Page 1 of 35

IDAHO

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 35

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 .......................................................................................................................10

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................17

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................17

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................24

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................25

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................25

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................25

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................30

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................31

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................34

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................35
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 35

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.”
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 35

Executive Summary

Highway safety is one of the primary objectives of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is comprised of projects proposed by the ITD Districts and the Local 

Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC). They are selected based upon highway safety data and align 

with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) fulfilling the requirements defined by the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation Act (FAST). The SHSP outlines strategies to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

through projects specified in the HSIP, providing a standard way to evaluate progress on a regular basis.

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) continues to work on enhancing the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) for all public roadways in Idaho. ITD uses data from the Highway Safety Corridor Analysis 

(HSCA) to identify high priority corridors. ITD has started using the Transportation Economic Development 

Impact System (TREDIS) to evaluate HSIP eligibility for all projects nominated for FY20 and beyond. At the 

local level, work continues by the Idaho Local Highway Technical Advisory Council (LHTAC) to plan and 

prioritize highway safety projects at the local level. LHTAC continues to enhance their process based on the 

fatal and serious injuries to determine what jurisdiction have priority for HSIP funding.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 35

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. 

ITD and LHTAC use benefit-cost ratio analysis to determine funding of HSIP projects. Any project selected has 

to follow a data-driven criteria that shows what safety concern is being addressed, how it ties into the State 

Highway Safety Plan, and expected outcomes from the project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Highways

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

The Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) works with ITD to address the safety of the Idaho 

local roads. LHTAC also uses the HSIP funding from the FHWA. These funds are dedicated for use on local 

safety projects. LHTAC provides a recommended project list. The projects are reviewed and approved by the 

FHWA using PSS.

Determine Funding Split (ITD & LHTAC) 

For funding FY20 and beyond, ITD and LHTAC will review the data together to determine the appropriate 

funding split based on the total number of Fatal (K) plus Serious Injury (A) crashes. The percentage of 

K+A Crashes on local roads will equal the funding split between ITD and LHTAC. The current approved 

funding split for FY22 and FY23 is 50%. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Districts/Regions

• Planning

• Other-Office of Highway Safety
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 35

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ITD's Office of Highway safety produces the Highway Safety Corridor Analysis (HSCA) and the High Crash 

Location (HAL) reports on an annual basis. 

Each district uses these reports and other tools to develop potential projects. Once a project is proposed, the 

districts put together a Project Charter that meets FAST eligibility requirements to be considered for funding. 

An acceptable charter must include a Project Objective Statement (POS) and a Scope of Work clearly 

identified to support HSIP funds. It also must include a timeline with realistic start and finish dates. Most 

importantly the charter must include an appropriate HSIP justification that addresses the following:

1. How is the project safety-driven?

· Base Answers upon the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

· Site statistics and results such as the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other datasupported means.

2. How does the project align with and help implement the strategies found in the Strategic Higheay Safety 

Plan?

· Pinpoint safety problems either through a site analysis or systematic approach;

· Identify counter measures to address those problems;

· Priortize projects for implementation; and

· Evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness

3. How does the project eliminate death and serious injury?

· Address identified safety issues within a highway wsafety corridor or a spot location such as an intersection 

or High Accident Location (HAL) or does it incorporate a system-wide approach such as rumble strips.

· Each district has a corridor map outlining safety corridors (also known as the Highway Safety Corridor 

Analysis (HSCA)). Make sure to review these maps for pertinent system-wide safety corridor analysis.

All project evaluations are based upon the information that has been entered in PSS and the Office of 

Transportation Information System (OTIS). The projects are prioritized by the Economics Office and 

Transportation Systems using the TREDIS process. TREDIS calculates benefits in safety and mobility as a 

result of a project, including economic value that can be realized related to transportation and the mobility it 

affords to the citizens and businesses of the state of Idaho.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Other-Local Highway Technical Assistance Council-representing all local highway districts

Describe coordination with external partners.

Once the funding split has been decided, LHTAC will solicit local agencies for projects based on a data driven 

approach. LHTAC evaluates each of the projects and the selected projects are sent on to ITD. ITD will 

evaluate the projects to ensure they fit within the scope of the SHSP and then make the final approval.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 35

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

elaborate. 

Below is an excerpt from Idaho's HSIP Standard Planning Process document.

The foundation of consistency within the HSIP process is completing a project charter for each project. The 

charter contains information that can be used to consistently compare projects against each other and provide 

details needed for analysis in TREDIS. Another important aspect of the HSIP program is specified justification 

which is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration – Idaho (FHWA-ID) to assess the funding eligibility 

of the proposed projects. The project must be focused on reduction of fatalities and serious injuries.

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.

• HSIP (no subprograms)

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-state competes with all projects while local uses funding set-aside approach

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-High Accident Location (HAL) List

• Other-HSCA

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

program?
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 35

Yes

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

No

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

They look for areas that have multiple fatal and serious injury crashes and have the local agencies 

apply for funding.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• 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

Ranking based on B/C:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 0

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

The only activity we have that might be considered systemic are a couple Road Safety Audits and planning 

activities, and those are less than 1%

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Other-Highway Safety Corridor Analysis process

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Not at this time.

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

Yes
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 35

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

Our two main processes used to identify possible areas for projects are based on methodology from the HSM. 

The first, High Accident Location (HAL) uses a weighted score of frequency, rate and severity to determine 

locations. Our Highway Safety Corridor Analysis (HSCA) process uses rates to determine priority corridors.

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

elaborate.

After Idaho was notified that we triggered the HRRR rule, we went back and double checked that projects fell 

into the functional classifications for the high risk rural roads. With Idaho being a largely rural state, we have 

many projects that are on rural roads. We really didn't have to adjust anything to our methodology to ensure 

we have projects on high risk rural roads.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 35

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) $29,044,000 $25,540,821 87.94%

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)

$0 $0 0%

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 $29,044,000 $25,540,821 87.94%

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

safety projects?

13%

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

14%

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%
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 35

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.

At this time there are no impediments to obligating HSIP funds.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 35

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

US 12: 18th St 

to Clearwater 

River Bridge

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $4541266 $4541266 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 6, N and S 

SH 9 Turnbays

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 30, N 400 

to Parke Ave, 

Burley

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control -

other

2 Intersections $10235030 $10235030 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 100 

South Rd, 

Jerome 

County

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

2 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, FY 20 

LHTAC 

Planning & 

Scoping

Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

1 Planning and 

Scoping

$50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Local 

Highway 

Technical 

Advisory 

Council

Systemic Planning SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 20, Int SH 

47 

Improvements, 

Ashton

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

1 Intersections $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, Jct SH 

6 Turnbay

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $233000 $233000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 13, Curve 

Improvement, 

NR Kooskia

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve

0.4 Miles $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, 

Riverside NB 

Passing Ln, 

Latah Co

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

1 Miles $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,200 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, 

Culdesac 

Canyon 

Passing Ln, Ph 

3, Nez Perce

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

2.3 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-5727, 

Ramsey Rd; 

Railroad grade 

crossings

Roadway 

geometry 

improvements

1 Locations $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 2,300 35 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 35

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Chilco to 

Scarcello

STC-7644, 6th 

St. Ped 

Improvement, 

Moscow

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing 

crosswalk

1 Intersections $3412 $3412 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 41, 

Lancaster Rd 

to Boekel Rd, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

1 Miles $382622 $382622 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, 

Culdesac 

Canyon 

Passing Ln Ph 

4

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

3.37 Miles $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-7821, Int 

N Middleton 

Rd & Cornell 

St

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersections $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

I 90, SH 41 IC, 

Kootenai Co

Interchange 

design

Interchange 

design - other

0.7 Miles $2041000 $2041000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate60,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 8, 3rd St 

Safety 

Improvement 

Ph 1, Moscow

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing 

crosswalk

0.2 Miles $5000 $5000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 23,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 20, 

Pinehaven to 

Buffalo Rv Br 

Overlay

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

9.5 Miles $800000 $800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, 

Thermoplastic 

& Ada 

Improvement, 

Idaho Falls

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

ADA curb ramps 1 Intersections $354545 $354545 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 53, Hauser 

Lake Rd to N 

Bruss Rd

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2.7 Miles $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 

Hollister NCL 

to 3250 N, 

Twin Falls

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

7.01 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,700 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 35

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SMA-8383, Int 

Lone Star & 

Middleton Rd

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

other

1 Intersections $1290000 $1290000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 53, Int N 

Ramsey Rd, 

Kootenai Co

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

1 Intersections $155000 $155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

I 90, Cedars to 

Dudley Rd, 

Kootenai Co

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

3.85 Miles $90000 $90000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,600 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, 

McArthur 

Lake, 

Boundary Co

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve

0.5 Miles $155000 $155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, 

Dynamic 

Speed Limit 

Signs, Lapwai

Speed 

management

Dynamic Speed 

Feedback Signs

1 Miles $49000 $49000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 91, 

Yellowstone 

Ave; Beneman 

to Knud

Roadway Roadway - other 0.1 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 26, JCT 

HITT Road 

(25th E), 

Bonneville Co

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $900000 $900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 41, 

Diagonal Rd 

Turnbays, 

Rathdrum

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersections $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 3250 N 

to 3800 N, 

Twin Falls Co

Roadway Rumble strips –

other

5 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-7045, Int 

Prairie Ave & 

Idaho Rd

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersections $76000 $76000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,600 45 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-7745, 

Division; 

Michigan to 

Cedar

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

0.5 Miles $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,600 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-7384, Int 

21st St & 19th 

Ave Lewiston

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $116000 $116000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 35

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Offsys, 

Signing Imprv, 

Twin Falls HD

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

24 Locations $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Offsys, River 

Rd Safety 

Imprv, Buhl 

HD

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

6 Locations $31000 $31000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Offsys, 

Thermoplastic 

Pvt Markings, 

Jerome

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new 

crosswalk

1 Locations $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-2777, 

Shoe String 

Rd Safety, 

Gooding

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

4.95 Miles $107000 $107000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 760 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-6820, Ski 

Hill Rd VMS, 

Teton Co

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

3.01 Miles $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,800 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-7406, Int 

17th St & 

Rollandet, 

Idaho Falls

Intersection 

geometry

Modify lane 

assignment

2 Intersections $108000 $108000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, Path 

Connection 

Plan, Idaho 

Falls

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists – other

1 Locations $59000 $59000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-6768, 

Archer Hwy 

Safety Audit, 

Madison 

County

Miscellaneous Road safety 

audits

1 Locations $49000 $49000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, Lake Rd 

Safety 

Improvements, 

Grangeville

Roadway Roadway - other 2.26 Miles $222000 $222000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

180 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Local, Ditto Cr 

& Reservoir 

Rd, Mt Home 

HD

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $157000 $157000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 3800 N 

to IC 93/30, 

Twin Falls Co

Roadway Roadway - other 1.808 Miles $372946 $372946 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 35

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SH 46, Int # 

2000 S, 

Gooding Co

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $90000 $90000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 35

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 183 213 186 216 253 245 234 224 215

Serious Injuries 1,286 1,262 1,286 1,351 1,332 1,246 1,251 1,154 1,102

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.155 1.341 1.152 1.296 1.475 1.416 1.321 1.240 1.232

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.119 7.949 7.965 8.108 7.765 7.202 7.064 6.391 6.348

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

15 17 16 8 24 19 21 18 17

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

101 104 98 85 114 107 120 93 72
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 35

Annual Fatalities

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 35

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 35

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

All but 2020 are FARS, 2020 is State database

FARS data isn't available for 2020 yet so I used the state crash database. It is very rare that we have a 

different number from FARS. Also the rates are based on Idaho's VMT and not the values from FHWA so they 

may differ slightly from what the FARS dataset has.

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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

28.2 96 1.05 3.57

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

54.2 166 2.53 7.78
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 35

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Arterial 25.4 86.6 2.37 8.09

Rural Minor Collector 19.2 2.65 10.13

Rural Major Collector 34.2 122.4 2.54 9.03

Rural Local Road or 

Street

28.2 100.2 1.26 4.5

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

10.6 60 0.64 3.62

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

22.2 272.6 1.02 12.56

Urban Minor Arterial 13.6 155 0.79 8.98

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 4.8 67.2 0.67 9.4

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4.6 62.6 0.47 6.34
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 35

Year 2020

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

142.8 573.2 1.46 5.87

County Highway 

Agency

0 0 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 91.2 643.8 1.18 8.32

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Currently we do not have an easy way to tease out the various ownerships other than local or state. Plus we 

do not have the volume data broken out in that way. It is something we are working on for the future with our 

new linear referencing system and the Numetric software where we can break out the crash data. We still 

would need to break out the volume data in the same way.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:245.0
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 35

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing fatalities on Idaho 

roadways.

Number of Serious Injuries:1283.0

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

Goals are set and performance are measured using five-year averages and five-year rates. Regression 

analysis in EXCEL was used to set targets. In some instances the Analyst who develops the performance 

measures may adjust the values based on additional information. All goals are based off of goals set for the 

emphasis areas within our SHSP.

Fatality Rate:1.360

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing fatalities on Idaho 

roadways.

Serious Injury Rate:7.130

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

Goals are set and performance are measured using five-year averages and five-year rates. Regression 

analysis in EXCEL was used to set targets. In some instances the Analyst who develops the performance 

measures may adjust the values based on additional information. All goals are based off of goals set for the 

emphasis areas within our SHSP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:125.0

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

Although trend analysis was use on setting this target, the analyst who provided these values also relied on his 

years of working with data. The numbers for Idaho are so low that there is a lot of variability in the data, 

therefore the value isn't strictly based on the trend analysis. The value supports the SHSP goal of reducing non 

motorized fatalities and serious injuries in Idaho. Idaho's SHSP has a section on vulnerable roadway users 

with Bicycle and Pedestrian being one sub group in that category. The SHSP does not include a goal value of 

serious injuries but the strategies are related to reducing the number of crashes of bicyclists and pedestrians.

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

safety performance targets. 

Idaho Transportation Department presented their methodology for setting the safety performance targets to the 

MPO's on July 8th. All MPO's decided to go with the targets established by ITD.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

We have not additional targets at this time.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 35

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 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 249.0 234.2

Number of Serious Injuries 1287.0 1217.0

Fatality Rate 1.410 1.337

Serious Injury Rate 7.300 6.954

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

120.0 121.0

We were below all our targets except for non motorized fatalities and serious injuries. The pandemic lowered 

over all roadway usage but speeds were up which meant that there was a higher risk to bike/peds.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

With Idaho being a largely rural state, many of our fatal and serious injury crashes happen in rural areas. 

Because of this, many of our projects tend to be in the rural areas.

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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

34 33 45 50 34 46 29

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

110 123 132 126 127 133 97

excel file uploaded with information from the Idaho Crash Database pulled using Idaho's WebCars tool.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 35

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations.

Idaho has seen a decrease in fatalities the past five years. The 5 year average has finally seen a small 

decrease. The rate is showing a similar trend. Serious injuries have been decreasing over the past five years 

both in numbers and in rates.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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 179.8 700.8 1.03 4.01

Intersections 42.4 454.2 0.24 2.6

Pedestrians 16.4 68 0.09 0.39

Bicyclists 3.6 35.2 0.02 0.2

Older Drivers 56.6 262.4 0.32 1.5

Motorcyclists 27.6 150.6 0.16 0.86

Work Zones 6.2 22.6 0.04 0.13

Impaired 87.4 220.8 0.5 1.26

Distracted 41.8 303 0.24 1.73

Aggressive 76.8 547.6 0.44 3.13

Teen Drivers 28.8 214.4 0.16 1.23
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 35

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)

Commercial 42.8 122.6 0.24 0.7

Unrestrained Occupants 92 234.2 0.53 1.34
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 35

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 35

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 35

We are currently working with the University of Idaho to create a process do evaluate our HSIP projects. 

Currently we don't have the dates of construction available in order to perform the evaluations.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 35

Project Effectiveness

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

We are currently working on a project to be able to easily evaluate our projects. Currently we do not have the construction dates we need.
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 35

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/05/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2021 To: 2025

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

 2026

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 15 100 60

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]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 35

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]

100 15

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 15

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 35

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]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

75

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

75

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 85.83 25.00 25.00 77.27 63.64 88.89 73.44 100.00 100.00

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

While some items have not been addressed (in the numbers above), ITD is part of a pooled fund study with FHWA centered around governance and building the framework for addressing this. This GIS governance pooled fund (AEGIST) 

project is providing things like portfolios, etc. so that there is a foundation that is standardized so that the data can be laid upon it. Once this is further along, a more substantial increase will occur.

Also, a state highway system LiDAR data collection was completed in 2020. The data needed to fill much of the grid above for the state highway system is available, and it will transformed into the appropriate schema once the AEGIST 

project has identified the appropriate methodology.

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.

In the past year and a half, a safety data gap analysis has been completed. An RFP was then issued to collect data on the state highway system. Also, ITD is part of a pooled fund study with FHWA which is ongoing. One of the eventual 

outputs will be a schema and level of governance that will allow for data to be loaded in a consistent, usable manner. Finally, ITD is working with MPOs, LHTAC and other agencies to discuss MIRE data and safety analysis. In the next 

year a more detailed timeline is estimated to be produced.
Page 34 of 35

2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Optional Attachments 

Program Structure:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Q 39 data.xlsx

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 35

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.