Page 1 of 52

UTAH

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 52

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 17

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 17

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 20

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 22

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 37

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 40

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 45

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 47
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 52

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 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 52

Executive Summary

From 2013-2016, the State of Utah experienced an increase in traffic fatalities each year. 2017 marked a 

return to our past long-term downward trends in fatalities. We are hopeful that our efforts to prioritize safety 

projects with the greatest potential to reduce fatalities will continue to reduce both fatalities and serious injuries 

in the years to come. We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the projects 

most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

The FAST Act approved by Congress two years ago removed our ability to fund education and enforcement 

efforts with HSIP funds. We have been using State funds to continue these programs. Education and 

enforcement remain important parts of our comprehensive safety strategy to reduce severe crashes.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 52

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. 

UDOT’s Safety Programs Engineer (located within the Traffic & Safety Division) oversees HSIP activities within 

Utah. This person is responsible for setting the policies and procedures required to fulfill the federal HSIP 

mandate set forth by the FAST Act. The UDOT region offices also play a major role in the development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. They work in concert with the UDOT Traffic & Safety Division to identify 

potential project locations, submit HSIP funding applications, and participate in the screening and prioritization 

process. Once projects are selected and funded in each region, the region offices take ownership of project 

delivery, assigning project managers, and proceeding according to standard federal environmental, design, 

and construction processes.

HSIP funds can be used for infrastructure improvements on any publicly owned roadway. Any local agency 

may apply for HSIP funding as long it controls the right-of-way for the location in question. However, the Traffic 

& Safety Division researches the crash history at these locations just as they do with projects developed 

internally. In order for HSIP funds to be used, all locations must show either a proven crash history or have 

characteristics that conform to systemic situations that UDOT has identified as a funding priority. UDOT also 

works with Metropolitan Planning Organizations to help them integrate safety into their long-range planning 

efforts.

The project process includes the following steps:

• Crash data evaluation and coordination with region offices to identify candidate projects. 

• Analysis of candidate projects to determine anticipated benefit/cost ratios. 

• Joint prioritization and selection of projects between the Central Traffic & Safety office and the region 

offices. 

• Programming of projects into discrete funding years. 

• Assignment of project managers and beginning of design process. 

• Advertisement and construction. 

• Evaluation based on three years of crash data before and after construction. 

• Reporting in the annual HSIP report. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 52

 Operations

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

The Central Traffic & Safety office is located within the Operations group. Additionally, each region office has 

staff designated to work on traffic and safety issues specifically within their geographical boundaries.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

The total amount of available HSIP funding is prorated to the region offices on the basis of the share of severe 

crashes occurring within their respective geographic boundaries.

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

Local roads are eligible for HSIP funds if projects meet program requirements. UDOT currently lacks 

comprehensive roadway data for local roads (non-State and non-Federal Aid) that would make it easier to 

compare relative safety needs on State roads and local roads, especially for systemic treatments. However, 

efforts are underway to work with other State agencies, local governments, and emergency dispatch centers to 

develop more complete roadway inventory data on local roads. In the mean time we will continue to perform 

hot-spot analysis on all public roads, including locals. Once we identify a hotspot location and potential 

countermeasures, we approach the local government to assess their willingness to proceed with and HSIPfunded safety project.

UDOT does perform crash analysis on non-State Federal Aid routes and accepts applications from local 

agencies for HSIP funding consideration on all public roads. We also apply the usRAP safety protocol to select 

non-State Federal Aid and local routes. We completed the protocol in Cache County during the 2017 reporting 

cycle and are in the process of completing the protocol and publishing data in Utah, Summit, and Wasatch 

Counties. Work has begun on Morgan County and will continue with Box Elder, Tooele, Weber, and Davis 

Counties.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 52

Districts/Regions

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

The Central Traffic & Safety office leads the HSIP effort, but various other divisions are involved in the process. 

The traffic/safety, project management, maintenance, and design groups are all involved at the region level, 

both with helping to identify candidate projects and to design and construct them.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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 safety projects based on the screened data and the 

region submittals. Although the annual submittal is the primary mechanism by which the regions request HSIP 

funding, the regions may request other projects mid-year and the same process is conducted to analyze, 

prioritize, program, and implement them. For the second method, the Traffic & Safety Division employs a 

network-wide approach to identify projects. This is done by looking at crash and roadway attribute data from a 

statewide perspective. UDOT has several efforts underway to identify projects systemically and through 

network screening tools, including the usRAP model and BYU crash prediction model.

Design

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. Project managers generally invite Traffic & Safety staff to 

attend scoping and design review meetings to make sure that the safety elements are properly incorporated 

into the project.

Maintenance & Operations

Each region office works with their maintenance and operations staff to give them an opportunity to suggest 

safety projects based on their experience maintaining the state roadway network every day. Periodic meetings 

are held between region traffic and safety engineers and maintenance crews. Their round of meetings in the 

fall is where engineers specifically solicit safety project ideas from maintenance staff. Following these 

meetings, region traffic and safety engineers submit safety project applications for projects they believe merit 

funding. These applications are then reviewed by Central Traffic & Safety as described above.

Access to Data

In order to assist each of our partners in this process, we have developed an online crash visualization and 

analysis tool so everyone has equal access to safety data.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 52

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-SHSP Partners

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Academia

UDOT has active and ongoing partnerships with both Brigham Young University (BYU) and the University of 

Utah to further safety work in Utah. BYU has worked with UDOT over the past several years to develop and 

continually refine Bayesian crash predictive models that show where crashes are over-represented. Each year 

BYU provides model output reports to the region offices. The reports show potential safety project locations 

and countermeasures for their consideration.

The University of Utah has been working with UDOT the last few years to improve the statewide crash 

database and to expand the usRAP model on non-State maintained roads.

FHWA

We work closely with the Safety Operations Engineer in the local FHWA office to ensure that we are complying 

with appropriate guidelines in our implementation of the HSIP. We routinely involve him in coordination 

meetings with the region offices so that he stays informed about the projects we are selecting and 

implementing with our HSIP funds.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

The Utah Highway Safety Office (HSO) is housed within the Department of Public Safety. We hold regular 

meetings involving the HSO to ensure coordination of data, funding, and strategies for our respective 

programs.

MPOs

The MPOs in Utah have been very motivated to integrate safety into their planning process. UDOT has tried to 

use several different tools to accomplish this goal, with mixed results. During the past couple of years we have 

made significant headway by introducing our MPO partners to the usRAP safety model and showing how it can 

be used as a regional safety planning tool. During this past year we worked with the Cache MPO to implement 

the model on the non-State federal aid system there. This effort was very well-received and we are hopeful that 

good infrastructure projects will ultimately flow from it. Currently we are working with Mountainland MPO to 

implement the usRAP model on non-State federal aid roads in Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties.

SHSP Partners

SHSP Partners are actively involved in working groups for each of our SHSP emphasis areas.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 52

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. 

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, Pedestrian Safety, 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 non-infrastructure components of the SHSP. The FAST Act removed UDOT's ability 

to fund education and enforcement efforts with HSIP, so we have been using state funds to continue those 

programs.

A "Zero Fatalities" goal (ut.zerofatalities.com) is also part of the SHSP. UDOT began displaying weekly safety 

messages on variable message signs during the summer of 2015 to encourage safe driving behaviors such as 

seat belt use.

Program Methodology

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:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

HRRR

Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal Injuries

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

Program: HRRR 
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 52

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2016 

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

Other-Crash data trigger from FHWA

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Coordination with region offices

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

Available funding : 50

Other-Ability of region to identify eligible project : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 52

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/5/2014 

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]

Competes with all projects

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 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

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

Yes

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

No

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

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their respective 

region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP model to federal aid routes in counties across the 

state. In addition, we conduct hot spot analysis on all public roads statewide to identify other opportunities on 

local roads.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Other-usRAP model outputs
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 52

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

Ranking based on B/C : 20

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 20

Other-Time to Completion : 20

Other-Coordination with other Projects : 20

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal 

Injuries 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/5/2014 

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]

Competes with all projects

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 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 52

Other-usRAP model

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

Yes

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

No

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

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their respective 

region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP systemic model to federal aid routes in counties 

across the state.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Other-usRAP model outputs

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

Ranking based on B/C : 20

Available funding : 20

Ranking based on net benefit : 20

Other-Timeline to completion : 20

Other-Coordination with other projects : 20

Total Relative Weight : 100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 20

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 52

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Stakeholder input

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? 

Yes

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

Connected and autonomous vehicles are identified as a Special Safety Area in our SHSP. We do not have a 

committed program of HSIP funds being used for V2I technologies. However, we do consider project 

applications submitted by our region offices. If an application for V2I or other ITS-related technologies is 

submitted and is worthy of funding, we are able to program the project. We have funded (or are currently 

funding) ITS technologies such as variable speed limit signing and wrong-way driving sign arrays.

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.

All construction projects that are funded with HSIP funds are assessed using the following procedures from the 

HSM:

1. Preliminary analysis is done with crash history and CMFs following procedures of Part D from the HSM. 

2. If a more technical analysis is warranted, the predictive method of Part C is used. 

3. Systemic projects are evaluated using SPFs within the usRAP model. 

4. Methods in Chapter 4 are used to prioritize potential locations of systemic treatments such as rumble 

strips. 

5. Utah generated (and continues to maintain) a list of standard accepted mitigation measures from 

Chapters 5 and 6 and information from the CMF Clearinghouse. 
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 52

6. Benefit-cost ratios are calculated based on guidance from Chapter 7. No HSIP funds are applied to 

projects that have a benefit cost ratio less than 1 unless the project can be justified systemically. 

7. All projects are prioritized based on the estimated number of severe crashes reduced and by highest 

benefit cost ratio. 

The Bayesian statistical methods outlined in the HSM are also used extensively in a modeling partnership with 

Brigham Young University.

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.

Non-Infrastructure Projects

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

Such projects include:

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.

UDOT previously used HSIP funding for education and enforcement efforts that fall within the State's Zero 

Fatalities effort umbrella. With passage of the FAST Act that led to ineligibility of those activities, UDOT has 

been using State funds to continue those efforts.

High Risk Rural Road Special Rule
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 52

UDOT was subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY17 (and will also be for FY18). To identify HRRReligible projects we first look at the roads that qualify for application of the funding. Then, we look for systemic 

improvements such as warning signs, shoulder treatments, barrier/guardrail, and rumble strips that could be 

applied to make the roads safer. It is generally difficult to find crash hot spots on these roads due to the lower 

volumes and crash concentrations so we rely heavily on systemic approaches to finding locations where the 

money can be wisely spent.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 52

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $11,808,183 $11,808,183 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,331,318 $1,331,318 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $7,863,881 $7,863,881 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $3,525,184 $3,525,184 100%

Totals $24,528,566 $24,528,566 100%

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?

$1,085,000

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

$1,085,000

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

The numbers shown here reflect only programming and obligation for FY18 funds. We have money from 

previous FYs programmed and obligated to local projects that are still in the construction close out phase.

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

$903,381

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

Page 18 of 52

$903,381

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

The numbers shown here reflect only programming and obligation for FY18 funds. We have money from 

previous FYs programmed and obligated to non-infrastructure projects that are still in the close out phase.

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?

$8,943,705

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

This "transferred out" amount includes the federal portion and the state match.

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

Over the past three years we have made great strides toward getting our HSIP funds obligated by the fiscal 

year end. Last year we had a lower balance of unobligated funds left over than we ever had in the past. This 

year we had much more left unobligated, largely due to the fact that we found out 3 months into the fiscal year 

that we were subject to a SEC154 penalty. That extra $8M infusion into our program made it difficult to find 

enough projects to obligate all of our regular HSIP plus the SEC154 addition. We do not expect to be subject to 

any penalties in FY19 so this should be a one-time occurrence.

The principal ongoing challenges we face are:

• Reprogramming funds that return from closed projects (or from projects where scope changes reduce 

the budget) to other projects where they can be spent.

• Delays in project delivery timelines that prevent projects from advertising in the fiscal year originally 

intended.

• Projects that are cancelled for political, practical, or economic reasons.

There are several methods we are using to combat these challenges. The first is overprogramming, which 

means that we have started planning for more projects than we have budget for. Experience has taught us that 

there will always be some projects that ultimately get cancelled and others that return part of their budget, so 

the only way to have all of our funds obligated at the end of the year is to plan for these occurrences. In the 

event that we run out of HSIP funds to obligate (which has not happened to date), we have the option to delay 

advertisement to the following fiscal year or use some state funds as a temporary bridge across the fiscal year 

boundary

We anticipated that use of these strategies would get all of our HSIP funds obligated in FY18 and that may 

have occurred had it not been for the SEC154 fund infusion. Our current projections for FY19 show an 

expectation of using all of the available HSIP funds. 
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 52

This year's relatively low unobligated balance is evidence that these methods have been working. We will 

continually strive to get the balance as close to zero as possible.

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

Yes

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on which the State 

would like to elaborate. 

Project delivery is administered through the UDOT region offices. We work 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.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 52

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

PIN 11897 (US89; Center St to 

Bulldog Blvd in 

Provo)

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

1.18 Miles $2300000 $20306516 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

35,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Raised Medians

PIN 12446 (SR39; Ogden to 

Pineview 

Reservoir Bridge 

Rehab)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 0.1 Miles $350000 $4680000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,400 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 12508 (SR134; I-15 

Interchange 

Modifications)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Interchanges $1700000 $8200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

23,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane 

Addition

PIN 13775 (SR36; MP 38.74-

42.557, Widening 

& Rumble Strips)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

14.6 Miles $915000 $5604212 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

PIN 14207 (US89; SR-126 to 

3000 S)

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $750000 $7500000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

12,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections New Signal and 

AWS

PIN 14305 (I-70; 

Moore 

Interchange to 

Sinbad)

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

14.2 Miles $700000 $3212409 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

4,400 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Wider Striping

PIN 14306 (US191; MP 140 to 

RR Structure)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

3 Miles $500000 $1580000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

7,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

PIN 14407 (SR39; Dual Lefts at 

Washington Blvd)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $755000 $3261500 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

27,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane 

Addition

PIN 14445 (US191; MP 107.7-

109.0, Shoulder 

Improvements)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

1.3 Miles $1500000 $1500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

5,100 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

PIN 14460 

(Various Freeway 

Routes; Structure 

Protection)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 16 Locations $2250000 $2250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 14467 

(UTRAC Research 

Studies FY19)

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

1 Year $180000 $180000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

n/a Data Safety Research

PIN 14476 (BYU 

Safety Modeling 

FY19)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Year $120000 $120000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Non-infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

n/a Data Safety Modeling

PIN 14823 (US89; I-15 to Eagle 

Ridge Dr)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1.2 Miles $386000 $2241119 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

22,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 52

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

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

PIN 15097 (US191; MP 395.74-

396.30, 

Intersection 

Improvements)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

1 Intersections $175000 $1915082 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

720 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane 

Addition

PIN 15284 (I-80; 

MP 23.80-32.52, 

Median Cable 

Barrier)

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.72 Miles $3637420 $3637420 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

7,700 80 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 15587 

(Region 1 Texas 

Turndown & 

Guardrail 

Replacement)

Roadside Barrier- metal 23.44 Miles $1200000 $1200000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

PIN 16311 

(Various Routes; 

High Friction 

Pavement)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

3.03 Miles $2500000 $2500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

High Friction 

Pavement

PIN 16319 (DSRC 

Implementation)

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Project $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

n/a Intersections Connected 

Vehicle 

Technology

PIN 16323 (SR59; MP 0-16, 

Shoulder 

Widening)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

16 Miles $3500000 $3500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,250 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

PIN 16685 

(Various Routes; 

6" Paint Striping)

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

880 Miles $2500000 $2500000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Wider Striping

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

Page 22 of 52

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 244 253 243 217 220 256 278 281 273

Serious Injuries 1,333 1,250 1,182 1,346 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477 1,453

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.931 0.951 0.921 0.815 0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913 0.859

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.084 4.696 4.481 5.053 4.971 5.092 5.099 4.799 4.573

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

119 141 142 141 128 150 155 158 168

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

99 113 111 110 98 113 106 119 125
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 52

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5

5.1

5.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 25 of 52

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.

We ensure that the State database matches 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 

(RPA) - Interstate

35 127.2 1.09 3.97

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

1.2 3.4 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

27.6 92 1.45 4.82

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 52

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 Arterial 15.6 58.8 1.97 7.42

Rural Minor Collector 4.2 14.4 1.74 5.96

Rural Major Collector 14.8 58 1.56 6.13

Rural Local Road or Street 13 64 1.11 5.46

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

24.4 142.4 0.33 1.92

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

3.2 10 0.87 2.73

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

62.6 437.4 1.23 8.63

Urban Minor Arterial 26.4 193.8 1.09 8.01

Urban Minor Collector 2.4 11.2 1.5 6.98

Urban Major Collector 13 106.4 0.77 6.32

Urban Local Road or Street 18.2 116.6 47 3.02
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 52

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 186.8 942.2 0.95 4.78

County Highway Agency

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

All Other 74.8 493.4 0.78 5.17
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 52

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 52

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

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 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway Agency All Other

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 52

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

State Highway Agency All Other

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

State Highway Agency All Other

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 52

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 272.0 

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2018 and 

2019 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2015-2019 value for each 

performance measure is our 2019 target. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1445.0 

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

State Highway Agency All Other

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 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 52

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2018 and 

2019 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2015-2019 value for each 

performance measure is our 2019 target. 

Fatality Rate 0.890 

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2018 and 

2019 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable 

from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2017 estimate for 2018 and 2019. Step 

3: Rates were estimated using the figures calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 above and 

also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 thru Step 3 above. The 2015-2019 

value for each performance measure is our 2019 target. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.750 

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2018 and 

2019 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable 

from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2017 estimate for 2018 and 2019. Step 

3: Rates were estimated using the figures calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 above and 

also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 thru Step 3 above. The 2015-2019 

value for each performance measure is our 2019 target. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 212.0 

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2018 and 

2019 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the figures calculated in Step 1 above. The 2015-2019 value for each 

performance measure is our 2019 target. 

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. 

We held a series of meetings with our MPO and SHSO partners to coordinate and gain consensus on our 

safety performance targets.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 52

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.

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

28 17 38 32 45 41 50

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

71 78 90 91 122 119 108
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 52

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

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 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 52

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Other-Reduction of severe crashes

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

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

level evaluations.

We have two primary measures of effectiveness for the HSIP (which includes HRRR projects). The first is 

benefit-cost ratio for infrastructure projects. The second is reduction of severe crashes.

Benefit-Cost Ratio

In this year's report, we submitted before/after crash data for 12 projects that finished construction during the 

2014 calendar year. We compared three years of crash data prior to each project with three years afterward. 

The majority of projects exhibited positive B/C ratios and when aggregated, the combined B/C ratio statewide 

was 3.91. This statistic shows that Utah is doing an overall good job of identifying project locations and 

mitigation measures that are helping to prevent fatalities and injuries.

Reduction of Severe Crashes

2017 resulted in a drop in fatalities relative to the previous two years (273 compared to 281 in 2016 and 278 in 

2015). Serious injuries also dropped from 1477 in 2016 to 1453 in 2017. The overall severe crashes decreased 

by 32 from 2016 to 2017. The 5-year rolling average for both fatalities and serious injuries have risen slightly 

each year for the past four years. The fatal and serious injury rates continued to decrease in 2017 relative to 

2016 and 2015. The serious injury rate for 2017 is at its lowest level since 2011. The rolling 5-year average for 

fatality rate increased slightly from 2016, while the 5-year average for serious injuries decreased.

The reduction in severe crashes over the past two years is encouraging but we still have work to do to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries. We are experiencing significant increases in vehicle-miles traveled each year 

and that is part of our challenge since exposure is a large factor in crash risk. However, we remain committed 

to finding ways to apply our HSIP resources to the best locations where improvements give us the best chance 

of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

HSIP Obligations

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

Page 40 of 52

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.

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

Lane Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 104.6 393.8 0.35 1.34 0 0 0

Intersections 59.6 557 0.2 1.91 0 0 0

Pedestrians 39.6 112.2 0.14 0.38 0 0 0

Bicyclists 6.2 50.2 0.02 0.17 0 0 0

Older Drivers 55.6 222.4 0.19 0.76 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 38.4 209.4 0.13 0.72 0 0 0

Work Zones 12.2 55.6 0.04 0.19 0 0 0

Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Adverse Rdwy Surface 

Condition

33.4 218.8 0.12 0.75 0 0 0

Adverse Weather 21.4 127.4 0.07 0.44 0 0 0

Aggressive Driving 13.4 57.8 0.04 0.2 0 0 0

Collision with Fixed Object 62.2 280 0.21 0.96 0 0 0

Commercial Motor Vehicle 30.6 101 0.1 0.34 0 0 0

Distracted Driving 22.6 155.6 0.08 0.53 0 0 0

Domestic Animal Related 1.2 5 0.01 0.02 0 0 0
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 52

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

Drowsy Driving 12 59.8 0.04 0.2 0 0 0

DUI 73.8 164.6 0.25 0.56 0 0 0

Interstate Highway 59.4 269.6 0.2 0.92 0 0 0

Night/Dark Condition 95 396.6 0.32 1.36 0 0 0

Overturn/Rollover 90.6 334.4 0.31 1.15 0 0 0

Railroad Crossing 1.8 3.8 0.01 0.01 0 0 0

Roadway Geometry Related 105 489.6 0.36 1.67 0 0 0

State Route 186.8 942.2 0.64 3.22 0 0 0

Single Vehicle 140 615 0.48 2.11 0 0 0

Speed Related 62.2 252.2 0.21 0.86 0 0 0

Teenage Driver Involved 33.4 248.6 0.11 0.85 0 0 0

Train Involved 1.6 4 0.01 0.01 0 0 0

Transit Vehicle Involved 3.8 15 0.01 0.05 0 0 0

Urban County 154.2 1,026 0.52 3.51 0 0 0

Wild Animal Related 1.6 16 0.01 0.05 0 0 0

Improper Restraint 21.6 72.4 0.07 0.25 0 0 0

Rural Non-State 22.8 103.4 0.08 0.35 0 0 0

Unrestrained 56 132 0.19 0.45 0 0 0
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Lane Departure

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Data

Adverse Rdwy Surface...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 43 of 52

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

Lane Departure

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Data

Adverse Rdwy Surface...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

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

Lane Departure

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Data

Adverse Rdwy Surface...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver Involved

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle Involved

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 44 of 52

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

Each year we enter our before/after results for projects that have achieved 3 years of post-construction crash 

history, so there is information available there for specific types of projects. But we have not completed any 

grouped studies of the effectiveness of certain types of countermeasures.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 52

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR-128 Slope 

Stabilization & 

Shoulder 

Improvements 

(PIN 9397)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

SR-36; Safety and 

Signal 

Improvements 

(PIN 11362)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Roadside Barrier - concrete 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 -0.52

Rural Roads in 

Tooele County 

(PIN 11302)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.42

I-84; Cable Barrier 

(PIN 11385)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 -0.08

Bulldog 

Blvd/Freedom 

Blvd; Signal 

Upgrades (PIN 

12232)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

18.00 14.00 2.00 45.00 37.00 65.00 51.00 60.19

US-189/Bulldog 

Blvd; Signal 

Upgrades (PIN 

12181)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

31.00 34.00 2.00 2.00 28.00 18.00 61.00 54.00 10.71

US-89; Upgrade 

Mid-Block 

Crossings (PIN 

12177)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 13.31

I-15; Median 

Cable Barrier (PIN 

11381)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.00 37.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 41.00 16.33

I-15; Interstate 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12185)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - concrete 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 39.23

I-15; Median 

Cable Barrier and 

Other Barrier (PIN 

11372)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.00 33.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 6.00 25.00 40.00 0.24

I-15; Freeway 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12984)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1.00 1.00 -1.05

No Passing Zone 

Signing; Various 

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

8.00 22.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 5.00 17.00 31.00 -12.77
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 52

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Locations (PIN 

12202)

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

When combined, these projects yield a statewide average B/C ratio of 3.91.

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

No
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 52

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/10/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2021

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.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 0 100 0

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 8 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 0 100 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 0 100 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 0

Median Type (54) 100 8

Access Control (22) 100 100
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 52

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 Operations 

(91)

100 8

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 8 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 0

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 0 100 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 8

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 8

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 8

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 8

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 8

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 8

AADT Year (80) 100 8

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 8

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 100
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 52

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) 0 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 79.56 87.50 8.00 72.73 100.00 100.00 22.22 100.00 0.00

*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.

UDOT intends to use a variety of resources to collect the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements by the prescribed date. The following is a general summary of resources that will be used for each data group and the status of that resource.

State-Maintained Roads: FDE for these roads will be 100% complete by the end of 2018. These data are collected using our biennial asset inventory and various internally managed business systems.

Non-State Federal-Aid System: These data are collected using various internally managed business systems and the usRAP protocol. Of Utah's 29 counties three have been collected and one more is underway. We plan to collect about 

4 per year with an estimated completion year of 2024.

Local Roads: Local road data will be collected through an ARNOLD system being developed through a statewide partnership. This will be completed and data collection will begin December 2018.

Unpaved Roads: State-owned unpaved road data is collected via biennial asset inventory and with internal business systems. Non-state paved roads will be collected with the ARNOLD system.

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 Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes Same as MMUCC 4th Edition. Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 52

The State of Utah will update its crash reporting data dictionary to become compliant.

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

Utah's crash reporting resources to officers include references to ANSI D16.1-2007 and MMUCC 4th Edition.

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.

2018

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

Page 51 of 52

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 52

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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