Page 1 of 39

UTAH

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 39

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................15

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................15

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................17

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................20

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................20

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................27

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................28

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................28

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................28

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................33

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................35
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 39

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.”
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

Executive Summary

From 2013-2016, the State of Utah experienced an increase in traffic fatalities each year. 2017 and 2018 have 

marked a return to our past long-term downward trends in fatalities. Serious injury crashes have similarly 

decreased in 2016, 2017, and 2018. 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. We will also be modifying our project selection process beginning in 2019 

to fund the projects with the highest B/C ratios even if doing so results in HSIP funding not being allocated to 

each region evenly.

The FAST Act approved by Congress three 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.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 39

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? 

 Operations
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

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

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. To date, we've completed coding for all Federal-aid routes in the 

following counties: Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber. 

Coding is approximately 25% complete in Washington and Iron Counties. Work will continue in the coming 

year to move towards completion of all counties.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

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, Traffic & Safety Division works 

throughout the year with each region to determine their priority projects for HSIP funding consideration. The 

Traffic & Safety Division then screens the crash data, traffic data, and input from the region offices to 
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

determine whether each project meets HSIP eligibility criteria. 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. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Partners

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 
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

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. Specific conversations were held with Cache MPO in 2017 and 

MAG in 2018. We are currently working toward coding non-State Federal-aid routes in all Utah counties. To 

date, we've completed coding for all such routes in the following counties: Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Morgan, 

Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Weber. Coding is approximately 25% complete in Washington 

and Iron Counties. Work will continue in the coming year to move towards completion of all counties.

SHSP Partners

SHSP Partners are actively involved in working groups for each of our SHSP emphasis areas.

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

FileName:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal Injuries 

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Crash data trigger from FHWA

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal crashes only Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-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
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:3/5/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

• Relative severity index

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

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 
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

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? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

• Other-usRAP model

• Relative severity index

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
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 39

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? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

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. We have 

also recently funded a project to use DSRC technology in snow plows in order to allow them to coordinate their 

movements with signalized intersections, thereby facilitating much faster snow clearance on a key arterial 

street.

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 (with region offices weighing in on priority). 

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. 

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.

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 
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

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

UDOT was subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY19 (and will also be for FY20). 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.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 39

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $32,733,920 $16,230,789 49.58%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$1,336,664 $1,331,318 99.6%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$31,698 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $6,858,834 $5,173,874 75.43%

Old HRRR $66,546 $0 0%

Totals $41,027,662 $22,735,981 55.42%

Our numbers look strange this year for several reasons. One reason is that UDOT's Program Finance group 

prioritized its obligation authority for other federal funding categories over HSIP this year. We actually 

advertised plenty of projects and would have obligated the entire HSIP allotment if it hadn't been for this. Also, 

the amount of available HSIP funds shows up significantly higher than normal because our Program Finance 

group also decided to temporarily transfer in funds from other categories. These funds will be transferred back 

out in FY20, so they won't actually be available for use for safety projects.

Also, we actually had a negative obligation of old HRRR funds due to funds that returned off of a closing 

project during FY19, but the grid does not enable negative values so I had to enter a zero instead.

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

We still have a few local safety projects that are going through the construction or closeout phases, but none of 

the funds available for programming or obligation in FY19 were used on new local projects.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

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

15%

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

27%

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

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

$46,791,601

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

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

$0

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

the future. 

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

end. This year we were able to obligate all of our HSIP funds. The main reason we were able to reach our goal 

of full obligation was that we consistently encouraged the four region offices to overprogram, and they 

delivered enough of the projects to obligate all available FY19 funding.

The principal ongoing challenges we face when trying to achieve full obligation 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.

Overprogramming is our primary mitigation tool, which means planning 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, 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. Both of these measures were necessary in FY19 because we were very aggressive with 

overprogramming.

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.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SR-198; 

Woodland 

Hills Dr to 

Arrowhead 

Trail (PIN 

10265)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

2 Approaches $200000 $8213411 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 10,800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Flashing 

Yellow Arrow

SR-134; I-15 

Interchange 

Modifications 

(PIN 12508)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

4 Approaches $1700000 $8200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Protected Left 

Turns

SR-65; 

Henefer 

Bridge 

Rehabs, C566 & D-772 

(PIN 13324)

Roadside Barrier - cable 6 Miles $1700000 $13200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,150 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-36; MP 

47.8-52.4, 

Widening & 

Rumble Strips 

(PIN 13463)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

4 Miles $2385000 $4754723 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

US-89; Weber 

River to SR203 (PIN 

14201)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - add

advance 

intersection 

warning signmounted

1 Signs $120000 $755422 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther46,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Advanced 

Warning Sign

US-89; MP 

480.8-492.5, 

Rumble Strips 

& Int Imps 

(PIN 14451)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

12 Miles $2000000 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,350 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

I-84; MP 

103.5-112.1, 

Barrier 

Upgrades 

(PIN 14452)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 9 Miles $2000000 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate10,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

Traffic & 

Safety 

Program 

Management 

Support FY19 

(PIN 14474)

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 Numbers $1600000 $1625000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Program 

Management 

Support

N/A
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

I-84; MP 89.5-

92.3, Install 

Sensors & 

VMS Boards 

(PIN 15283)

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic 

message signs

2 Locations $3560000 $3560000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate16,300 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Dynamic VMS

SR-44; MP 0-

28, Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 15301)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

28 Miles $3320000 $3620000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 780 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

SR-132; MP 

35-39, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 15302)

Roadside Roadside grading 4 Miles $536000 $536000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Grading and 

culvert 

extensions

US-189; MP 

8.66-14.59, 

Constrast 

Pavement 

Lines (PIN 

15304)

Roadway Roadway - other 6 Miles $390000 $390000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther22,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Contrast and 

wet reflective 

striping

Various 

Routes; NoPass Pennant 

Signing (PIN 

15310)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

200 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

No Passing 

Pennants

SR-87; MP 

10.86-19.95, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 15398)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1 Miles $450000 $450000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,630 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

US-89; MP 

396.23-

397.46, 

Extend Ramp 

Barrier (PIN 

16310)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

37,500 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

I-80; MP 38-

90, Cable 

Barrier (PIN 

16314)

Roadside Barrier - cable 23 Miles $7335000 $7335000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate8,100 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

Various 

Routes; 

Centerline 

Rumble Strips 

(PIN 16320)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

93 Miles $285000 $285000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Rumble Strips
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

I-15; MP 0-

132, Guardrail 

& Barrier (PIN 

16324)

Roadside Barrier- metal 132 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate25,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

US-191; 

Wildlife 

Underpass & 

Fencing, 

Phase 2 (PIN 

16428)

Roadside Fencing 4 Miles $500000 $3700000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Wildlife 

fencing

Fencing

Various 

Routes; TX 

Turndown 

Replacements 

(PIN 16789)

Roadside Barrier- metal 18 Locations $918384 $918384 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-85; MP 

3.52-20.84, 

Various 

Improvements 

(PIN 17330)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn 

lane

17 Locations $2514000 $2540305 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

15,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

MUTCD 

Curve Sign 

Updates – R1 

(PIN 17741)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

94 Locations $366000 $360000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve signs

MUTCD 

Curve Sign 

Updates – R4 

(PIN 17744)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

106 Locations $1011000 $1011000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve signs
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 253 243 217 220 256 278 281 273 261

Serious Injuries 1,250 1,182 1,346 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477 1,453 1,400

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.951 0.921 0.815 0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913 0.866 0.814

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.696 4.481 5.053 4.971 5.092 5.099 4.799 4.611 4.364

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

35 37 34 36 46 54 44 49 40

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

174 171 192 153 161 155 168 170 173
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 39

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 39

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

We ensure that the State database matches FARS.

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

32.6 126.4 1.03 3.97

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

2 2.8 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

28.2 95.4 1.55 5.22

Rural Minor Arterial 16.8 62 2.09 7.88

Rural Minor Collector 4.4 18.2 1.93 7.71

Rural Major Collector 16.2 57.8 1.73 6.22

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 39

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 Local Road or 

Street

13.4 66.8 1.14 5.72

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

24.2 141.4 0.32 1.82

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

4 12 0.94 2.83

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

67.8 428.4 1.26 8.16

Urban Minor Arterial 26.6 188.2 1.05 7.42

Urban Minor Collector 2.8 14.6 1.07 7.27

Urban Major Collector 11.8 108 0.66 6.03

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 39

Year 2018

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

195.8 959.6 0.96 4.71

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

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 74 487 0.76 4.97

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

The 5-year rolling average for total fatalities has increased slightly each of the last 5 years while staying nearly 

the same for the fatality rate. The actual number of annual fatalities has gone down the past 2 years and the 

fatality rate has gone down each of the last 3 years. If these trends keep up, the 5-year rolling averages for 

both actual fatalities and fatality rate will also begin to go down.

Trends for serious injuries have been similar. The 5-year rolling average for serious injuries has increased 
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 39

each of the last 5 years. The 5-year rolling average for serious injury rate, however, has decreased the past 2 

years. Actual numbers of serious injuries and the serious injury rate have decreased for the past 3 years.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:263.5

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 2019 and 2020 to reflect the 

goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated 

in Step 1. The 2016-2020 value for each performance measure is our 2020 target.

Number of Serious Injuries:1415.1

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 2019 and 2020 to reflect the 

goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated 

in Step 1. The 2016-2020 value for each performance measure is our 2020 target.

Fatality Rate:0.820

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 2019 and 2020 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 2018 estimate for 2019 and 2020. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated 

in Step 1 and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages 

were computed using the values calculated in Step 1 through step 3. The 2016-2020 value for each 

performance measure is our 2020 target.

Serious Injury Rate:4.400

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 2019 and 2020 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 2018 estimate for 2019 and 2020. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated 

in Step 1 and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages 

were computed using the values calculated in Step 1 through step 3. The 2016-2020 value for each 

performance measure is our 2020 target.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:210.8

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2019 and 2020 to reflect the 

goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated 

in Step 1. The 2016-2020 value for each performance measure is our 2020 target.

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.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

We remain committed to our goal of Zero Fatalities. Our fatality rate continues to decline despite Utah ranking 

No. 3 among states for growth in 2018 (1.9%) and No. 1 since 2010 (14.4%). In addition to meeting our target 

for fatality rate, we also met our target for fatalities and for serious injury rate. The 5-year average for serious 

injuries was slightly higher (2.5%) than our target. In addition, we slightly exceeded the target for total number 

of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries by 4.

A modest spike in serious injuries in 2015 is the primary reason for not meeting this target in 2018. However, 

we are encouraged by the trend since 2015, in which serious injuries have declined each year for a total of 

5.5% through 2018.

We are pleased with the current trend in non-motorized fatalities. Between 2015 and 2018, this number 

dropped from 54 to 40, a 26% decrease and the lowest number in five years. For non-motorized serious 

injuries, 2018 saw the highest number since 2012 (173). This is not an acceptable trend and we continue to 

monitor this area closely and seek to identify and implement projects that will improve safety for this important 

population.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

17 38 32 45 41 50 33

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

78 90 91 122 119 108 102
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Other-Reduction of severe crashes

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

The two measures of effectiveness chosen by UDOT are B/C ratio and reduction of severe crashes. Results 

presented in this report show that UDOT is making progress in both measures. The overall weighted B/C of the 

3-year before/after project results is 3.9. And for several years in a row now, Utah has achieved reductions in 

both 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

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 0 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 108 413 0.35 1.37

Intersections 65.6 553 0.22 1.83

Pedestrians 41 117.8 0.14 0.39

Bicyclists 5.6 47.6 0.02 0.16

Older Drivers 55 222.4 0.18 0.74

Motorcyclists 41.6 205.8 0.14 0.68

Work Zones 11.8 55.8 0.04 0.18

Data 0 0 0 0

Adverse Rdwy Surface 

Condition

34.6 210.8 0.12 0.7
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

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)

Adverse Weather 21.2 121.6 0.07 0.41

Aggressive Driving 14.2 62.6 0.05 0.21

Collision with Fixed 

Object

64.2 289.2 0.21 0.96

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle

34 109.2 0.11 0.36

Distracted Driving 23.6 151.6 0.08 0.5

Domestic Animal Related 1.4 4.4 0.01 0.01

Drowsy Driving 12.6 63 0.04 0.21

DUI 88.6 172.6 0.29 0.57

Interstate Highway 57.4 275.8 0.19 0.91

Night/Dark Condition 100.4 400.4 0.33 1.33

Overturn/Rollover 92 336.8 0.31 0.92

Railroad Crossing 1.8 4 0.01 0.01

Roadway Geometry 

Related

106.8 497.6 0.35 1.65

State Route 195.8 959.6 0.65 3.17

Single Vehicle 140.8 618.2 0.46 2.05

Speed Related 66.8 267.8 0.22 0.7

Teenage Driver Involved 35.8 260.8 0.12 0.86

Train Involved 1.8 4 0.01 0.01

Transit Vehicle Involved 4 14.4 0.01 0.05

Urban County 161.6 1,024 0.53 3.39

Wild Animal Related 1.4 15.4 0.01 0.05

Improper Restraint 19.4 64.6 0.06 0.22

Rural Non-State 21.8 106.6 0.07 0.35

Unrestrained 58 132.2 0.19 0.44
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane Departure

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Data

Adverse Rdwy...

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...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Lane Departure

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Data

Adverse Rdwy...

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...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 39

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

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

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...

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...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

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...

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...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-State

Unrestrained

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 39

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.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 39

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

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1.00 1.00 2.00 1.42

I-84; Cable 

Barrier (MP 

81.14-87.10) 

(PIN 11385)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 -0.08

Bulldog 

Blvd/Freedom 

Blvd; Signal 

Upgrades (PIN 

12232)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

18.00 14.00 2.00 45.00 37.00 65.00 51.00 60.19

US189/Bulldog 

Blvd; Signal 

Upgrades (PIN 

12181)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

31.00 34.00 2.00 2.00 28.00 18.00 61.00 54.00 10.71

US-89; MP 

413.7-414.2, 

Upgrade MidBlock 

Crossings 

(PIN 12177)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 13.31

I-15; Median 

Cable Barrier 

(MP 378.9-

400.6) FFY14 

(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
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

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)

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, 8 

Locations (PIN 

12984)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

1.00 1.00 -1.05

No Passing 

Zone Signing; 

Various 

Locations (PIN 

12202)

Various rural 

types

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

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

The overall weighted B/C was 3.9 for the projects we reported 3-year before-after crash analysis for this year. This shows that UDOT is selecting to fund HSIP projects that are helping to reduce serious and fatal injury crashes. The actual 

numbers of fatal and serious injury crashes have also decreased for the past several years despite strong growth in VMT.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 39

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

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 3.4 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 3.4

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 39

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 3.4

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 3.4 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 3.4

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 3.4

AADT Year (80) 100 3.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 3.4

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)

100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100 100

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 78.53 100.00 3.40 81.82 100.00 100.00 22.22 100.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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 state roads is 100+ complete. 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 several have been collected and more are underway. We plan to finish this 

effort in 1-2 years.

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 within 1-2 years.

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

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

During the past year, UDOT has conducted an assessment of how they select projects for HSIP funding. The goal is to better meet the objectives of reducing severe crashes. As a result of this assessment, UDOT has chosen to modify its 

project selection focus. In the past, HSIP funding was allocated to regions based on the relative portion of severe crashes occurring in each region. The new focus will be on selecting projects based on B/C ratio regardless of where those 

projects would be located. It will now theoretically be possible to allocate all HSIP funds to one region if that is where all of the projects with the highest B/C ratio are located. We believe that this process gives Utah the best opportunity to 

continue moving towards its Zero Fatalities goal.
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

170906_HSIP Manual_FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 39

Glossary

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

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

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

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

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

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

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

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