Utah

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: UT
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................2

Program Administration ...........................................................................................................................2

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................5

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................13

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 13

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................40

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................66
iv
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

UDOT continues to have success lowering the numbers and rates of serious and fatal injury 

crashes. The statewide 5-year rolling averages show steady declines from 2008 through 2012. 

The decline of serious and fatal injury crashes holds true for nearly all crash types, roadway 

functional classifications, roadway ownership (State and non-State) categories, and SHSP focus 

areas. Because the declines have been so large, UDOT will have to continually find ways in the 

future to identify targeted construction projects and non-infrastructure programs to sustain the 

downward trend. To that end, UDOT is embarking on several efforts to strengthen its ability to 

identify safety projects on all roads in the state as well as to find and correct systemic 

conditions that correlate with serious and fatal injury crashes.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Local roads are eligible for HSIP funds if projects meet program requirements. However, UDOT 

lacks linear referencing systems and other information about local roads (non-State and nonFederal Aid) that would make it easier to compare relative safety needs on State roads and 

local roads, especially for systemic treatments. UDOT does perform crash analysis on non-State 

Federal Aid routes and accept applications from local agencies for HSIP funding consideration.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Infrastructure Project selection Criteria

The process that UDOT uses to address the emphasis areas outlined in the Utah Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan is divided into the following five sections; Planning, Analysis, Prioritization, 

Programming, and Implementation. 

Planning

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

an annual submittal to the Traffic & Safety Division that identifies their priority projects for HSIP 

funding consideration. The Traffic & Safety Division then screens the crash data, traffic data, 

and input from the region offices. A meeting is then held with each region office to identify 

potential spot safety locations based on the screened data and the region submittals. For the 

second method, the Traffic & Safety Division employs a systemic approach to identify projects. 

This is done by looking at crash and roadway attribute data from a statewide perspective.

Analysis

A three-year crash history is compiled for each candidate location. Crash characteristics are 

analyzed and potential measures to mitigate those characteristics are identified. Benefit-to-cost 

ratios are calculated for each location based on crash history, expected decrease in crashes for 

a potential mitigation measure, and cost of that mitigation measure. The Traffic & Safety 

Division conducts a formal meeting with each region to review potential HSIP project locations. 

Traffic and Safety Division staff, an FHWA representative, and various region staff attend these 
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

review meetings. 

Prioritization

Prioritization is based on the following factors and is conducted by the Traffic & Safety Division:

• Greatest benefit to reduce fatal & serious injury crashes

• Benefit-to-cost ratio

• Timeline to completion

• Coordination with other projects 

Programming

Each project is assigned a specific funding year within a three-year planning horizon and is set 

up in UDOT’s project management system. Because the planning horizon covers a three-year 

period but is re-evaluated annually, it is possible for re-prioritization of funding to occur 

periodically. This may result in modified or new projects with higher priorities taking the place 

of previously programmed projects. The Traffic & Safety Division conducts the programming 

process. 

Implementation

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

assigned to each project. These project managers then shepherd the projects through UDOT's 

standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-SHSP Partners

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-UDOT has adapted to the new processes associated with MAP-21

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

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

Drowsy Driving, Distracted Driving, and Intersection Safety emphasis areas. The other emphasis 

areas (Public Outreach and Education, Use of Safety Restraints, Impaired Driving, Aggressive 

Driving, Teen Driving Safety, Motorcycle Safety, and Speed Management) are addressed 

primarily through non-infrastructure efforts such as education, media, and enforcement 

campaigns. UDOT partners with other state, local, and federal agencies to implement the noninfrastructure components of the UCSP. A "Zero Fatalities" goal (ut.zerofatalities.com) is also 

part of the UCSP.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Reduce Serious 

Injury & Fatal Crashes
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

We do not currently have tools to do network screening on local roads based on the physical 

characteristics of the roadway. However, since 2012 UDOT geospacially locates all crashes on every 

public road.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 20

Available funding 20

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 20

Cost Effectiveness

Time to Completion 20

Coordination with other 

Projects

20

Program: Other-Reduce Serious Injury & Fatal Crashes

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

A project identification report (PIR) process is being used this year to identify and scope projects on nonState federal aid routes. This process consists of contracting with an engineering firm to perform an RSA 

at high-crash locations.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 20

Available funding 20

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 20

Cost Effectiveness

Timeline to completion 20

Coordination with other 

projects

20

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

50

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Other: 

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

Non-Infrastructure Projects

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

efforts. Such projects include:

Educational Campaigns

Zero Fatalities is a mutual effort between various state safety partners to address the top 

behaviors that lead to fatalities on Utah's roads. The program targets behaviors such as drowsy 

driving, distracted driving, aggressive driving, impaired driving, and lack of seatbelt usage.

Integrating Safety Into Planning

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

safety planning into their core processes. UDOT also works with MPOs and other safety 

partners across the state to supply them with needed data and tools so they can better 

integrate safety into their internal planning processes. UDOT continues to partner with the 

MPOs in order to provide them with tools to incorporate safety into their transportation 

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

proactively address safety.

Improving Crash Data Analysis

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

crashes and understand crash characteristics is vital to programming HSIP funds.

University & Consultant Support

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

who assist with various HSIP functions. The functions include items such as program 

management, project management, crash data mapping, statistical analysis, safety modeling, 

report preparation, SPF/CMF development, training, and HSM analysis.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 18409197 63 % 9899971 49 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 218161 1 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

6877810 24 % 6877810 34 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 3836244 13 % 3234179 16 %
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Totals 29123251 100% 20230121 100%

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

$650,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$50,000.00

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

$2,500,000.00

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

$2,500,000.00

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

period?

$6,877,810.00
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period? 

$0.00

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

Our biggest obstacle to obligating HSIP funds this past year was the addition of the Section 164 

penalty transfer funds. We obligated enough money to cover the normal HSIP allocation but did 

not anticipate the extra Section 164 funds when doing program planning. We will work on 

getting those funds obligated for next year so that we don't have so much money left to 

obligate.

Another obstacle this past year was favorable construction bids. Many large HSIP-funded 

projects were awarded at far below their cost estimates, which resulted in millions of dollars 

being returned to the program. UDOT continues to refine its cost estimation practices and 

strive for more accurate bidding.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Project delivery is administered through the UDOT region offices. We are working closely with 

our region counterparts to make sure safety projects are addressed in a timely manner. After 

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

assigned to each project. These project managers then shepherd the projects through UDOT's 

standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

SR-128 Slope 

Stabilization 

& Shoulder 

Improvemen

ts

Roadside 

Barriermetal

1 Miles 935000 935000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

835 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Guardrail

SR-111 

Shoulder 

Improvemen

ts

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

2 Miles 650749 650749 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

7155 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Widen and 

Pave 

Shoulders

FY 2012 

Education & 

Enforcement 

- HSIP Flex$

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

118334

8

118334

8

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver safety 

awareness

Education

US-191; Dry 

Valley to 

Hatch Wash

Roadside 

Barriermetal

11 

Miles

600000 230147

6

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3815 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

Guardrail
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

the road

HSIP Project 

Developmen

t; 2012-2013

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

400000 400000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t systems

Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

Region HSIP 

Project 

Developmen

t; 2012-2013

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

200000 200000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t systems

Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

GIS and 

Safety 

Planning 

Support 

Services -

2013

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

200000 200000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t systems

Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

US-189; 

Provo 

Canyon 

Safety 

Improvemen

Roadside 

Barriermetal

7 

Numbe

rs

195000

0

230000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1272

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

Guardrail
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

ts the road

Rural Roads 

in Tooele 

County

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

1 

Numbe

rs

325000 325000 HRRRP 

(SAFETEALU)

County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Signing

Traffic & 

Safety 

Program 

Mgmt 

Support 

2013

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

102000

0

105000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t systems

Statewide 

Safety 

Planning 

Support

SR-65; 

Guardrail 

and rumble 

strips (MP 

8.44-13.94)

Roadside 

Barriermetal

6 Miles 770000 770000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

400 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Guardrail

SR-134, SR126, US-89; 

Turn Lanes 

and Chip 

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

19 

Miles

600000 207462

7

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

9870 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Ensuring 

safer bicycle 

travel

Widen and 

Pave 

Shoulders
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Seal other

SR-36; 

Safety and 

Signal 

Improvemen

ts

Roadside 

Barrier -

concrete

11 

Miles

220000

0

237000

0

Penalty 

Transfer –

Section 164 

($1,277,25

0); HSIP 

($922,750)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

1843

5

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and acrossmedian 

crashes

Concrete 

Barrier

I-80; Cable 

Barrier 

(MP.8-49 

Various 

Locations)

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

19 

Numbe

rs

500000

0

505000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

7320 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and acrossmedian 

crashes

Cable 

Barrier

SR-201/SR202 

Intersection 

Realignment 

and Signal

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Systemic 

improvemen

ts - signalcontrolled

1 

Numbe

rs

350000

0

350000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

1800

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

the design 

and 

operation of 

highway 

intersection

s

Intersectio

n 

Signalizati

on

I-15; Median 

Cable 

Barrier and 

Other 

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

25 

Miles

540000

0

540000

0

Penalty 

Transfer –

Section 164 

($3.6 

million); 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2550

0

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and acrossmedian 

Cable 

Barrier
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Barrier HSIP ($1.8 

million)

crashes

US-6; 

Guardrail & 

Rumble 

Strips (MP 

202.7-210.7)

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

8 Miles 531691 531691 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7100 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Rumble 

Strips

I-215; 

Barrier 

Upgrades at 

C514, F125, 

F126

Roadside 

Barrier -

concrete

3 

Numbe

rs

800000 120000

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2499

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Concrete 

Barrier

US-191; 

Center 

Rumble 

Strips (MP 

259-268)

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

center

9 Miles 325000 325000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

540 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and acrossmedian 

crashes

Rumble 

Strips

SR-132; 

Grdrl & 

Shldr Imps 

(MP 34.77-

39.12)

Roadside 

Barriermetal

4 Miles 500000 500000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3410 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Guardrail

SR-68; 

Center 

Rumble 

Strips (MP 

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

8 Miles 500000 500000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1130 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

head-on 

and acrossmedian 

Rumble 

Strips
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

16.9-25.35) center crashes

Safety 

Campaigns, 

Education, &

Enforcement 

FFY2013

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

250000

0

251000

0

Penalty 

Transfer –

Section 164

State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver safety 

awareness

Education

Asset 

Collection 

QC/QA

Noninfrastructur

e 

1 

Numbe

rs

60000 60000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t systems

Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 288 278 272 263 247

Number of serious injuries 2625 2129 1604 1407 1328

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.12 1.07 1.03 1 0.93

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 10.21 8.18 6.09 5.34 5.03

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

23
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2012

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

33 110 1.04 3.52

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

30 71 1.86 4.33

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

20 65 2.28 7.24

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

3 13 1.11 5.53

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

21 60 2.32 6.76

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 1 0.02 0.07

URBAN PRINCIPAL 30 122 0.5 2.01
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

2 7 0.74 2.48

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

33 242 1.08 7.89

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

35 292 0.98 8.23

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

2 18 0.04 0.45

OTHER 0 0 0 0

URBAN COLLECTOR 12 101 0.84 6.89

UNKNOWN 25 226 0 0

UNKNOWN 25 226 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Year - 2012

Roadway Ownership Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

185 830 1.06 4.76

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

ALL OTHER 62 498 0.7 5.67

ALL OTHER 62 498 0.7 5.67
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Several assumptions were made to calculate these totals.

1) Crashes by functional class is not available prior to 2006. Thus, the 2008 rolling average is for only 3 years and 2009 is for only 4 

years. Everything from 2010 onward is a true 5-year rolling average.

2) HMVMT information broken down by functional class and ownership is not yet available from UDOT for 2012. As a result, we 

made the assumption that 2012 HMVMT levels were equal to 2011 values.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

Overall, serious injury and fatality rates continue to decline in Utah. Serious injury rates have 

been reduced on a statewide basis by approximately 50% (on a rolling 5-year basis) from 2008 

to 2012. Fatality rates have been reduced by approximately 15%. 

When broken down by functional class, all classifications have experienced steady declines in 

serious injury rates. All urban functional classifications have seen a steady decline in fatal injury 

rates (except for urban local streets, which has remained constant but makes up a miniscule 

part of the crash totals). However, several rural functional classifications have experienced 

consistent or rising fatal injury rates. Fatality rates for rural minor arterials, rural major 

collectors, and rural local streets (which comprise a very small part of the total fatalities) have 

all grown over the past five years. It should be noted that decreases in urban fatality rates far 

offset the small increases that have occurred on these rural road classifications so that overall 

fatality rates across the state have decreased significantly.

When broken down by State system roads and non-State system roads, both categories show 

steady decreases (approximately 50% for fatal injury rates and 15% for serious injury rates) in 

crash rates.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0.47 0.48 0.47 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 2.67 2.1 1.86 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 3.15 2.57 2.33 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

We followed the method outlined on FHWA's Older Drivers and Pedestrians Special Rule 

website. Rolling 5-year averages were calculated separately for both the older driver 

fatal/serious injury crashes and the 65+ age group per thousand of people in the state. The 

rolling crash average was divided by the rolling age group average and that yielded the older 
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

driver crash rate per thousand population. Only rates for 2009, 2010, and 2011 are provided. 

This is because the age group information provided on FHWA's website begins in 2005 and ends 

in 2011, thereby making it impossible to calculate rolling averages for 2008 and 2012 based on 

the data provided.

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Reduction in serious and fatal injury crashes
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Utilization of HSM methods for network screening and also corridor analysis

Other: Other-development of better analytical/modeling tools to help identify both systemic crash 

trends and site-specific issues

Other: Other-Intensive data collection effort to obtain roadway assets that aid in systemic analysis
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

1) UDOT has continued to work with BYU to develop a statewide crash model capable of 

identifying systemic trends as well as locations where certain crash types are over-represented.

2) All crash data is now geospatially located - even crashes that are not on the State system.

3) UDOT began implementing HSM methods to perform network screening as well as evaluate 

alternatives for safety improvements in specific corridors.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

Teen Driver 36 234 0.14 0.89 0 0 0

Sustaining 

proficiency in older 

drivers

Older Driver 41 170 0.16 0.65 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

Aggressive Driver 12 53 0.05 0.2 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

DUI 44 165 0.17 0.63 0 0 0

Keeping drivers alert Drowsy Driver 14 58 0.06 0.22 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

Improper 

Restraint

92 273 0.35 1.04 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

Vehicle/pedestrian 29 114 0 0.43 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

Vehicle/bicycle 5 59 0.02 0.22 0 0 0

Improving 

motorcycle safety 

and increasing 

motorcycle 

awareness

Motorcycle 

Involved

30 199 0.11 0.76 0 0 0

Making truck travel 

safer

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Involved

34 101 0.13 0.39 0 0 0

Reducing vehicletrain crashes

Train Involved 1 3 0.01 0.01 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

Roadway 

Departure

117 416 0.44 1.59 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway 

intersections

Intersection 

Related

52 489 0.2 1.86 0 0 0

Designing safer work 

zones

Work Zone 

Related

12 57 0.05 0.22 0 0 0

Distracted Driving Distracted Driver 19 131 0.07 0.5 0 0 0

Speed Related Speed-related 63 259 0.24 0.99 0 0 0

Transit Related Transit Vehicle 6 16 0.02 0.06 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Involved

Rural Non-State 

Roads

Rural non-State 

roads

18 108 0.07 0.41 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

2012 values for HMVMT were assumed to be the same as the 2011 values because UDOT does not currently have 2012 HMVMT 

information available.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Groups of similar project types
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Reduce 

Serious Injury & 

Fatal Crashes

All 247 1328 0.94 5.06 0 0 0

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

Roadway 

Departure

117 416 0.44 1.59 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Most of our low-cost spot improvements have been rumble strips and median barrier, both of which target run-off-road crashes. For 

this reason, we estimated the impact of that program by using the "Roadway Departure" crash totals.

The only other real sub-program that UDOT does is "reducing fatal and serious injury crashes" and we used the overall crash totals 

to estimate that.

For both categories, 2012 HMVMT was assumed to be the same as 2011 values since UDOT does not yet have official 2012 HMVMT 

data available.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Systemic Treatments
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barriers, 

Rumble Strips, 

Guardrails

Roadway 

Departure

117 416 0.44 1.59 0 0 0
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Most of our systemic safety improvements have been geared toward mitigating run-off-road crashes, so we used the "Roadway 

Departure" crash type to estimate our impact on systemic crash types.
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

As has been demonstrated in the other questions, Utah continues to experience a downward 

trend in overall serious and fatal injury crashes. Also, nearly all individual crash categories 

(whether broken down by crash type, road ownership, SHSP emphasis area, etc) have 

experienced declines. As fatalities continue to be reduced it will become more difficult to find 

projects that have a large impact on improving safety. UDOT will need to be vigilant about 

continuing to identify ways to further reduce serious and fatal injury crashes
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

US-89 at SR14; Long 

Valley 

Junction

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

improvements 

and extension 

of passing lane

1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2.36

I-15; Willard 

Area & 

Commuter 

Rail Cable 

Project

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Shoulder 

treatments

Median Cable 

Barrier

4 4 24 29 61 2 2 23 120 147 7.16

US-89; Kane 

County 

Intersections 

at MP 57 & 

58

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Add Turn Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2.64

US-40; 

Strawberry 

to Vernal

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder and 

centerline 

rumble strips

15 19 47 67 148 4 12 61 85 162 156.57
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Other

Install 

Median 

Barrier 

Along I-80 

and SR-201

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate 

and Other 

Freeways

Shoulder 

treatments

Median Barrier 3 17 65 85 170 4 3 42 178 227 16.4

SR-190 Big 

Cottonwood 

Canyon

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Shoulder 

treatments

Guardrail and 

shoulder 

improvements

0 8 30 84 122 1 1 17 46 65 33.25

I-70 MP 6 to 

8; Median 

Barrier

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Shoulder 

treatments

Median Barrier 0 1 4 6 11 0 0 1 5 6 7.15
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2013 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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. 

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.