Page 1 of 49

SOUTH DAKOTA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 49

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 ......................................................................................................................................... 18

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 18

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 38

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 43

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 44
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 49

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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

process will be expanded in further detail in the Program Methodology section of this report.
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 49

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

improvements ranked by benefit/cost.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering 

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office using SHSP Emphasis Area Data

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

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

million vehicle miles traveled. 

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

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

systemic improvements.
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 49

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 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

maintenance personal to identify locations to apply safety improvements.

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

to increase safety.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

place throughout the year.

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

period?

No
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 49

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. 

The SDDOT completed their SHSP in August of 2014. Emphasis has been placed on implementing safety 

strategies within the SHSP.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

File Name:

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

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

to track performance.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Local Safety

Shoulder Improvement

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 49

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 Traffic 

Volume Horizontal curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Intersection 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 49

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013 

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 Traffic 

Volume Other-Intersection Type 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

Yes

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

No

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

When ADT is available and intersects with State road.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Incremental B/C : 4

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 49

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2015 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

No

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 49

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [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 Traffic 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 49

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/2/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [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 Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Crash rate

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

No

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

Yes
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 49

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [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 Traffic 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 49

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.

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 4 

Available funding : 1 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [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 Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 49

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 4 

Available funding : 1 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [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 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 49

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

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.

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Horizontal curve signs 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 49

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 

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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. 

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

within the HSIP program.

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

Yes

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

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

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

studies to compare different design alternatives.

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?

No
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 49

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.

July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $43,193,000 $32,246,539 74.66%

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 $43,193,000 $32,246,539 74.66%

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?

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

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?

$121,500 

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

$135,000 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 49

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$15,000,000 

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.

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

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

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

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

hundred thousand dollars is obligated during the same study period.

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

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

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

allow for the proper time to accomplish environmental and ROW activities.

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

No
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 49

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

03B2 Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

12.4 Miles $13105894.72 $11810000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,177 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

05W4 Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

42.9 Miles $328880.93 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder Rumble 

Strips

05MJ Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

1 Locations $220655.76 $1682000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

17,782 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface Treatment

04HD Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 3 Numbers $4500 $5000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

200 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Planning Conduction 

Roadway Safety 

Audits

04KC Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 County $189513 $808000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 65 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

04HA Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

34.3 Miles $162031.15 $325000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,603 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Durable Pavement 

Markings

04JC Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Locations $154779.39 $169000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,360 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System

06N4 Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

8 Miles $311400.45 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,346 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Shoulder Rumble 

Strips

04H7 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

48 Miles $839526.45 $550000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

8,209 80 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Durable Pavement 

Markings

023A Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.6 Miles $5468207.88 $7190000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

688 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

06ML Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

16.2 Miles $36613.73 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,357 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Shoulder Rumble 

Strips

04H2 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

37.3 Miles $47987.93 $256000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,019 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

05W2 Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

111.4 Miles $507182.5 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder Rumble 

Strips

05FY Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

30 Locations $24449.7 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

506 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

04H8 Roadway Longitudinal 161.4 Miles $233906.84 $220000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. Rural Principal 769 65 State Highway Systemic Roadway Durable Pavement 

delineation pavement 148) Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Agency Departure Markings
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 49

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

markings - 

remarking

04HE Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Locations $117000 $130000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

1,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

State Highway 

Agency

Planning Highway Safety 

Planning

062F Roadside Barrier - other 19 Locations $1452622.5 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

4,434 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier Treatments

04XX Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

67.8 Miles $97993.59 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,725 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

04H9 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

24.6 Miles $328410.24 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

3,726 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Durable Pavement 

Markings

03BC Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 County $401579 $1293000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 65 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

05W1 Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

12.5 Miles $78825.58 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder Rumble 

Strips

04HQ Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 County $165983 $680000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

200 65 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

036A Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

14.2 Miles $7968594.74 $14825000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,306 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

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

Page 22 of 49

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 131 140 111 133 135 136 134 116 129

Serious Injuries 842 845 760 810 832 738 803 692 649

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.500 1.580 1.230 1.470 1.480 1.480 1.440 1.230 1.340

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.630 9.540 8.450 8.920 9.130 8.010 8.620 7.310 6.744

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

4 11 8 2 9 11 6 6 10

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

37 55 39 37 49 39 35 30 40
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 25 of 49

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

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

FARS & South Dakota Accident Records System

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

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

12.8 71.8 0.62 3.65

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

34.8 144.2 1.82 7.53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 26 of 49

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 17 77 1.73 7.82

Rural Minor Collector 3.8 20.4 2.59 13.92

Rural Major Collector 27.2 101.4 2.58 9.6

Rural Local Road or Street 14.8 70.4 3.23 15.35

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

5 33.6 0.7 4.7

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

2.2 60 0.45 12.33

Urban Minor Arterial 5 72 0.51 7.36

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 1.8 29.6 0.64 10.84

Urban Local Road or Street
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 49

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 58.4 303 0.94 4.89

County Highway Agency 25.6 120 2.01 9.4

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

3.4 29 1.4 11.88

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

8.6 135.4 0.65 10.17

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 49

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 49

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 49

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 127.4 

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

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

Records System data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with 

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Number of Serious Injuries 703.4 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Other Local 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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 49

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

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

Records System data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with 

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Fatality Rate 1.310 

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

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

Records System data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with 

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Serious Injury Rate 6.740 

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

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

Records System data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with 

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 43.0 

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

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

Records System data. External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with 

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

representatives to garner buy in from all safety stakeholders throughout the state.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 49

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? 

No

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 16 14 21 22 14 16 21

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 62 65 59 66 97 63 56

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 49

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.

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

level evaluations.

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

15% by the year 2020. The 2017 five year average fatal crash rate per 100MVMT was 3.8% lower and the 

serious injury crash rate was 9.6% lower than the 2010-2014 crash rates. The five year rolling averages are 

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

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

HSIP Obligations 

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

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)

Lane Departure All 27 31 0.39 0.24
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 49

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)

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 58 258 1.68 1.7

Intersections Angle 19 201 1.17 1.28

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 10 34 0.19 0.18

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 0 6 0.05 0.04

Older Drivers All 20 53 0.36 0.43

Motorcyclists All 16 138 0.92 1.03

Work Zones All 1 10 0.12 0.06
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 49

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?

Yes

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 49

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

HFST was placed at 4 horizontal 

curves in the fall of 2014. The 

locations were identified as having an 

overrepresentation of winter road 

condition run-off-road crashes. 

Other (define) 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: 

Number of Installations: 4 

Number of Installations: 4 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

The 3 year before and after analysis 

showed an 80% crash reduction of 

winter road condition run-off-road 

crashes. If the winter severity index is 

applied the crash reduction is 77%. 

File Name: SDDOT - AID Demo Final Report UPDATED.pdf
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 49

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)

Mitchell Region Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

22.00 12.00 10.00 6.00 32.00 18.00 76

US14A -

Horizontal curves 

at MRM 34 and 49

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

22.00 12.00 17.00 11.00 39.00 23.00 15

I-229 N & S -

Horizontal curve 

south of 18th 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

28.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 34.00 10.00 9

Street

Various Locations 

on the State 

System in the 

Mitchell Region

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

38.00 56.00 30.00 23.00 68.00 79.00 24

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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/08/2014 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2019 

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

 2019 

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) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Number (8) 1 1

Route/Street Name (9) 1 1

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

1 1

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length (13) 1 1

Direction of Inventory (18) 1 1

Functional Class (19) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Median Type (54) 1 1

Access Control (22) 1 0
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 49

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 1 0.75

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

1 1 1 1

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

1 1 1 1

AADT Year (80) 1 1

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

INTERSECTION

1 1 1 1 1 1

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

1 1

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

1 1

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

1 0.98

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

1 1

AADT Year (80) 1 1

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

1 1

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

1 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

1 0

Ramp Length (187) 1 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

1 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

1 0
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 49

NON LOCAL PAVED NON LOCAL PAVED NON LOCAL PAVED LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS ROADS - SEGMENT ROADS - INTERSECTION ROADS - RAMPS

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

Interchange Type (182) 1 0

Ramp AADT (191) 1 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 1 0

Functional Class (19) 1 0

Type of Governmental 1 0

Ownership (4)

Totals (Average Percent 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Complete):

*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.

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

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 Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. 

No Severe lacerations 

Broken or distorted limbs 

Skull or chest injuries 

Abdominal injuries 

Unconsciousness at or when taken from 

scene 

Unable to leave the accident scene without 

assistance

EXCLUDED: 

Momentary unconsciousness

No

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Definitions are not listed for each accident 

severity.

No Attributes are not listed for each accident 

severity.

No

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

This effort is being managed by the South Dakota Office of Highway Safety, the lead agency for crash reporting, and any questions on compliance should be directed to Lee Axdahl, Director of Highway Safety in South Dakota. 

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

Page 47 of 49

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.

2019 

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

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

SDDOT - AID Demo Final Report UPDATED.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2018 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 49

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.