Page 1 of 45 

IDAHO

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 45

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 11

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 13

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 17

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 17

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 30

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 32

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 34

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 34

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 40
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 45

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.” 
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 45

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fatal and serious injuries to determine what jurisdiction have priority for HSIP funding.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 45

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

Highway Safety Plan, and expected outcomes from the project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Highways 

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

The majority of the people who work with the HSIP are in the Division of Engineering Services (DES), 

Transportation Planning which is under Highways. There is one person who is part of the Division of Products 

and Plans (DEPP), Office of Highway Safety, which is also under Highways.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

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

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

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

FHWA using PSS.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 45

Determine Funding Split (ITD & LHTAC)

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

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

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

for FY21 and FY22 is 50%. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Districts/Regions

Other-Office of Highway Safety

Other-Transportation Planning 

Other-Transportation Systems 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

Location (HAL) reports on an annual basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

1. How is the project safety-driven?

· Base Answers upon the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

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

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

Plan?

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

· Identify counter measures to address those problems;

· Priortize projects for implementation; and

· Evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness

3. How does the project eliminate death and serious injury?
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affords to the citizens and businesses of the state of Idaho.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 45

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

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

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-High Accident Location (HAL) List

Other-HSCA

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

Yes
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 45

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

No

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

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

funding. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

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

Functional classification is used in our methodology to ensure that we are programming projects that fall into 

the high risk rural roads rule.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 1 

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

apply.

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

The systemic improvements included here are from the systemic improvements obligated using HSIP funds for 

the reporting period.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 45

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

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

Other-Highway Safety Corridor Analysis process 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

This may be addressed in the long range transportation plan when it is released next year.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

Both documents are attached.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

we have projects on high risk rural roads.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 45

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $29,509,000 $23,441,560 79.44%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

Rule (23 U.S.C. $0 $0 0%

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 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $29,509,000 $23,441,560 79.44%

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

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

12% 

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

8% 

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

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

0% 

How much funding is obligated to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 45

0% 

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

Two road safety audits were performed by the Local Highway Technical Advisory Council for approximately 

$74,000 total.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

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

At this time there are no impediments to obligating HSIP funds.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

No
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 45

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

US 12 - 18th St. to 

Clearwater RV 

Bridge, Lewiston

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Locations $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

24,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US-30 - E 4000 

North Rd., Twin 

Falls Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

2 Intersections $758645 $758645 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,100 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

LHTAC PreProject PlanningNon-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

Planning $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 LHTAC N/A Planning

US 93 - 200 South 

Rd, Jerome Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Locations $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

8,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US-20 Int 

Farmway Rd, 

Canyon Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add right-turn lane

1 Intersections $370366 $370366 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 16 - Int 

Beacon Light Rd.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $764992 $764992 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

8,900 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95 - Elmira Rd 

Turnbay, Bonner 

Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $478371 $478371 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

6,600 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 6 - N S SH 9 

Turnbays, Latah 

Co

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $210000 $210000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95 - Windfall 

Pass Curve, 

Benewah Co.

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0.5 Miles $3523206 $3523206 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,300 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 93 - 100 South 

Rd., Jerome Co.

Alignment Alignment - other 2.3 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

8,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 95 - Culdesac 

Canyon Passing 

Lane, Phase 2

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

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

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 93 - Lochsa 

Ranger Station to 

Bald Mountain

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

7.1 Miles $320000 $320000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Int Hankins and 

Addison Signal - 

Twin Falls HD

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $588534 $588534 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,400 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 13 - Curve 

Improvement NR, 

Kooskia

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0.4 Miles $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,600 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 45

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Signing and 

Lelineation for 

Worley HD

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

$5000 $5000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Gannett Rd. Sign 

Improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

$5000 $5000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 

and Intersections

US

NB 

95 - Riverside 

Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

1 Miles $155000 $155000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,800 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 93 - 300 South 

Rd. Jerome Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $450000 $450000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

8,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Chinden - Locust 

Grove to Eagle

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Lanes $912002 $912002 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Genesee-Juliaetta 

Rd. Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Barrier - other $199427 $199427 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US 12 - Valley 

View Drive 

Turnbay, Idaho 

Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $1246841 $1246841 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

12,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95 - Culdesac 

Canyon Passing 

Lane, Ph3 3, Nez 

Perce Co.

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

.86 Miles $630000 $630000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Roadway Curve 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control - 

other

$5000 $5000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

US 20 -

Ashton

Chester to Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

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

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

6,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Signal Head 

Visiblity Safety 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

backplates

$26000 $26000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

17th Street Curb 

Medians

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

$162028.93 $162028.93 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95 - 

Grangeville Truck 

Route Bypass Rd. 

Turnbay

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

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

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

5,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Sixth St. 

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Crosswalk $16000 $16000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

US 20 - 

Expressway 

Median Cable 

Barrier

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

19.3 Miles $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

25,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 45

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

SH 41 - Lancaster 

Rd. to Boekel Rd, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Lanes $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

11,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 55 - 

Ave.

Int Florida Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

14,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Benewah Creek 

Road Safety Audit

19.866 Miles $36000 $36000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data

Int Safety Improv 

at 62 Intersections

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

62 Intersections $4000 $4000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

SH44 - Int SH-16 

to Linder Rd., Ada 

Co.

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Lanes $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

19,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

State St. Lighting - 

16th St. to 23rd. 

St.

Lighting Lighting - other 0.549 Miles $67000 $67000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

22,000 35 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 20 - Star Rd. 

to SH 16

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Locations $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

17,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 26 - Clark Hill 

RA Turn Lanes, 

Bonneville Co.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

2 Approaches $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

4,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95 - Culdesac 

Passing Lanes

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

1 Lanes $230000 $230000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 26 - Antelope 

Flats Passing 

Lane, Bonneville 

Co.

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

1 Lanes $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

4,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 21 - 

Technology Way 

to Surprise Way, 

Boise

Roadway Roadway - other 2.236 Miles $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

10,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

I 90 - SH-41 

Interchange, 

Kootenai Co.

Interchange 

design

Interchange 

design - other

1 Interchanges $2000000 $2000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 200 - McGhee 

to Kootenai St., 

Bonner Co.

Roadway Roadway - other 12.85 Miles $180000 $180000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,800 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 44 - Star Rd. 

to SH 16, Ada Co.

Roadway Roadway - other 2.63 Miles $1200000 $1200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

12,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 53 - Hauser 

Lake Rd. to N. 

Bruss Rd., 

Kootenai Co.

Roadway Roadway - other 2.7 Miles $1300000 $1300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

9,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 45

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Broadford Road 

Safety Audit, 

Blaine County

$41000 $41000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

RSA Data

US 20 - Sheep 

Falls to Pinehaven 

Passing Lanes, 

Fremont Co.

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

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

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

4,400 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 20 - Linder 

Locust Grove, 

Eagle

to Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Lanes $2000000 $2000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

19,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 20 - SH 16 to 

Linder, Ada Co.

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

2 Lanes $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 53, Int N. 

Ramsey Rd., 

Kootenai Co.

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $190000 $190000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

6,900 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I 90 - Cedars to 

Dudley Rd., 

Kootenai Co.

Roadway Roadway - other 4 Miles $180000 $180000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

12,450 75 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 2 - Moyie 

Springs Turn 

Bays, Boundary 

Co.

Roadway Roadway - other 3.3 Miles $125000 $125000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,400 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 95 - McArthur 

Lake, Boundary 

Co.

Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

0.5 Miles $850000 $850000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

6,900 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 53 - N. Latah 

St. to MP 93, 

Rathdrum, ID

Roadway Roadway - other 0.89 Miles $280000 $280000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

10,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 45

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 226 209 167 184 214 186 216 253 244

Serious Injuries 1,401 1,400 1,302 1,297 1,278 1,293 1,356 1,332 1,202

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.460 1.340 1.080 1.160 1.350 1.150 1.300 1.480 1.410

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.080 9.000 8.450 8.190 8.050 8.000 8.120 7.640 8.150

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

17 14 11 15 18 16 8 24 20

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

111 89 102 105 107 102 90 118 99
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 45

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

Our crash database is usually more current than FARS so we use it. Plus the 2017 numbers have not been 

released by FARS.

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

Year 2017

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 28.8 103 1.17 4.18

(RPA) - Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 48 186.8 2.22 8.55

(RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial 23.6 98.8 2.46 10.36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 45

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 6.2 27.4 2.67 11.77

Rural Major Collector 36.2 128.4 2.78 9.86

Rural Local Road or Street 31.4 83.6 1.37 3.63

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

8.6 64.6 0.55 4.27

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

19.6 287 0.88 12.95

Urban Minor Arterial 11.4 181.8 0.89 14.71

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 3.4 60 0.5 8.84

Urban Local Road or Street 5.2 55.6 0.58 6.16
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 45

Year 2017

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 130.6 602.6 1.44 6.65

County Highway Agency 92 680.6 1.22 9.01

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 45

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 45

540

560

580

600

620

640

660

680

700

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 45

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 187.0 

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

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

fatalities on Idaho roadways. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our primary 

goal is to reduce the number of traffic deaths to 185 or fewer by the year 2020. The 

table showing the 5 year average total fatalities shows 188 for the year of 2018. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1230.0 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 45

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

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

serious injuries on Idaho roadways. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our 

secondary goal is to reduce the number of serious injuries due to traffic crashes to 

1221 or fewer by 2020. 

Fatality Rate 1.120 

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

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

the fatality rate in Idaho. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our secondary 

goal is to reduce the rate of traffic deaths to 1.1 per 100 million miles traveled by 

2020. The table showing the 5 year fatality rate shows 1.14 for the year of 2018. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.360 

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

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

the rate of serious injuries in Idaho. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our 

secondary goal is to reduce the rate of serious injury crashes to 7.27 per 100 million 

annual vehicle miles traveled by 2020. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 120.0 

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

Although trend analysis was use on setting this target, the analyst who provided these 

values also relied on his years of working with data. The numbers for Idaho are so low 

that there is a lot of variability in the data, therefore the value isn't strictly based on the 

trend analysis. The value supports the SHSP goal of reducing non motorized fatalities 

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

with Bicycle and Pedestrian being one sub group in that category. The goals are to 

reduce the 5 year average of bicycle involved fatal crashes to 2 bicyclist or fewer and 

to reduce the five year average of pedestrian involved fatal crashes to 10 or fewer 

pedestrians by 2020. The SHSP does not include a goal value of serious injuries but 

the strategies are related to reducing the number of crashes of bicyclists and 

pedestrians. 

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

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

targets. 

The majority of the MPO's do not have access to volume data and therefore cannot determine rates for their 
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 45

areas. All five MPO's have indicated that they are going with our targets. The signed documents for all five 

MPO's have been attached.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

See questions 15, 21, 23, 29 and 46 for Idaho's response.

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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

24 23 24 34 33 45 50

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

94 110 88 110 123 132 122
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 45

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 45

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

The state looks at the overall measures of serious and fatal injury rates in determining effectiveness on a statewide basis.

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

level evaluations.

Unfortunately Idaho, like many states has been experiencing an increase in fatalities. Our 5 year avg rate has 

increased the past two years. We saw a fairly large increase this year from 1.288 fatalities per 100 million miles 

traveled to 1.338 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. 

Our five year rate for serious injury crashes is continuing to decrease. We went from 8 serious injuries per 100 

million miles traveled to 7.992 serious injuries per 100 million miles traveled

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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

Every year Idaho works to enhance our HSIP program. Once we started using a benefit cost ratio as our 

prioritization tool, those individuals planning projects have increased their knowledge of possible safety 

enhancements to their plans. We have continued to become more educated on the use of crash modification 

factors and other resources for planning projects with safety in mind.

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 45 

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Intersections 42.2 506 0.25 3.04 0 0 0

Pedestrians 14.2 62.2 0.09 0.37 0 0 0

Bicyclists 3 41.2 0.02 0.25 0 0 0

Older Drivers 50.8 275.6 0.3 1.66 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 25.2 157.2 0.15 0.95 0 0 0

Work Zones 3 21.6 0.02 0.13 0 0 0

Aggressive 79.6 622.4 0.48 3.75 0 0 0

Impaired 84.6 221.8 0.51 1.34 0 0 0

Youthful Driver 27.6 228.8 0.16 1.38 0 0 0

Commercial Driver 35.2 123.8 0.21 0.74 0 0 0

Single Vehicle Run off 

Road

109.6 368.6 0.66 2.22 0 0 0

Head On/Side Swipe 

Opposite

35.4 132.6 0.21 0.8 0 0 0
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 45

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

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

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 45

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 45

Project Effectiveness

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

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

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

No
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 45

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/04/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020 

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

 2020 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)

ROADWAY SEGMENT

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

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 15 100 60

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 15

Access Control (22) 100 15
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

(91)

Operations 100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 1

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

INTERSECTION

100 100 100 100 100 100

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Page 41 of 45
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 45

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 75 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 75 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 85.83 25.00 25.00 77.27 63.64 88.89 73.44 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

The plan to meet HSIP requirements per the FAST Act are documented in the TRCC Strategic Plan, which is attached to the submittal.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Incapacitating: Serious-requires immediate 

medical attention

No None listed No

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Serious-requires immediate medical 

attention.

No None listed No

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

We will be adding in the word suspected and mirroring the definition of suspected serious injury from MMUCC and ANSI D16 

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

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

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2022 
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 45

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 45

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSCA Final Report with Appendices.pdf

High Accident Location Methodology re-write 2009.docx

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

BMPO signed Safety Performance Measure Decision.pdf

BTPO_ITD_Safety_Targets.pdf

HSIP Statewide Safety Performance Targets Decision.pdf

ID_PM1_Targets_2018.pdf

MPO Safety Performance Measure Decision KMPO.docx

Final FFY '19_HSP Document_CAwu.pdf

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:

2018 ITRSSP Strategic Plan Final.docx
2018 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 45

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

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

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

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.