Page 1 of 37

SOUTH DAKOTA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT

Photo Source: 

Photo courtesy of South Dakota Department of Tourism
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 37

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 6

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

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

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................18

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................28

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................29

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................29

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................29

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

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................33
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 37

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.”
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 37

Executive Summary

The South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is administered through the Office of Project 

Development in the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) Central Office. The SDDOT uses 

Road Safety Audits Review (RSAR), Roadway Safety Review (RSR) inspections, Safety Module software 

program, and ArcGIS to identify locations that would benefit from a safety improvement project. RSR 

inspections are developed by utilizing the South Dakota Department of Public Safety's

(SDDPS) crash reporting database, SDDOT's roadway and traffic data, and ArcGIS software to determine high 

crash locations. Both the RSAR process and RSR inspections are available for use on all public roadways in 

South Dakota. HSIP projects are selected for implementation by determining which project will result in the 

greatest safety improvement for the investment. The overall coordination and collaboration efforts for HSIP 

projects involve Regional SDDOT personnel, city representatives, county representatives, township 

representatives, consultant firms, law enforcement representatives, among other agencies. The SDDOT HSIP 

process will be expanded in further detail in the Program Methodology section of this report.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 37

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. 

HSIP is managed by the Highway Safety Engineer within the Planning and Engineering Division. A portion of 

the funds are set aside for a countywide signing project, systemic improvements, and spot locations with 

improvements ranked by benefit/cost.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Central Office using SHSP Emphasis Area Data

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

The SDDOT administers a County wide signing program which conducts approximately four County wide 

signing projects each year. Counties are prioritized by crash rate based on serious injury and fatal crashes per 

million vehicle miles traveled. 

Routes are also identified for improvements by conducting both RSR and RSAR inspections and by an over 

representation of crash clusters and higher than average crash rates. Routes are also identified to deploy 

systemic improvements.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 37

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The SHSP is used along with crash record analysis and mapping to hold meetings with operation and 

maintenance personal to identify locations to apply safety improvements.

During the planning and design process of a project, the HSM and IHSDM software is used to compare options 

to increase safety.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Tribal Agency

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Coordination with the FHWA Division Office takes place throughout the year. HSIP staff take part in an annual 

Tribal Transportation Safety Summit which brings together several tribal agencies, engineering consultants, 

universities, city, county, township representatives. Coordination with the Highway Safety Office also takes 

place throughout the year.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

No

The SDDOT is working to develop an in-house software tool that will evaluate HSIP projects after construction 

to track performance.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Roadway Departure

• Shoulder Improvement

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 37

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Horizontal curvature 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 37

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Traffic 

Volume Other-Intersection Type 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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. 

When ADT is available and intersects with State road.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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

Incremental B/C:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 37

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

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. 

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel

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

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 37

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 37

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:2/2/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 37

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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:4

Available funding:1

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 37

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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:4

Available funding:1

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 37

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:2/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C ratio

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

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 50
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 37

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

ITS technologies such as adaptive signal controls, and intersection conflict warning systems are installed 

within the HSIP program.

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. 

The HSM was used in the development of in-house software which is used to identify locations and 

improvement types for rural 2 lane segments and intersections. The HSM is also used during corridor planning 

studies to compare different design alternatives.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 37

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $44,220,000 $36,777,934 83.17%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$821,000 $727,240 88.58%

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 $45,041,000 $37,505,174 83.27%

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

safety projects?

3%

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

3%

The way projects are reported is based on the amount obligated when the first 292 is submitted for the project. 

If the reporting was for the actually amount of projects let in the reporting period that amount would better 

represent the safety funds distributed to the local system.

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

1%
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 37

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

2%

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$37,191,872

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. 

The way projects are reported is based on the amount obligated when the first 292 is submitted for the project. 

In a lot of cases that amount is not the total project cost so that funding amount is tough to compare to the 

programmed amount. Although a project is only programmed within one study period it could be obligated over 

multiple study periods. A multi-million dollar project could be let within this study period but only a couple 

hundred thousand dollars is obligated during the same study period.

Typical project obstacles such as estimating project costs to be programmed, projects time line slipping due to 

environmental impacts, right-of-way impacts, can all be expected on any type of project.

Ways to overcome these obstacles is to do a better job of estimating projects and when scheduling projects 

allow for the proper time to accomplish environmental and ROW activities.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 37

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

04HC Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Numbers $1200 $1200 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Data Highway 

Safety 

Planning

06AJ Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

0 Numbers $345127.8 $353627.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,163 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signing

04H6 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

4 Miles $449371.11 $453871.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,047 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

06AX Roadside Fencing 3 Locations $8713.27 $9681.42 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Snow Fence

05LT Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 County $980660.46 $980660.46 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Local Road or 

Street

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Signing

06K8 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Numbers $585930.2 $651033.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Data Update SHSP

04HJ Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8.3 Miles $6684919.52 $10143657.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,624 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04XY Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

68.4 Miles $98340.84 $139340.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,099 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Signing

03RQ Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

21.6 Miles $11433517.38 $14149967.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,479 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04J1 Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Numbers $117000 $130000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Data Highway 

Safety 

Planning

04HY Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

0 Numbers $4500 $5000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Road Safety 

Audits

Conduction 

Roadway 

Safety Audits

05W5 Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

2 Miles $972087.65 $973956.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate8,575 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

05K4 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1.8 Miles $2270425.62 $2450925.62 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,809 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Turn Lanes
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 37

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

070G Lighting Continuous 

roadway lighting

0.4 Miles $79573.91 $82073.91 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

4,300 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Roadway 

Lighting

04HW Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

8.2 Miles $471521.26 $476021.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

6,635 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

0727 Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

0.4 Miles $405616.25 $405616.25 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate23,415 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

04Y1 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

95.5 Miles $722330.84 $754330.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,590 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Signing

04XJ Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

1 Miles $3536312.46 $4023280.18 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate1,322 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Realignment

05FF Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

1 Locations $65060.45 $534654.49 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate6,684 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

05W9 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

4.4 Miles $51356.12 $60356.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,328 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Sight 

Distance 

Improvements

060F Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

0.3 Miles $284605.1 $339925.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,683 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Turn Lanes

05W8 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

2.6 Miles $3059690.17 $3300924.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,314 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Turn Lanes

06NE Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

1.6 Miles $1185148.95 $1336832.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

10,774 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

04HX Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

49.3 Miles $404843.98 $420843.98 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,859 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

0751 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

28.9 Miles $687453.57 $689453.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate6,910 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

05G3 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

4.6 Miles $199173.33 $262175.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

2,522 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 37

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

04HU Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

28.3 Miles $765222.57 $775222.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate7,205 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

00YE Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $759960 $3303931.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Turn Lanes

04HV Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

65 Miles $413502.48 $417002.48 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,053 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04HT Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

2.8 Miles $221158.39 $228158.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,340 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

06C6 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

79 Locations $240849.99 $244849.99 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,013 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signal 

Reflective 

Backplates
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 37

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 140 111 133 135 136 134 116 129 130

Serious Injuries 845 760 810 832 738 803 692 649 570

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.580 1.230 1.470 1.480 1.480 1.440 1.230 1.340 1.340

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.540 8.450 8.920 9.130 8.010 8.620 7.310 6.744 5.870

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

11 8 2 9 11 6 6 10 12

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

55 39 37 49 39 35 30 40 36
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 37

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 37

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 37

Describe fatality data source. 

Other

If Other Please describe

FARS & South Dakota Accident Records System

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

12.6 57.2 0.64 3.4

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

37.8 135.8 1.96 7.02

Rural Minor Arterial 16.4 74.2 1.66 7.47

Rural Minor Collector 3.2 17.4 2.18 11.88

Rural Major Collector 26.6 99 2.52 9.37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 37

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

13.8 69.6 3.01 15.19

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

4.2 28.4 0.58 3.91

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

2 48.2 0.4 9.71

Urban Minor Arterial 5.6 69.8 0.57 7.07

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 2 24.6 0.71 8.69

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 37

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

58.4 303 0.94 4.89

County Highway 

Agency

25.6 120 2.01 9.4

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

3.4 29 1.4 11.88

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

8.6 135.4 0.65 10.17

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

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:126.4

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 37

A trend line analysis was performed using FARS data and South Dakota Accident Records System 

data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were 

also considered when establishing this target.

Number of Serious Injuries:667.4

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

A trend line analysis was performed using FARS data and South Dakota Accident Records System 

data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were 

also considered when establishing this target.

Fatality Rate:1.280

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

A trend line analysis was performed using FARS data and South Dakota Accident Records System 

data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were 

also considered when establishing this target.

Serious Injury Rate:6.740

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

A trend line analysis was performed using FARS data and South Dakota Accident Records System 

data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were 

also considered when establishing this target.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:43.0

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

A trend line analysis was performed using FARS data and South Dakota Accident Records System 

data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were 

also considered when establishing this target.

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

safety performance targets. 

A one day work shop was conducted on April 4th, 2017 with SDDOT, SD Office of Highway Safety, FHWA SD 

Division Office, Rapid City MPO, Sioux City MPO, and Sioux Falls MPO representatives in attendance. The 

work shop went through the 5 performance measures in detail and the reporting requirements. There was a lot 

of discussion on current crash trends and external factors such as VMT, laws, and investments. Everyone 

involved agreed that the targets shall be data driven, realistic and attainable.

The OHS also conducts four meetings throughout the year with local law enforcement and EMS 

representatives to garner buy in from all safety stakeholders throughout the state.
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 37

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 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. 

Based on the numbers inputted at reporting time, 3 of the 5 safety targets were met; Fatalities, Serious Injuries, 

and Serious injury rate. I also looked at significant progress made to reach the other 2 goals. Fatality Rate was 

below the base line so that target made significant progress. Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries did 

not make significant progress. Since 4 of the 5 safety targets either were met or made significant progress, this 

requirement was met.

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

14 21 22 14 16 21 26

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

65 59 66 97 63 56 59
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 37

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. 

The goal of the 2014 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is to reduce the fatal and serious injury crash rates by 

15% by the year 2020. The 2018 five year average fatal crash rate per 100MVMT was 7.7% lower and the 

serious injury crash rate was 13.3% lower than the 2010-2014 crash rates. The five year rolling averages are 

showing a trend on the way of meeting the establish goal of the 2014 SHSP.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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

Lane Departure 13 29 0.14 0.31 0.22 0.42

Roadway Departure 56 232 0.59 2.45 0.61 2.82

Intersections 26 154 0.27 1.63 0.22 2.06

Pedestrians 12 26 0.13 0.27 0.09 0.3

Bicyclists 0 10 0 0.11 0.01 0.09

Older Drivers 23 55 0.24 0.58 0.2 0.68

Motorcyclists 16 140 0.17 1.48 0.22 1.71

Work Zones 1 18 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.14
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 37

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 37

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

US14A - 

Intersection 

with US85

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

modify right-turn 

lane offset

1.00 1.00 10.6

Intersection of 

US14 and 

Bushnell Road

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1.00 1.00 2.00 8

Mitchell 

Region

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

49.00 18.00 2.00 18.00 6.00 69.00 24.00 118

Various 

Locations on 

the State 

System in the 

Pierre Region

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

40.00 23.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 26.00 14.00 82.00 44.00 56
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 37

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/08/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2015 To: 2019

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

 2019

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

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Number (8) 1 1

Route/Street Name 

(9)

1 1

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

1 1

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length 

(13)

1 1

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

1 1

Functional Class 

(19)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Median Type (54) 1 1

Access Control (22) 1
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 37

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

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

1 0.9

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

1 1 1 1

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

1 1 1 1

AADT Year (80) 1 1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

1 0.98

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

1 1

AADT Year (80) 1 1

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

1 1

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

1

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

1

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

1

Ramp Length (187) 1
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 37

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

1

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

1

Interchange Type 

(182)

1

Ramp AADT (191) 1

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

1

Functional Class 

(19)

1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

1

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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. 

South Dakota is aggressively collecting the needed data for the MIRE fundamental data elements. South Dakota will continue on this path as only a few data elements remain incomplete on the list.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2020
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 37

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 37

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.