Page 1 of 38

UTAH

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

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

Page 2 of 38

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 ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................14

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

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................16

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................18

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................18

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................24

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................26

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................27

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................27

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................27

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................32

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................34

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................37

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................38
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 38

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 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 38

Executive Summary

From 2013-2016, the State of Utah experienced an increase in traffic fatalities each year. The 2017-2019 

period marked a return to our past long-term downward trends in fatalities. Serious injury crashes peaked in 

2015 and then trended downward through 2019. However, 2020 experienced a higher number of fatal and 

serious injury crashes than the year before as Utah mirrored trends seen in other states during the COVID-19 

pandemic. We are hopeful that our efforts to prioritize safety projects with the greatest potential to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries will lead to a resumption of the downward trends in those crash types as more 

normal traffic patterns emerge following the pandemic.

We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the projects most likely to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries. We modified our project selection process in 2019 to fund the projects with the 

highest B/C ratios even if doing so results in HSIP funding not being allocated to each region of the state 

evenly. The first year of this change has proven to be a success and we expect that continuing along this path 

will lead to the best projects being funded each year.

The FAST Act approved by Congress five years ago removed our ability to fund education and enforcement 

efforts with HSIP funds. We have been using State funds to continue these programs. Education and 

enforcement remain important parts of our comprehensive safety strategy to reduce severe crashes.

During FY21, we updated our Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The plan is currently awaiting signature 

from the UDOT Executive Director and should be signed shortly after submitting this annual HSIP report. The 

new SHSP has been upgraded to emphasize a web-based version rather than a static PDF report. The new 

web version is complete with charts that show real-time crash and fatalities data. This allows SHSP readers to 

use this real-time data to track progress and inform decisions regarding the different focus areas.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 38

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. 

UDOT’s Safety Programs Engineer (located within the Traffic & Safety Division) oversees HSIP activities within 

Utah. This person is responsible for setting the policies and procedures required to fulfill the federal HSIP 

mandate set forth by the FAST Act. The UDOT region offices also play a major role in the development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. They work in concert with the UDOT Traffic & Safety Division to identify 

potential project locations, submit HSIP funding applications, and participate in the screening and prioritization 

process. Once projects are selected and funded in each region, the region offices take ownership of project 

delivery, assigning project managers, and proceeding according to standard federal environmental, design, 

and construction processes.

HSIP funds can be used for infrastructure improvements on any publicly owned roadway. Any local agency 

may apply for HSIP funding as long it controls the right-of-way for the location in question. However, the Traffic 

& Safety Division researches the crash history at these locations just as they do with projects developed 

internally. In order for HSIP funds to be used, all locations must show either a proven crash history or have 

characteristics that conform to systemic situations that UDOT has identified as a funding priority. UDOT also 

works with Metropolitan Planning Organizations to help them integrate safety into their long-range planning 

efforts.

The project process includes the following steps:

• Crash data evaluation and coordination with region offices to identify candidate projects.

• Analysis of candidate projects to determine anticipated benefit/cost ratios. 

• Joint prioritization and selection of projects between the Central Traffic & Safety office and the region 

offices. 

• Programming of projects into discrete funding years. 

• Assignment of project managers and beginning of design process. 

• Advertisement and construction. 

• Evaluation based on three years of crash data before and after construction. 

• Reporting in the annual HSIP report. 

Additionally, UDOT began during FY20 to implement a new procedure that will take effect beginning in FY23. 

UDOT's four region offices have historically been prorated a percentage of Utah's HSIP funds based on the 

relative numbers of severe crashes that occur within each region. The region offices were given discretion to 

prioritize their funding allocation to projects of their choosing as long as those projects had an estimated 

benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0. This historic funding allocation model will continue through FY22. Beginning 
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 38

in FY23, however, regions will not be given a set funding allocation. Instead, funding will be prioritized based 

on projects' benefit-cost ratio. This means that the projects most likely to reduce severe crashes will be funded 

regardless of location. The Traffic and Safety Division believes that this new process will lead to fewer severe 

crashes and help Utah best meet the Zero Fatalities goal.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via Districts/Regions

UDOT has historically allocated funds to region offices according to a preset formula based on the share of 

severe crashes occurring within each region. This model will continue through FY22. Beginning with FY23, 

however, UDOT plans to move to a competitive selection process based on estimated project benefit-cost 

ratio.

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

Local roads are eligible for HSIP funds if projects meet program requirements. UDOT currently lacks 

comprehensive roadway data for local roads (non-State and non-Federal Aid) that would make it easier to 

compare relative safety needs on State roads and local roads, especially for systemic treatments. However, 

efforts are underway to work with other State agencies, local governments, and emergency dispatch centers to 

develop more complete roadway inventory data on local roads. In the meantime we will continue to perform 

hot-spot analysis on all public roads, including locals. Once we identify a hotspot location and potential 

countermeasures, we approach the local government to assess their willingness to proceed with an HSIPfunded safety project.

UDOT does perform crash analysis on non-State Federal Aid routes and accepts applications from local 

agencies for HSIP funding consideration on all public roads. We also apply the usRAP safety protocol to select 

non-State Federal Aid and local routes. During this reporting period, UDOT completed coding for all Federalaid routes in all counties of the state.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

The Central Traffic & Safety office leads the HSIP effort, but various other divisions are involved in the process. 

The traffic/safety, project management, maintenance, and design groups are all involved at the region level, 

both with helping to identify candidate projects and to design and construct them.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 38

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Planning

UDOT uses two methods to plan HSIP projects. For the first method, the Traffic & Safety Division works 

throughout the year with each region to determine their priority projects for HSIP funding consideration. The 

Traffic & Safety Division then screens the crash data, traffic data, and input from the region offices to 

determine whether each project meets HSIP eligibility criteria. For the second method, the Traffic & Safety 

Division employs a network-wide approach to identify projects. This is done by looking at crash and roadway 

attribute data from a statewide perspective. UDOT has several efforts underway to identify projects 

systemically and through network screening tools, including the usRAP model and BYU crash prediction 

model.

Design

After projects are programmed, project managers from the applicable UDOT region offices are assigned to 

each project. These project managers then shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal 

environmental, design, and construction processes. Project managers generally invite Traffic & Safety staff to 

attend scoping and design review meetings to make sure that the safety elements are properly incorporated 

into the project.

Maintenance & Operations

Each region office works with their maintenance and operations staff to give them an opportunity to suggest 

safety projects based on their experience maintaining the state roadway network every day. Periodic meetings 

are held between region traffic and safety engineers and maintenance crews. Their round of meetings in the 

fall is where engineers specifically solicit safety project ideas from maintenance staff. Following these 

meetings, region traffic and safety engineers submit safety project applications for projects they believe merit 

funding. These applications are then reviewed by Central Traffic & Safety as described above.

Access to Data

In order to assist each of our partners in this process, we have developed an online crash visualization and 

analysis tool so everyone has equal access to safety data.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Partners

Describe coordination with external partners.

Academia

UDOT has active and ongoing partnerships with both Brigham Young University (BYU) and the University of 

Utah to further safety work in Utah. BYU has worked with UDOT over the past several years to develop and 

continually refine Bayesian crash predictive models that show where crashes are over-represented. Each year 

BYU provides model output reports to the region offices. The reports show potential safety project locations 

and countermeasures for their consideration.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 38

The University of Utah has been working with UDOT the last few years to improve the statewide crash 

database and to expand the usRAP model on non-State maintained roads. They completed coding of all 

federal-aid routes in all counties of the state in 2020.

FHWA

We work closely with the Safety Operations Engineer in the local FHWA office to ensure that we are complying 

with appropriate guidelines in our implementation of the HSIP. We routinely involve him in coordination 

meetings with the region offices so that he stays informed about the projects we are selecting and 

implementing with our HSIP funds.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

The Utah Highway Safety Office (HSO) is housed within the Department of Public Safety. We hold regular 

meetings involving the HSO to ensure coordination of data, funding, and strategies for our respective 

programs.

MPOs

The MPOs in Utah have been very motivated to integrate safety into their planning process. UDOT has tried to 

use several different tools to accomplish this goal, with mixed results. During the past couple of years we have 

made significant headway by introducing our MPO partners to the usRAP safety model and showing how it can 

be used as a regional safety planning tool. Specific conversations were held with Cache MPO in 2017 and 

MAG in 2018. During this past year, coding of all necessary usRAP roadway attributes was completed for all 

federal aid routes in all counties across the state.

SHSP Partners

SHSP Partners are actively involved in working groups for each of our SHSP emphasis areas.

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

elaborate. 

UDOT focuses its infrastructure improvements primarily on the Roadway Departure Crashes, Drowsy Driving, 

Distracted Driving, and Intersection Safety emphasis areas. The other emphasis areas (Public Outreach and 

Education, Use of Safety Restraints, Impaired Driving, Aggressive Driving, Pedestrian Safety, Teen Driving 

Safety, Motorcycle Safety, and Speed Management) are addressed primarily through non-infrastructure efforts 

such as education, media, and enforcement campaigns. UDOT partners with other state, local, and federal 

agencies to implement the non-infrastructure components of the SHSP. The FAST Act removed UDOT's ability 

to fund education and enforcement efforts with HSIP, so we have been using state funds to continue those 

programs.

A "Zero Fatalities" goal (ut.zerofatalities.com) is also part of the SHSP. UDOT began displaying weekly safety 

messages on variable message signs during the summer of 2015 to encourage safe driving behaviors such as 

seat belt use. Those safety messages continue to be posted today.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 38

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• HRRR

• HSIP (no subprograms)

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Crash data trigger from FHWA

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Coordination with region offices

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:50

Other-Ability of region to identify eligible project:50

Total Relative Weight:100
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 38

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Traffic

• Volume

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

• Other-usRAP model

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 38

Ranking based on B/C:100

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 42

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

Connected and autonomous vehicles are identified as a Special Safety Area in our SHSP. We do not have a 

committed program of HSIP funds being used for V2I technologies. However, we do consider project 

applications submitted by our region offices. If an application for V2I or other ITS-related technologies is 

submitted and is worthy of funding, we are able to program the project. We have funded (or are currently 

funding) ITS technologies such as variable speed limit signing and wrong-way driving sign arrays. We also 

funded a project to use DSRC technology in snow plows in order to allow them to coordinate their movements 

with signalized intersections, thereby facilitating much faster snow clearance on a key arterial street.

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

Yes 

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

All construction projects that are funded with HSIP funds are assessed using the following procedures from the 

HSM:

1. Preliminary analysis is done with crash history and CMFs following procedures of Part D from the HSM.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 38

2. If a more technical analysis is warranted, the predictive method of Part C is used by utilizing the 

spreadsheet tools developed and published in the CMF Clearinghouse.

3. Where applicable, potential infrastructure projects are also compared to the usRAP results, which 

represent a risk-based approach based on roadway characteristics.

4. Methods in Chapter 4 in conjunction with the SPFs of Part C are used to prioritize potential locations of 

systemic treatments such as rumble strips, median barrier, and raised medians.

5. Utah maintains a list of approved mitigation measures from Part D and the CMF Clearinghouse.

6. Systemic projects are developed on the basis of roadway characteristics by using a sensitivity analysis 

involving the SPFs and CMFs found in the HSM.

7. Benefit-cost ratios are calculated based on guidance from Chapter 7. No HSIP funds are applied to 

projects that have a benefit cost ratio less than 1 unless the project can be justified systemically.

8. All projects are prioritized based on benefit-cost ratio. 

9. The CAP-X and SPICE worksheets provided at the CMF clearinghouse are used to help decide on 

installation options of various intersections. Intersections that warrant further study use IHSDM and 

capacity projection models to determine the best alternatives.

10. Where applicable, design deviations use the predictive methods of Part C to evaluate the safety impact 

of proposed deviations.

The Bayesian statistical methods outlined in the HSM are also used extensively in a modeling partnership with 

Brigham Young University in order to identify hot spot crash locations for consideration of HSIP funding.

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

elaborate.

Non-Infrastructure Projects

UDOT uses some of its HSIP funding for eligible non-infrastructure projects that aid roadway safety efforts. 

Such projects include:

Integrating Safety Into Planning

UDOT Traffic & Safety Division personnel work internally with other UDOT divisions to integrate safety 

planning into their core processes. UDOT also works with MPOs and other safety partners across the state to 

supply them with needed data and tools so they can better integrate safety into their internal planning 

processes. Integrating safety into UDOT and MPO planning processes helps all agencies proactively address 

safety.

Improving Crash Data Analysis

HSIP funding is also used to improve UDOT's crash database. The ability to accurately locate crashes and 

understand crash characteristics is vital to programming HSIP funds.

University & Consultant Support

The Traffic & Safety Division uses HSIP funding to contract with universities and consultants who assist with 

various HSIP functions. The functions include items such as program management, project management, 

crash data mapping, statistical analysis, safety modeling, report preparation, SPF/CMF development, training, 

and HSM analysis.

UDOT previously used HSIP funding for education and enforcement efforts that fall within the State's Zero 

Fatalities effort umbrella. With passage of the FAST Act that led to ineligibility of those activities, UDOT has 

been using State funds to continue those efforts.

High Risk Rural Road Special Rule
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 38

UDOT was subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY21 (but will not be for FY22). To identify HRRR-eligible 

projects, we first look at the roads that qualify for application of the funding. Then, we look for systemic 

improvements such as warning signs, shoulder treatments, barrier/guardrail, and rumble strips that could be 

applied to make the roads safer. It is generally difficult to find crash hot spots on these roads due to the lower 

volumes and crash concentrations so we rely heavily on systemic approaches to finding locations where the 

money can be wisely spent. We are also occasionally able to use projects that are already planned for HSIP 

funding when those projects have been selected through other means and are located on a route that qualifies 

for HRRR funds.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 38

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $27,560,608 $20,100,161 72.93%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$1,513,316 $1,331,318 87.97%

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 $6,123,936 $5,630,882 91.95%

Old HRRR $14,858 $14,858 100%

Totals $35,212,718 $27,077,219 76.9%

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

We still have one local road safety project that is going through the construction closeout phase, but none of 

the funds available for programming or obligation in FY21 were used on new local projects. There was one 

local road project scheduled to be constructed in FY22, but the sponsoring local agency decided to cancel the 

project. Currently there are no local road projects planned for HSIP funding on our 3-year plan.

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

33%

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

43%
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 38

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%

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.

Over the past few years we have made great strides toward getting our HSIP funds obligated by the fiscal year 

end. From FY19 to FY21 we were able to effectively obligate all of our HSIP funds. The main reason we were 

able to reach our goal of full obligation was that we consistently encouraged the four region offices to overprogram, and they delivered enough of the projects to obligate all available funding.

The principal ongoing challenges we face when trying to achieve full obligation are:

• Reprogramming funds that return from closed projects (or from projects where scope changes reduce 

the budget) to other projects where they can be spent.

• Delays in project delivery timelines that prevent projects from advertising in the fiscal year originally 

intended. This became a significant challenge during the last half of FY21 when several projects 

delayed advertisement to FY22 in order to get better bid prices. This was primarily due to a market 

where construction costs skyrocketed and bids came in significantly higher than already-inflated 

engineers estimates.

• Projects that are cancelled for political, practical, or economic reasons.

Over-programming is our primary mitigation tool, which means planning more projects than we have budget 

for. Experience has taught us that there will always be some projects that ultimately get cancelled and others 

that return part of their budget, so the only way to have all of our funds obligated at the end of the year is to 

plan for these occurrences. In the event that we run out of HSIP funds to obligate, we have the option to delay 

advertisement to the following fiscal year or use some state funds as a temporary bridge across the fiscal year 

boundary. These measures were necessary from FY19 to FY21 because we were very aggressive with overprogramming.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

Project delivery is administered through the UDOT region offices. We work closely with our region counterparts 

to make sure safety projects are addressed in a timely manner. After projects are programmed, project 

managers from the applicable UDOT region offices are assigned to each project. These project managers then 

shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 38

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

Region 2 

Queue 

Cutters (PIN 

15276)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Crossing 

approach 

improvements

2 Approaches $300000 $4049948 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther41,500 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

I-15; MP 121-

129, Variable 

Speed Limits 

(PIN 15309)

Speed 

management

Variable speed 

limits

8 Miles $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate22,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Dynamic VMS

BYU Safety 

Modeling 

FY21 (PIN 

16332)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 1 Project $120000 $120000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureNoninfrastructureData Safety 

Modeling

SR-126; MP 

20.53-20.86, 

Intersection 

Improvements 

(PIN 16355)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $1900000 $1900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

I-15; MP 132-

194.14, 

Guardrail & 

Barrier (PIN 

16629)

Roadside Barrier- metal 62 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate18,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-10; MP 0-

12.5, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 17230)

Roadside Roadside grading 12 Miles $1500000 $990000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,200 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Grading

I-80; MP 

139.5-143.25, 

Median Cable 

Barrier (PIN 

17331)

Roadside Barrier – cable 4 Miles $2301000 $2301000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate61,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

I-80; MP 

167.69- 

178.49, 

Upgrade 

Guardrail (PIN 

17332)

Roadside Barrier- metal 11 Miles $4868000 $4868000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate16,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-59; MP 

19.83-20.74, 

Shoulder 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

0.9 Miles $2500000 $2500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 38

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

Widening 

(PIN 17336)

I-80; MP 84, 

VMS Wind 

Warning Sign 

(WB) (PIN 

17611)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1 Signs $300000 $600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate13,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Dynamic VMS

SR-232; MP 

0.3-2.2, 

Lighting 

Improvements 

(PIN 18291)

Lighting Continuous 

roadway lighting

2 Miles $800000 $1031090 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 24,500 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

I-15; MP 

194.14 to MP 

207.00, Cable 

Barrier (PIN 

18298)

Roadside Barrier – cable 13 Miles $3500000 $3500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate21,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

I-15; MP 207-

229, Median 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 18299)

Roadside Barrier – cable 22 Miles $5000000 $5000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate24,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

US-89; MP 

495.70-

495.97, Brake 

Check Area 

(PIN 19002)

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

1 Locations $1200000 $1200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,600 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Brake Check 

Area

US-89; MP 

253.3-254.0, 

Add Turn 

Lanes (PIN 

19286)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

2 Lanes $1000000 $1450000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,100 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection

Improvements
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 38

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 217 220 256 278 281 273 260 248 276

Serious Injuries 1,346 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477 1,453 1,399 1,357 1,544

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.815 0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913 0.866 0.806 0.753 0.914

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.053 4.971 5.092 5.099 4.799 4.611 4.337 4.120 5.114

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

34 36 46 54 44 49 40 48 44

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

192 153 161 155 168 170 173 172 173
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 20 of 38

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 21 of 38

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

30 110.2 0.89 3.26

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

2 3 2.34 3.56

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

30.2 102.6 1.57 5.34

Rural Minor Arterial 15.8 58.6 1.86 6.86

Rural Minor Collector 4.2 19.6 1.63 7.5

Rural Major Collector 18.6 60.8 1.86 6.07

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 22 of 38

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

13.6 71.2 1.12 5.88

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

20.4 148 0.25 1.83

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

3.6 12.2 0.81 2.75

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

67 427.6 1.21 7.72

Urban Minor Arterial 27.6 182.8 1.04 6.89

Urban Minor Collector 3.6 19.2 1.24 6.29

Urban Major Collector 16 117.6 0.85 6.24

Urban Local Road or 

Street

15 114.4 0.39 2.98
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

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

191.6 948.6 0.9 4.46

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

All Other 76 497.6 0.75 4.89

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

The 5-year rolling average for total fatalities increased each year from 2016-2018 but decreased slightly in both 

2019 and 2020. The 5-year rolling average for fatality rate increased slightly from 2016 to 2017 but then 

decreased slightly each year since. The actual number of annual fatalities went down each year from 2016 to 

2019 but saw a significant uptick in 2020 that put the annual number of fatalities back to near 2017 levels. The

fatality rate went down each year from 2015 to 2019, but the 2020 rate rose sharply back to 2016 levels.

Trends for serious injuries have been similar. The 5-year rolling average for serious injuries increased each 

year from 2016-2018, decreased in 2019, and then rebounded to 2018 levels in 2020. The 5-year rolling 

Page 23 of 38
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 38

average for serious injury rate, however, decreased from 2016 to 2019 and stayed almost exactly constant 

from 2019 to 2020. Actual numbers of serious injuries and the serious injury rate decreased significantly from 

2016 to 2019, but both metrics rose in 2020 to levels higher than any other year in the past decade. 

The rise in crashes and crash rates in 2020 is attributable to a spike in crashes coupled with significantly 

reduced traffic volumes, both of which are likely attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be interesting to 

see how crashes and crash rates look in the next few years as Utah and the rest of the US emerge from the 

pandemic.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:263.6

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in Step 1. The 

2018-2022 value for each performance measure is our 2022 target.

Number of Serious Injuries:1455.2

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Suspected Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 to reflect 

the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in 

Step 1. The 2018-2022 value for each performance measure is our 2022 target.

Fatality Rate:0.823

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: Due to COVID conditions in 2020, the annual VMT for 2021 was estimated based off of 

1st quarter 2021 monthly VMT as compared to 2019. This value was held constant for 2022 given the highly 

variable nature of VMT from year-to-year. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in Step 1 

and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were computed 

using the values calculated in Step 1 through Step 3. The 2018-2022 value for each performance measure is 

our 2022 target.

Serious Injury Rate:4.547

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: Due to COVID conditions in 2020, the annual VMT for 2021 was estimated based off of 

1st quarter 2021 monthly VMT as compared to 2019. This value was held constant for 2022 given the highly 

variable nature of VMT from year-to-year. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in Step 1 
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 38

and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were computed 

using the values calculated in Step 1 through Step 3. The 2018-2022 value for each performance measure is 

our 2022 target.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:213.8

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Suspected Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 to reflect 

the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in 

Step 1. The 2018-2022 value for each performance measure is our 2022 target.

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

safety performance targets. 

We held a series of meetings with our MPO and SHSP partners to coordinate and gain consensus on our 

safety performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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 263.5 267.6

Number of Serious Injuries 1415.1 1446.0

Fatality Rate 0.820 0.850

Serious Injury Rate 4.400 4.596

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

210.8 216.2

Despite not meeting our 2020 targets, we did make significant progress. We remain committed to our goal of 

Zero Fatalities. Implementing measures to improve safety through the HSIP is bringing UDOT closer to that 

goal. Overall traffic related fatalities are down 25% since 2000. Despite being the country’s fastest-growing 

state over the past decade, Utah’s fatality rate for 2020 of 0.91 is 33% lower than the national average of 1.37 

fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled*.

We continue to focus on opportunities to reduce fatalities and suspected serious injuries across all 

performance measures. These increases represent unacceptable trends. We continue to monitor each 

performance measure closely, seeking to identify and implement projects that will improve safety. We are also 

working to understand anomalies associated with travel patterns and motorist behavior during the 2020 

timeframe of the COVID-19 pandemic, which have led to increased fatality and serious injury rates.

*Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-duringpandemic
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 38

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes 

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

36 52 50 58 42 51 62

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

123 146 147 138 140 166 144
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 38

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Other-Reduction of severe crashes

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

the State's program level evaluations.

The two measures of effectiveness chosen by UDOT are B/C ratio and reduction of severe crashes. Results 

presented in this report show that UDOT is making progress in both measures. The overall weighted B/C of the 

3-year before/after project results is 8.5. Also, between 2016 and 2019, fatal and serious injury crashes and 

crash rates were generally trending downward. 2020 proved to be a reversal of these trends due to the effects 

of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are hopeful that the previous downward trends in fatalities and serious injuries 

will resume as Utah emerges from the pandemic.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• HSIP Obligations

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)

Roadway Departure 109.2 426 0.35 1.35

Intersection Related 68.4 577.8 0.22 1.84

Pedestrian 39.4 125.2 0.13 0.4

Bicyclist 5.6 46.4 0.02 0.15

Older Driver Involved 56.2 229.2 0.18 0.73

Motorcyclist 41 210.8 0.13 0.67

Work Zone Involved 12.2 61.8 0.04 0.2

Adverse Roadway 

Surface Condition

33.8 207.4 0.11 0.66
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 38

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)

Adverse Weather 22 117.2 0.07 0.37

Aggressive Driving 15.4 71.4 0.05 0.23

Collision with Fixed 

Object

102 446 0.32 1.42

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Involved

37.2 114.4 0.12 0.36

Distracted Driving 19.4 133.8 0.06 0.43

Domestic Animal Related 1.8 3.6 0.01 0.01

Drowsy Driving 10.6 59.4 0.03 0.19

DUI 110 172.6 0.35 0.55

Interstate Highway 51 261.2 0.16 0.83

Night/Dark Condition 98.6 402.6 0.31 1.28

Overturn/Rollover 90 343 0.29 1.09

Railroad Crossing 2 5 0.01 0.02

Roadway Geometry 

Related

107.4 494.2 0.34 1.57

State Route 191.6 948.6 0.61 3.01

Single Vehicle 140 625.8 0.45 1.99

Speed Related 72.2 296.8 0.23 0.94

Teenage Driver Involved 35.4 263.2 0.11 0.83

Train Involved 1.6 5 0.01 0.02

Transit Vehicle Involved 3.6 16.4 0.01 0.05

Urban County 158.4 1,020 0.5 3.24

Wild Animal Related 1 11.4 0 0.04

Improper Restraint 11.4 49.6 0.03 0.16

Rural Non-state 24 108.4 0.08 0.34

Unrestrained 60 135.8 0.19 0.43
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 38

0

50

100

150

200

250

Roadway Departure

Intersection Related

Pedestrian

Bicyclist

Older Driver Involved

Motorcyclist

Work Zone Involved

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Roadway Departure

Intersection Related

Pedestrian

Bicyclist

Older Driver Involved

Motorcyclist

Work Zone Involved

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 38

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Roadway Departure

Intersection Related

Pedestrian

Bicyclist

Older Driver Involved

Motorcyclist

Work Zone Involved

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway Departure

Intersection Related

Pedestrian

Bicyclist

Older Driver Involved

Motorcyclist

Work Zone Involved

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 38

Each year we enter our before/after results for projects that have achieved 3 years of post-construction crash 

history, so there is information available there for specific types of projects. But we have not completed any 

grouped studies of the effectiveness of certain types of countermeasures.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 38

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Ridge Road; 

Rural Road 

Safety 

Improvements 

(PIN 13447)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 1.00 -0.2

SR-71/Ellerby 

Ave Intersection 

Imps (PIN 11391)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

1.00 1.00 2.00 28.43

SR-71/Ft. Union 

Blvd Int. Dual 

Lefts (PIN 11407)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

35.00 9.00 2.00 22.00 4.00 59.00 13.00 13.29

Various Routes; 

No-Pass Pennant 

Signing (PIN 

13492)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control - other

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0

SR-20; MP 0.50-

2.00, Runaway 

Truck Ramp (PIN 

13491)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadside Roadside - other 1.00 1.00 3.32

US-6; Barrier (MP 

192.56-192.82) 

(PIN 11411)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier – 

concrete

2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 -0.19

I-15, I-215, I-80; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

13308)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier – 

concrete

1.00 1.00 5.06

4100 S; 4000 W, 

2700 W & 1300 W 

Signal Imps (PIN 

12225)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

47.00 31.00 2.00 39.00 21.00 86.00 54.00 -2.4

SR-201; MP 2.8-

3.5, Barrier 

Extension (PIN 

14455)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

3.00 1.00 4.00 1.88

SR-201; MP 

11.0-12.6, 

Urban 

Principal 

Roadside Barrier – 

concrete

13.00 8.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 23.00 11.00 36.4
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 38

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Shoulder Barrier 

(PIN 14456)

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

SR-71; MP 9.7-

12.1,Preservation 

& Raised 

Medians (PIN 

13223)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Raised island - 

install new

3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 5.4

SR-36; MP 

59.300-62.900, 

Median Barrier 

(PIN 14458)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier – 

concrete

9.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 15.00 10.00 17.27

Washington 

County Rural 

Roads (PIN 

13448)

Rural Minor 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 2.09

US-191; MP 

256.6-259.4, 

Motorcycle-Safe 

Guardrail (PIN 

13494)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

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

The overall weighted B/C was 8.5 for the projects we reported 3-year before-after crash analysis for this year. This is the second-highest overall B/C that we've reported in the last 5 annual reports. Only 2017 had a higher overall B/C 

(9.4). A B/C ratio of 8.5 demonstrates that UDOT is selecting projects that are helping to reduce serious and fatal injury crashes.

The actual numbers of fatal and serious injury crashes generally decreased between 2016 and 2019 despite strong VMT growth, but they unfortunately rose sharply in 2020. Fatal and serious injury crash rates experienced similar trends 

over the past 5 years, including the increases from 2019 to 2020.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 38

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/10/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2021

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

 2022

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100

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 3.4 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 3.4
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 38

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

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 3.4

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 3.4 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 3.4

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 3.4

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 3.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 3.4

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 38

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

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

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 78.53 100.00 3.40 81.82 100.00 100.00 22.22 100.00 0.00

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

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.

UDOT has now collected all required FDE, however we are still working to merge and organize the data so we are not marking them as complete until data is in a usable and accessible format. For state-maintained roads, FDE are 

collected using our biennial asset inventory and various internally managed business systems. For the non-state Federal-Aid system, data are collected using various internally managed business systems and the usRAP protocol. This 

data has all been collected and is going through the organization process.

Local road FDE data are collected through the ARNOLD system and are completed and available now. For unpaved state roads, data are collected via biennial asset inventory and with internal business systems. For non-state unpaved 

roads, data are collected with the ARNOLD system.
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 38

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

200929_HSIP Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 38

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.