Page 1 of 38

SOUTH DAKOTA

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 38

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 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.......................................................................................................................33

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

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

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................38
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 38

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data.

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

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

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

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

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

surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning 

the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway 

safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall 

not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for 

other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in 

such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 38

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.
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 38

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 38

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

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

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? 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 38

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

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 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 38

• 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

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
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 38

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

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
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 38

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

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 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 38

• 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

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? 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 38

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

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 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 38

• 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

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
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 38

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

 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
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 38

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.
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 38

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $44,681,000 $40,794,229 91.3%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$41,446,000 $44,124,029 106.46%

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 $86,127,000 $84,918,258 98.6%

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

safety projects?

$3,899,000

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

$3,275,203

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

$130,000

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

$121,500

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

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

$30,000,000
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 38

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.
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 38

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

04HG Roadside Barrier- metal 23 Locations $1422680.84 $1578333.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate16,280 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Improvements

04HK Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

11.7 Miles $10495670.24 $15930168.97 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 751 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04K8 Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

5.4 Miles $5198952.69 $8371983.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,680 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04UL Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

7 Miles $7878535.22 $11126655.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,374 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04KT Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

11.7 Miles $9731078.52 $12176894.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther833 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04JY Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

11.1 Miles $10545098.74 $12372287.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,240 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04K0 Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

17.9 Miles $13906247.92 $16147718.39 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 1,629 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04J5 Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

9.4 Miles $17401763.61 $23454078.74 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 2,906 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04JK Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

0 $710113.71 $900188.27 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signing

04JL Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

1.5 Miles $132121.95 $135621.95 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,109 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04KF Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

3.3 Miles $141331.32 $153331.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 38

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

04KG Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

63.4 Miles $171762.51 $174762.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 602 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04KH Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

4.5 Miles $349517.65 $355517.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,884 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04KJ Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

27.7 Miles $180064.53 $184064.53 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate4,464 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04KM Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

10 Numbers $121500 $135000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 250 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Highway 

Safety 

Planning

05HC Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

100 Miles $1236893.03 $1581293.9 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signing

06AY Roadside Fencing 10 Locations $18000 $20000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate4,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Snow Fence

06K2 Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

5 Intersections $2443169.68 $2771632.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,399 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane

06TR Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

9 Curves $1208432.16 $1348702.41 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,337 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

07WU Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

64 Miles $51656.85 $52156.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

07WW Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

105 Miles $1276540.02 $1277040.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

07AM Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

2.2 Miles $101718.45 $104218.45 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

4,591 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Signing
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 38

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

07WT Roadway Rumble strips -

transverse

33 Intersections $195407.79 $219407.79 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,476 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Transverse 

Rumble Strips
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 38

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 133 135 136 134 116 129 130 102 141

Serious Injuries 810 832 738 803 692 649 570 520 547

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.470 1.480 1.480 1.440 1.230 1.340 1.340 1.029 1.427

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.920 9.130 8.010 8.620 7.310 6.744 5.870 5.248 5.535

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

2 9 11 6 6 10 12 8 14

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

37 49 39 35 30 40 36 24 28
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 38

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 38

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 38

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 2020

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

11 63.8 0.52 3.05

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

34.6 116.4 1.77 5.94

Rural Minor Arterial 17.4 67.8 1.69 6.61

Rural Minor Collector 3.4 13.6 2.28 9.13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 38

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Major Collector 24 87.2 2.23 8.08

Rural Local Road or 

Street

12.4 61.2 2.71 13.38

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

4.8 23.4 0.62 3.02

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

4 47 0.81 9.48

Urban Minor Arterial 6.6 60 0.67 6.05

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 2.4 20.4 0.85 7.22

Urban Local Road or 

Street

3 32.8 1.08 11.84
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 2022 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities:123.9 

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

Page 26 of 38 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 38

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. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Number of Serious Injuries:646.2

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. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Fatality Rate:1.210

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. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Serious Injury Rate:6.330

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. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:39.0

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. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

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.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No 

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS 

Number of Fatalities 126.4 123.6 

Number of Serious Injuries 667.4 595.6 

Fatality Rate 1.280 1.273 

Serious Injury Rate 6.740 6.141 

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries 

43.0 41.6 

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

Fatality Rate, Serious Injury Rate, and Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries. 

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No 

Based on the data reported in section 32, the 2014-2018 rate is 2.61 and the 2016-2020 rate is 2.36 so the 

HRRR special rule does not apply. 

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities 

22 14 16 20 23 11 25 

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries 

61 90 62 53 55 44 54 

Page 28 of 38 
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 38

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 2019 SHSP is to reduce traffic fatalities to 100 and serious injuries to 400 by 2024. There were 

141 traffic fatalities and 547 serious injuries in 2020. Although based on the 2020 numbers they are trending 

the in the wrong direction, the 2019 numbers set a record low for fatalities and serious injuries. The measures 

taken with the HSIP program are showing positive results when looking at a 5 year average trend.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• HSIP Obligations

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 15.8 32.8 0.17 0.34

Roadway Departure 52.8 230.8 0.55 2.4

Intersections 23 157.4 0.24 1.64

Pedestrians 10 25.6 0.1 0.26

Bicyclists 0.2 6.2 0 0.06

Older Drivers 19.2 55.4 0.2 0.57

Motorcyclists 19.2 129.2 0.2 1.34

Work Zone 2.2 13.2 0.02 0.14

Horizontal Curves 24.8 105.8 0.26 1.1

Local Safety 46 257.6 0.48 2.68
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

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

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Serious Injuries

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

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 38

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fatality Rate

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

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

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

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 38

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Radar Speed Feedback Signs 

Description: 

RSFS were placed upstream of horizontal 

curves and displayed the drivers speed 

entering the curve and a advisory speed 

plaque was displayed below the driver 

speed. 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 10 

Number of Installations: 10 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 37.5% reduction in RwD crashes and a 

78% reduction in motorcycle crashes. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 38

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Various 

Locations 

Statewide

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

42.00 25.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 16.00 7.00 64.00 37.00 7.4

Various 

Locations 

Statewide

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - 

other

42.00 61.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 22.00 15.00 70.00 82.00 14

Various 

Locations in 

the Aberdeen 

Region

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips –

center

39.00 68.00 4.00 25.00 19.00 68.00 87.00 42
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 38

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/19/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2019 To: 2024

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

 2024

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]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Number (8) 

[8]

1 1

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

1 1

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

1 1

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

1 1 1 1

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

1 1

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

1 1

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1 1 1 1 1 1
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 38

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

1 1

Access Control (22) 

[23]

1 1

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

1 0.95

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

1 1 1 1

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

1 1 1 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 1 1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

1 1

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

1 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 1 1

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

1 1

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

1

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

1
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 38

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

1

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

1

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

1

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

1

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

1

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

1

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

1

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1

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

*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.

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.
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 38

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 38

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

Emphasis area: means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process.

Highway safety improvement project: means strategies, activities and projects on a public road 

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects: are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule: applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

Performance measure: means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to 

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

Roadway Functional Classification: means the process by which streets and highways are 

grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on 

safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

Systematic: refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across 

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

Transfer: means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal 

year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.