015. As 

such, 2015 crash rates were calculated based on 2014 VMT values. If needed, please see attached 

spreadsheet for the crash data.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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

Year - 2015

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

1.2

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0.4 0.8 0.04

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

8.8 30.4 0.76 2.67

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

4.2 11 1.31 3.36

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

11.2 38.6 1.87 6.38

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

4.2 11 3.15 9.01

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

11.4 36 2.56 8.12

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

6.2 24.4 0.49 1.92
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1.8 7.6 0.33 1.41

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

29.4 142 1.51 7.35

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

13 90 1.28 8.89

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

11.4 1.6 1.52 1.9

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

11.4 65.6 1.52 8.77

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

8.6 66.8 0.99 7.71

UNKNOWN 5 85.2
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

18
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

20
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2015. As such, 2015 crash rates were calculated based 

on 2014 VMT values. If needed, please see attached spreadsheet for the crash data. Additionally, functional classification data was 

updated/corrected for several roadways in 2014 throughout the state; therefore, comparing 2014 and 2015 crash data by functional classification 

should be done with caution.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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

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

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

approximately 2 percent and the number of serious injuries (based on 5-year rolling averages) increased from 

640 to 643, an increase of approximately 0.5 percent. In 2015, the number of fatalities increased from 110 to 

116, an increase of approximately 5 percent and the number of serious injuries decreased from 643 to 612, a 

decrease of approximately 5 percent. However, the combined number of fatalities and serious injuries 

decreased from 753 to 728, a decrease of approximately 3 percent. Statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT; 

based on 5-year rolling averages) gradually decreased from 2008 to 2012; however, increased slightly in 2013 

(2013 VMT increased to slightly more than 2011 VMT). In 2014, VMT increased by approximately 1 percent. 

Fatalities per VMT decreased from 2008 to 2011, increased slightly in 2012 (less than one percent), and 

decreased in 2013. Fatalities per VMT remained consistent in 2014 to 2013 and increased to 2011 levels in 

2015. Serious injuries per VMT fluctuated from 2008 to 2010 and have decreased on an annual basis since 

2010. The raw number of fatalities and serious injuries per year for the State of Delaware are relatively low; 

therefore, there is greater potential for larger fluctuations in fatality rates and serious injury rates as compared 

to other states and national rates, even though the raw number of fatalities and serious injuries may only 

differ by a few on a year-to-year basis.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.4 0.39 0.36 0.36 0.34

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.51 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.44

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

Calculations for the Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule follow the methodologies described in 

FHWA’s Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule Final Guidance (May 2016). Sample calculation methodology is 

provided below for fatality and serious injury rates (per capita). Similar calculations were used for individual 

fatality and serious injury rates. The number of fatalities reported are according to NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) and the number of serious injuries reported are according to Delaware's Crash 

Analysis Reporting System (CARS). At the time of reporting, 2015 data has not been published by FARS. As 

such, 2015 values are omitted.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

2012 Rate (similar calculations used for 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014 rates): [(# 2012 Fatalities and Serious 

Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2012 Population Figure*) + (# 2011 Fatalities 

and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2011 Population Figure*) + (# 

2010 Fatalities and Serious Injuries of Drivers and Pedestrians 65 years of age and older/2010 Population 

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

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

older/2008 Population Figure*)]/5

* Population of 65 Years of Age and Older (in thousands) per Attachment 2 from FHWA’s Older Drivers 

and Pedestrians Special Rule Final Guidance (May 19, 2016) accessed August 2016.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

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

average based upon yearly inputs; however, Attachment 2 of FHWA’s Older Drivers and Pedestrians 

Special Rule Final Guidance (May 2016) does not include population data for 2006 or 2007. Therefore, 

2008 population was used for the purposes of the calculations. Determining whether a state meets the 

special rule for the 2016 reporting cycle is based on a comparison of the 2008-2012 average to the 2010-

2014 average; therefore, this assumption does not have significant impacts.

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

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?

Other-The combined fatality and serious injury rate has decreased on an annual basis since 2010.

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

None

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

As part of its recently developed systemic safety program, DelDOT continued installation of longitudinal 

rumble strips and awarded their first contract for the installation of high-friction pavement surface treatments 

in FY 2016. Also, DelDOT continued reviewing signing and pavement markings at all horizontal curves for 

MUTCD-compliance to identify low-cost improvements at these locations. In December 2015, DelDOT and 

the other coordinating agencies and stakeholders finalized the 2015 Delaware Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 

which was last updated in 2010.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 40.8 109.6 0.44 1.18

Intersections Intersections 27.2 239 0.29 2.56

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 27.6 57.4 0.3 0.62
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

At the time of reporting, annual vehicle miles traveled data is unavailable for calendar year 2015. As such, 2015 crash rates were calculated based 

on 2014 VMT values. Delaware’s 2015 SHSP includes 7 data-driven emphasis areas. Crash statistics for emphasis areas related to driver behavior 

(i.e., Impaired Driving, Unrestrained Motorists, Speeding) are reported in Delaware’s annual Highway Safety Plan. If needed, the data is included 

as an attachment.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

As shown, the number of roadway departure fatalities (based on 5-year rolling averages) decreased from 2011 to 2014 and increased slightly in 2015; 

however, the number of roadway departure serious injuries has decreased from 2011 through 2015. The number of intersection fatalities has remained 

consistent from 2011 through 2015; however, the number of intersection serious injuries has generally decreased from 2011 through 2015. Pedestrian 

fatalities have increased since 2011 and pedestrian serious injuries have remained consistent since 2011.

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2015

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Skid Hazard Wet road 20.4 101.8 0.22 1.09
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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

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

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

departure crashes. Fatalities and serious injuries that occurred in wet weather crashes is shown for the high friction surface treatment program (i.e., 

skid hazard).
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

The freeway median barrier, longitudinal rumble strip, high friction surface treatment, and horizontal curve programs are all intended to reduce 

roadway departure crashes. Refer to question #32 for performance measures for roadway departure crashes.

Year - 2015

Systemic 

improvement

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips See Optional 

Description
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

No elaboration at this time.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

No 

elaboration 

at this time.
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Program Structure: Program Methodology 2016 HSIP Annual Report HEP Site Selection.pdf

Progress in Implementing Projects: General Listing 

of Projects

HSIP_Q23 DE (2016).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

HSIP_Q24 DE (2016).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Overview of General Safety Trends

HSIP_Q25 DE (2016).xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Application of Special Rules

HSIP_Q27 DE (2016).xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

HSIP_Q32 DE (2016).xlsx

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): Groups of 

similar project types

HSIP_Q33 DE (2016).xlsx
2016 Delaware Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.