Page 1 of 34

IDAHO 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 34

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology .......................................................................................................................7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................10

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................16

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................16

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................23

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................24

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................24

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................24

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................29

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................30

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................33

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................34
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 34

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.”
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 34

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fatal and serious injuries to determine what jurisdiction have priority for HSIP funding.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 34

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation 

and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated 

December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

Highway Safety Plan, and expected outcomes from the project. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Highways

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

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

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

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

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

FHWA using PSS. 

Determine Funding Split (ITD & LHTAC) 

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

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

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

funding split for FY21 and FY22 is 50%. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions 

• Planning 

• Other-Office of Highway Safety 
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 34

I'm going to enter the internal partners here as well because the software does not seem to be retaining some 

of the information for "other":

Districts/Regions 

Transportation Planning 

Office of Highway Safety 

Highway Data 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

Location (HAL) reports on an annual basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

1. How is the project safety-driven? 

· Base Answers upon the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

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

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

Plan? 

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

· Identify counter measures to address those problems; 

· Priortize projects for implementation; and 

· Evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affords to the citizens and businesses of the state of Idaho. 
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 34

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

evaluate the projects to ensure they fit within the scope of the SHSP and then make the final approval. 

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HSIP (no subprograms) 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 34

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-High Accident Location (HAL) List

• Other-HSCA

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

apply for funding.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 1

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

• Other-Highway Safety Corridor Analysis process 
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 34

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Not at this time.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

elaborate.

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

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

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

we have projects on high risk rural roads.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 34

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

ITD follows the state fiscal year, as that is how we program and manage our projects.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $25,668,000 $10,446,757 40.7%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$3,227,000 $3,227,000 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $28,895,000 $13,673,757 47.32%

Right now, trying to review funds outside of HSIP is not feasible. However, we will be working towards finding a 

solution that might be able to provide this in next year's submittal.

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

safety projects?

17%

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

83%

The majority of our local funds are part of the high risk rural roads program.

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

0%

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

0%
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 34

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.

At this time there are no impediments to obligating HSIP funds.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 34

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

US 12; 18th St. to 

Clearwater Rv. 

Bridge

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $3421620 $3421620 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 6 / Sh 9 

Turnbays

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $707056 $707056 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 30, N 400 TO 

PARKE AVE, 

BURLEY

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.55 Miles $775000 $775000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93 / 100 South 

Rd

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95 / Culdesac 

Canyon Passing 

Lane 2

Roadway Roadway - other 7.2 Miles $207810 $207810 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 20, INT SH 47 

IMPROVEMENTS, 

ASHTON

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,300 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 12 - Lochsa 

Ranger Station to 

Holly Creek

Roadway Roadway - other 7 Miles $390000 $390000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther540 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 300 S. Rd, 

Jerome

Roadway Roadway - other 1.1 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, Culdesac 

Canyon Passing 

Lane 3

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2.3 Miles $10800 $10800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, Grangeville 

Truck Bypass

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $118000 $118000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

Signal Head

Visibility 

Improvement, 

Idaho Falls

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersections $274000 $274000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STC-7664, 6TH 

ST PED IMPRV, 

MOSCOW

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 8 Intersections $32529.94 $32529.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,000 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 34

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SH 41, Lancaster 

to Boekel, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

NHS-7220, STATE 

ST LIGHTING; 

16TH TO 23RD, 

ADA County HD

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 0.55 Miles $295054 $295054 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,000 30 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 20, PHYLLIS 

CANAL BR TO 

SH-16

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1.5 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 26, Clark Hill 

Rest Area Turn 

Lanes

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $35000 $35000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 26, Antelope 

Flats Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2.7 Miles $35000 $35000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,900 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

I 90, SH 41 IC Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 0.7 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate60,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 200, McGhee 

to Kootenai St

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.45 Miles $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 10,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 26, 

MORELAND RD 

TO MP 303.5, 

Blackfoot

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1.95 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,700 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 8, 3RD ST 

SAFETY IMPRV

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 0.2 Miles $61000 $61000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 23,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 53, Hauser 

Lake Rd to N 

Bruss Rd

Roadway Roadway - other 2.7 Miles $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 

HOLLISTER NCL 

TO 3250 N, TWIN 

FALLS CO

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or shoulder 7.01 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,700 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-8383, INT 

LONE STAR & 

MIDDLETON RD

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $14277 $14277 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 34

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SH 53, INT N 

Ramsey Rd

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

I 90, Cedars to 

Dudley Rd

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 3.85 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,600 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 2, Moyie 

Springs Turn Bays

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $151600 $151600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,000 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 53, N Latah St 

to MP 9.3, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.91 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 91, 

YELLOWSTONE 

AVE; BRENEMAN 

TO KNUD

Roadway Roadway - other 0.1 Miles $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 75, JCT US 20 

RURAL 

CONFLICT 

WARNING SYST

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 41, DIAGONAL 

RD TURNBAYS, 

RATHDRUM

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 95, 

IRONWOOD TO 

SH53 SIGNAL 

UPGRADES

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 8.5 Miles $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther18,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 53, WA STATE 

LINE TO HAUSER 

LAKE RD,

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1.8 Miles $220000 $220000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 41, FY25 

SELTICE WAY TO 

MULLAN, POST 

FALL

Roadway Roadway - other 0.1 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,500 25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

US 93, 3250 N TO 

3800 N, TWIN 

FALLS CO

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

5 Miles $325000 $325000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SMA-7045, INT 

PRAIRIE AVE & 

IDAHO RD, POST 

FA

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $157000 $157000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,600 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 34

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

SHERMAN AVE & 

LAKESIDE AVE, 

COEUR D'A

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $155000 $155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,600 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

SH 8, 3RD ST 

SAFETY IMPRV 

PH2, MOSCOW

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

4 Intersections $44000 $44000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,500 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area

STP-8463, 

GREENHURST 

RD; 

SUNNYBROOK

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 0.64 Miles $142000 $142000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections SHSP 

Emphasis 

Area
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 34

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 167 184 214 186 216 253 245 234 224

Serious Injuries 1,303 1,298 1,278 1,294 1,360 1,336 1,247 1,250 1,154

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.080 1.160 1.350 1.150 1.300 1.480 1.410 1.320 1.240

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.450 8.190 8.050 8.000 8.120 7.640 8.150 7.060 6.390

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

11 15 18 16 8 24 20 20 18

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

103 106 108 102 90 118 108 121 94
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 34

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 34

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 34

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

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

30 103.8 1.13 3.92

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.8 3 0.19 0.71

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

51.4 182.2 2.42 8.52

Rural Minor Arterial 25 88.4 2.42 8.57

Rural Minor Collector 4.8 17.6 2.18 7.93

Rural Major Collector 33.8 117 2.55 8.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 34

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

32.8 96.8 1.44 4.26

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

11.4 68 0.7 4.21

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0.2 2.2 0.1 1.1

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

23.6 290.2 1.07 13.14

Urban Minor Arterial 12.2 172.8 0.71 10.07

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 4 64.6 0.56 9.08

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4.4 60.2 0.44 6.09
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 34

Year 2019

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

141.8 610.2 1.49 6.42

County Highway 

Agency

0 0 0 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

0 0 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 92.6 656.6 1.21 8.58

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

We have recently changed our LRS and so there may be some slight changes from the previous years due to 

that change.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:247.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 34

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

roadways.

Number of Serious Injuries:1285.0

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

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

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

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

emphasis areas within our SHSP.

Fatality Rate:1.380

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

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

roadways.

Serious Injury Rate:7.210

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

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

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

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

emphasis areas within our SHSP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:120.0

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

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

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

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

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

with Bicycle and Pedestrian being one sub group in that category. The goals are to reduce the 5 year average 

of bicycle involved fatal crashes to 2 bicyclist or fewer and to reduce the five year average of pedestrian 

involved fatal crashes to 10 or fewer pedestrians by 2020. The SHSP does not include a goal value of serious 

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

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

safety performance targets. 

ITD and the MPOs had a meeting in June where the methodology that ITD uses to set the targets was shared. 

The majority of the MPO's do not have access to volume data and therefore cannot determine rates for their 

areas. All five MPO's have indicated that they are going with our targets for this year.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 34

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 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 187.0 234.4

Number of Serious Injuries 1230.0 1269.4

Fatality Rate 1.120 1.350

Serious Injury Rate 7.360 7.472

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

120.0 124.2

We have not met our performance measures that we put in place for 2019. One of the issues is that we had 

multiple years with an increase instead of a decrease. The other issue is that the goal was set using our lowest 

year ever which was significantly lower than our past three years. Now that the low year is no longer part of the 

five year average, that average has jumped up quite a bit. We have redone our goals for 2021 and hope that 

we will be able to meet future goals.

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

24 34 33 45 50 34 46

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

88 110 123 132 126 127 135
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 34

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Idaho has seen a decrease in fatalities the past three years. The 5 year average has not decreased in the past 

few years due to having a really low year part of the earlier values and the highest year in a decade being part 

of the more recent values. The rate is showing a similar trend. Serious injuries have been decreasing over the 

past four years both in numbers and in rates. In the future we are hoping to better evaluate each project on a 

individual basis which will provide a more accurate picture of the HSIP effectiveness. 

LHTAC, our Local Highway Technical Advisory Council, put together a report on the effectiveness of their 

projects over the past few years. It showed a dramatic decrease in fatalities and serious injuries on their 

projects. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

Idaho has begun working on Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) with four counties. There have been a couple 

meetings working on establishing these plans. Our Local Highway Technical Advisory Council and FHWA has 

been very active in helping the locals develop these plans. 

Idaho continues to increase awareness of safety issues. We currently have a seatbelt campaign that utilizes 

pro football player Leighton Vander Esch. Vander Esch is an Idaho native from rural Idaho and is helping bring 

the message to remember to buckle up. The campaign is Rules to LVE by and has multiple commercials that 

have been created with Vander Esch talking about various Idaho activities and always ends with him talking 

about how Idahoans always buckle up. It has been a positive campaign.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Run off 

Road/Head On

193.2 651 1.11 3.75

Intersections Intersections 44.4 485.4 0.25 2.8
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 34

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)

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 0 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 3 39.4 0.02 0.23

Older Drivers All 56.4 279.4 0.32 1.61

Motorcyclists Motorcycle/vehicle 27.8 155 0.16 0.9

Work Zones work zone related 5.6 0.03 0.07

Impaired All 86.8 217.8 0.5 1.26

Distracted All 33.6 186 0.19 1.08

Aggressive All 61.2 317.8 0.35 1.83

Teen Drivers All 29.2 230.4 0.17 1.33

Commercial Commercial 

Vehicle Involved

9.8 36 0.06 0.21

Unrestrained 

Occupants

All 93.2 241.4 0.54 1.39
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 34

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 34

The emphasis areas are from the Idaho SHSP. We do break up the lane departure into Head on and single 

vehicle run off road but I kept them together and included the multi vehicle run off road as well. 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 34

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

We are currently working with University of Idaho to develop a process for evaluating projects by 

countermeasures.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 34

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 34

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/04/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

We have begun the early phases of updating our SHSP. We are discussing changing the way we divide up our focus areas.

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 15 100 60

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 34

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 15

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 15

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 34

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

75

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

75

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

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

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

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. 

ITD is part of the FHWA GIS Governance pooled fund study. Part of this study will help identify data governance, particularly around MIRE FDE data items. Also, the TRCC funded a gap analysis in 2020 that provided an opportunity to 

begin discussions with local agencies and ITD to identify gaps in data needs. Finally, VHB was hired by FHWA to provide a plan to implement the MIRE FDE requirements. That plan was delivered in August 2020.
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 34

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 34

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.