Page 1 of 51

UTAH
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 51

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9

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

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 19

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 21

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 21

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 34

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 36

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 39

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 46
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 51

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 51

Executive Summary 

The State of Utah has experienced an increase in traffic fatalities each of the past four years. Serious injuries, 

however, were lower in 2016 than in 2015. We are hopeful that our efforts to prioritize safety projects that have 

the greatest potential to reduce severe crashes will result in a resumption of past long-term downward trends in 

both fatalities and serious injuries. We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the 

projects most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

The FAST Act approved by Congress two 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.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 51

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. 
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 51

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The Traffic & Safety Division is located within the Operations group. Additionally, each region office has staff 

designated to work on traffic and safety issues specifically within their geographical boundaries. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The total amount of available HSIP funding is prorated to the region offices on the basis of the share of severe 

crashes occurring within their respective geographic boundaries.

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 mean time 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 and 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 have also begun the process of applying the 

usRAP safety protocol to select non-State Federal Aid and local routes. We completed the protocol in Cache 

County during this reporting cycle and are currently working to apply it in Utah, Summit, and Wasatch 

Counties. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 51

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

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. 

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Planning

UDOT uses two methods to plan HSIP projects. For the first method, each UDOT region sends an annual 

submittal to the Traffic & Safety Division that identifies their priority projects for HSIP funding consideration. 

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

meeting is then held with each region office to identify safety projects based on the screened data and the region 

submittals. Although the annual submittal is the primary mechanism by which the regions request HSIP 

funding, the regions may request other projects mid-year and the same process is conducted to analyze, 

prioritize, program, and implement them. 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.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-SHSP Partners

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 51

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. 

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.

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. During this past year we worked with the Cache MPO to implement 

the model on the non-State federal aid system there. This effort was very well-received and we are hopeful that 

good infrastructure projects will ultimately flow from it. Currently we are working with Mountainland MPO to 

implement the usRAP model on non-State federal aid roads in Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties. 

SHSP Partners

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

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 51

Yes

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.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal Injuries

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/7/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 51

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

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?

No

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

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their respective 

region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP model to federal aid routes in counties across the 

state. In addition, we conduct hot spot analysis on all public roads statewide to identify other opportunities on 

local roads.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-usRAP model outputs 

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

Ranking based on B/C : 20 

Available funding : 20 
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 51 

Ranking based on net benefit : 20 

Other-Time to Completion : 20

Other-Coordination with other Projects : 20 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal 

Injuries 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/5/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

Other-usRAP model 

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?
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 51

No

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

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their respective 

region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP systemic model to federal aid routes in counties 

across the state.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-usRAP model outputs 

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

Ranking based on B/C : 20 

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 20 

Other-Timeline to completion : 20

Other-Coordination with other projects : 20 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 20 

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Other-Structure Protection on Interstate Freeways

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 51

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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. 

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.

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

3. Systemic projects are evaluated using SPFs within the usRAP model.

4. Methods in Chapter 4 are used to prioritize potential locations of systemic treatments such as rumble 

strips.

5. Utah generated (and continues to maintain) a list of standard accepted mitigation measures from 

Chapters 5 and 6 and information from the CMF Clearinghouse. 

6. 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.

7. All projects are prioritized based on the estimated number of severe crashes reduced and by highest 

benefit cost ratio.

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

Brigham Young University. 
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 51

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

Our HSIP Manual has been updated to reflect the latest transportation bill and federal rulemaking.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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. UDOT continues to partner with the MPOs in order to provide them with tools to 

incorporate safety into their transportation planning efforts. 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
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 51

UDOT was subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY17 (and will also be for FY18). 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.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 51

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $24,057,912 $23,243,132 96.61%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,331,318 $1,331,318 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $31,162 $31,162 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $3,798,331 $3,798,331 100%

Totals $29,218,723 $28,403,943 97.21%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

$1,929,851 

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

$1,917,562 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 51

$5,438,287 

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

$5,438,287 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Over the past two years we have made great strides toward getting our HSIP funds obligated by the fiscal year end. This 

year we have a much lower balance of unobligated funds left over than we ever have in the past. The principal 

remaining challenges we face 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.

There are several methods we are using to combat these challenges. The first is overprogramming, which means that we 

have started planning for 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 (which has not happened to date), 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. 

This year's relatively low unobligated balance is evidence that these methods have been working. We will continually 

strive to get the balance as close to zero as possible.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 51

Yes

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 are working 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.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 51

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

PIN 12217 (T&S 

Pgm Mgmt 

Support)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $2200000 $2200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

n/a 0 0 n/a Other n/a n/a

PIN 12640 (I-215 

Structure 

Protection)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1 Locations $78000 $78000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

74,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 13385 (US-40 

Passing Ln & Ctr 

Turn Ln)

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

2.2 Miles $1986460 $2000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

8,085 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Passing Lane

PIN 13394 (US-40 

Passing Lane)

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

3.9 Miles $2486460 $2500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

5,740 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Passing Lane

PIN 13486 (I-15 & 

I-84 Structure 

Protection)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 161 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14210 (SR167 Motorcycle 

Safe Guardrail)

Roadside Barrier- metal 8.7 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14426 (Var 

Rtes: No-Pass 

Pennant Signing)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

300 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure No-Pass Zone 

Signs

PIN 14427 (SR-56 

Int Imps)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn lane

1 Miles $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,435 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lanes

PIN 14443 (I-70 

Median Cable 

Barrier)

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.8 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

3,700 75 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14444 (SR-12 

Barrier & Signage)

Roadside Barrier- metal 125 Miles $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

660 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14446 (I-15 

Shoulder Imps)

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 1 Miles $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

14,330 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Slope flattening

PIN 14448 (Var 

Rtes: Rumble 

Strips)

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

222 Miles $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

PIN 14458 (SR-36 

Median Barrier)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 3.6 Miles $1404435 $1404435 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

20,820 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14459 (Var 

Rtes: Structure 

Protection)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 6 Locations $2600000 $2600000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14466 

(UTRAC Research 

Studies)

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

1 Numbers $140000 $140000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

n/a 0 0 n/a Other n/a Research
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 51

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

PIN 14468 (Crash 

Database Dev)

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $225000 $225000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

n/a 0 0 n/a Other Data Database 

development

PIN 14643 

(Automate VSL 

Decision System)

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

1 Numbers $50000 $150000 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 n/a Other Lane Departure Speed Related

PIN 15157 (US91/SR-252 Int 

Imps)

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic 

improvements - 

signal-controlled

1 Intersections $2350000 $2375000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

22,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections New traffic signal

PIN 15231 (Var 

Rtes: TX 

Turndown & Grdrl 

Repl)

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.62 Miles $730222 $803222 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 15280 (I-84 

Median Cable 

Barrier)

Roadside Barrier - cable 40 Miles $1500000 $1500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

9,160 80 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 15372 

(Interchange 

Ramp MP Signs)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

6 Ramps $860000 $860000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

freeway ramps 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Ramp milepost 

signing

PIN 15450 (Pvmt 

Data Collection)

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

7200 Miles $400000 $2400000 State and Local 

Funds

n/a 0 0 n/a Other Data Data collection

PIN 15531 (SR-30 

Rumble Strips)

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

15 Miles $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

365 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

PIN 15598 

(Arterial Safety 

Concepts)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $201961 $201961 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 n/a Other Intersections Study

PIN 15690 

(Freeway Speed & 

Safety Analysis)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $120000 $120000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Study

PIN 15809 (UDOT 

Speed Data 

Calibration)

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $45000 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data Data calibration

PIN 15810 (I-15 

Shldr Mod Sfty 

Analysis)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Traffic modeling

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 51

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 276 244 253 243 217 220 256 278 281

Serious Injuries 1,528 1,333 1,250 1,182 1,346 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.066 0.931 0.951 0.921 0.815 0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.903 5.084 4.696 4.481 5.053 4.979 5.092 5.099 4.799

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

38 25 35 37 34 36 46 54 44

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

180 144 174 171 192 156 161 155 168
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 51

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 51

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We ensure that the State database matches FARS.

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

Year 2016

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 -

Interstate

34.6 121.6 1.14 4.01

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0.8 4.2 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

28 77.8 1.6 4.46

Rural Minor Arterial 13.8 59.2 1.91 8.17

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 51

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 Collector 4.4 11 2.03 5.03

Rural Major Collector 13.2 53.4 1.48 6.07

Rural Local Road or Street 12.4 70.6 1.13 6.34

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

25.6 131 0.36 1.83

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

3.2 11.2 0.93 3.45

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

58.2 435.6 1.18 8.87

Urban Minor Arterial 23.4 191 0.98 8.02

Urban Minor Collector 0.8 5.6 0 0

Urban Major Collector 14.2 105.6 0 0

Urban Local Road or Street 18.6 136 0.47 3.49

Urban Collector 14.2 111.2 0.81 6.33
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 51

Year 2016

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 178.8 919.6 0.94 4.86

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of 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 71.6 494.6 0.76 5.29
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 51

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 51

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 51

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway Agency All Other All Other

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 51

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

State Highway Agency All Other All Other

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 51

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency All Other All Other

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

There are some functional classifications (e.g. urban minor and major collectors) for which 5-year rolling 

averages cannot be calculated because UDOT did not collect HMVMT data for all of the necessary 

classifications. We lumped the urban collectors into a single category for reason. We do now collect all 

functional classification HMVMT data so in a few years we'll have complete data that will enable us to report 

on all classifications.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 271.0 

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 2017 and 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

State Highway Agency All Other All Other

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 51

2018 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2014-2018 value for each 

performance measure is our 2018 target. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1445.0 

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 2017 and 

2018 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2014-2018 value for each 

performance measure is our 2018 target. 

Fatality Rate 0.910 

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 2017 and 

2018 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable 

from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2016 estimate for 2017 and 2018. Step 

3: Rates were estimated using the figures calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 above and 

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

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 thru Step 3 above. The 2014-2018 

value for each performance measure is our 2018 target. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.870 

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 2017 and 

2018 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable 

from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2016 estimate for 2017 and 2018. Step 

3: Rates were estimated using the figures calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 above and 

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

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 thru Step 3 above. The 2014-2018 

value for each performance measure is our 2018 target. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 208.0 

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 2017 and 

2018 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2014-2018 value for each 

performance measure is our 2018 target. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 51

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 SHSO partners to coordinate and gain consensus on our safety 

performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The HRRR special rule applies to us for FY17. We assume that it will most likely also apply to us in FY18. We 

were able to obligate all of the special rule funds in FY17 and have projects lined up to also obligate the FY18 

special rule funds if we end up being subject to the rule next year. 

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

27 41 28 17 38 32 45

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

73 78 71 78 90 91 120
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 51

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Other-Reduction of severe crashes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

We have two primary measures of effectiveness for the HSIP. The first is benefit-cost ratio for infrastructure 

projects. The second is reduction of severe crashes.

Benefit-Cost Ratio

In this year's report, we submitted before/after crash data for 11 projects that finished construction during the 

2013 calendar year. We compared three years of crash data prior to each project with three years afterward. The 

majority of projects exhibited positive B/C ratios and when aggregated, the combined B/C ratio statewide was 

9.43. This statistic shows that Utah is doing an overall good job of identifying project locations and mitigation 

measures that are helping to prevent fatalities and injuries.

Reduction of Severe Crashes

2016 was the fourth consecutive year in which fatalities rose relative to the previous year (281 compared to 278 

in 2015). However, serious injuries dropped from 1499 in 2015 to 1477 in 2016. This means that overall severe 

crashes decreased by 19 from 2015 to 2016. 5-year rolling averages for both fatalities and serious injuries have 

risen slightly each year for the past three years. The fatal and serious injury rates both decreased slightly for 

2016 relative to 2015. The rolling 5-year average for fatality rate has held constant for the past 4 years, while 

the 5-year average for serious injuries has been rising slightly each year since 2013.

The severe crash trends show that we still have work to do to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. We are 

experiencing significant increases in vehicle-miles traveled each year and that is part of our challenge since 

exposure is a large factor in crash risk. However, we remain committed to finding ways to apply our HSIP 

resources to the best locations where improvements give us the best chance of reducing fatal and serious injury 

crashes.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

HSIP Obligations
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure 103 396 0.36 1.4

Intersections 57 551 0.2 1.95

Pedestrians 37 109 0.13 0.39

Bicyclists 6 58 0.02 0.2

Older Drivers 48 213 0.17 0.75

Motorcyclists 37 208 0.13 0.74

Work Zones 15 58 0.05 0.2

Adverse Weather 18 122 0.06 0.43

Aggressive Driving 13 55 0.05 0.19

Collision with Fixed Object 59 277 0.21 0.98

Commercial Motor Vehicle 27 95 0.1 0.34

Distracted Driving 22 150 0.08 0.53

Domestic Animal Related 1 6 0 0.02

Drowsy Driving 13 58 0.05 0.21

DUI 63 164 0.22 0.58

Interstate Highway 60 253 0.21 0.89
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 51

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)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Night/Dark Condition 92 393 0.33 1.39

Overturn/Rollover 87 344 0.31 1.22

Railroad Crossing 2 4 0.01 0.01

Roadway Geometry Related 103 482 0.36 1.7

State Route 179 920 0.63 3.25

Single Vehicle 136 625 0.48 2.21

Speed Related 55 239 0.19 0.84

Teenage Driver Involved 33 238 0.12 0.84

Train Involved 2 3 0.01 0.01

Transit Vehicle Involved 4 13 0.01 0.05

Urban County 148 1,013 0.53 3.58

Wild Animal Related 1 16 0.01 0.06

Improper Restraint 23 78 0.08 0.28

Rural Non-State 20 107 0.07 0.38

Unrestrained 51 130 0.18 0.46
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

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 Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

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 Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 51

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

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 Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

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 Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 51 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 51

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

I-80 EB Curve 

Warning Signs at 

I-15 Transition 

(PIN 10559)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 -14.57

SR-17 

Improvements at 

Curve (PIN 10566)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier - concrete 0

SR-126 Turn 

Lanes at 700 

South (PIN 10551)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn lane

4.00 4.00 8.00 8.12

Region 4 Rumble 

Strips - Phase II 

(PIN 10567)

Various Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

118.00 101.00 4.00 3.00 17.00 12.00 93.00 82.00 232.00 198.00 23.46

US-89 Guardrail 

and Barrier MP 73 

to 82 (PIN 9606)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadside Barrier - concrete 0

SR-111 Shoulder 

Improvements 

(PIN 10560)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Shoulder 

treatments

4.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 2.00 12.00 3.00 16.89

SR-266, SR-152, 

US-40 Median 

Cable Barrier (PIN 

9612)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadside Barrier - cable 40.00 64.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 11.00 14.00 55.00 82.00 -0.77

SR-134, SR-126, 

US-89; Turn 

Lanes and Chip 

Seal (PIN 11359)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn lane

12.00 19.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 19.00 28.00 6.06

US-6; Guardrail & 

Rumble Strips 

(MP 202.7-210.7) 

(PIN 11376)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

14.00 13.00 3.00 1.00 9.00 3.00 26.00 17.00 35.28

SR-65; Guardrail 

and rumble strips 

(MP 8.44-13.94) 

(PIN 11356)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 -0.34

I-80; Cable Barrier 

(MP 0.8-49 

Various Locations) 

(PIN 11364)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 17.00 33.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 5.00 16.00 12.00 44.00 53.00 9.09

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

When combined, these projects yield a statewide average B/C ratio of 9.43. 
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 51

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?

No
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 51

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?

 2021 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 0 100 0

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 3.4 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 0 100 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 0 100 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 0

Median Type (54) 100 3.4
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 51

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 3.4

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 3.4 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 0

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 0 100 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 3.4

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 3.4

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 3.4

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 3.4

AADT Year (80) 100 3.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 3.4

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 51

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 78.53 87.50 3.40 63.64 100.00 100.00 22.22 100.00 0.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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 intends to use a variety of resources to collect the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements by the prescribed date. The following is a general summary of resources that will be used for each data group and the status of that resource.

State-Maintained Roads: FDE for these roads will be 100% complete by the end of 2018. These data are collected using our biennial asset inventory and various internally managed business systems.

Non-State Federal-Aid System: These data are collected using various internally managed business systems and the usRAP protocol. Of Utah's 29 counties one has been collected and two more are underway. We plan to collect about 4 per year with an 

estimated completion year of 2024.

Local Roads: Local road data will be collected through an ARNOLD system being developed through a statewide partnership. This will be completed and data collection will begin December 2018.

Unpaved Roads: State-owned unpaved road data is collected via biennial asset inventory and with internal business systems. Non-state paved roads will be collected with the ARNOLD system.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The State of Utah will update its crash reporting data dictionary to become compliant.

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 51

Utah's crash reporting resources to officers include references to ANSI D16.1-2007 and MMUCC 4th Edition. 

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

The purpose of this assessment was to determine whether scope change occurred after we initially developed projects. The FHWA Utah Safety Engineer requested data on 12 projects and the assessment was based on those. One project on 

SR-24 in Region 4 started out as a shoulder treatment scope and signing and guardrail were added to it. On a local government project in West Valley City (intersection of 2700 W/4100 S) scope was added during the project in order to 

widen the downstream side of the intersection to accommodate a future project. Scope changes on both of those projects were acceptable to FHWA. Another finding was that a project on US-6 in Spanish Fork Canyon was funded even 

though the calculated B/C ratio was only 0.39. However, this project was done with the blessing of the FHWA Utah Safety Engineer because previous efforts hadn't fixed the problem there and that was the safety mitigation measured 

deemed most likely to help.

In addition to the safety scope review, the FHWA financial manager looked at the project from a financial standpoint and found no significant issues. The assessment was deemed by FHWA to be a success.
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 51

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 51

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 non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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.