Utah

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: UT
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be 

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................................................................25

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................25

Application of Special Rules....................................................................................................................39

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................41

SHSP Emphasis Areas..............................................................................................................................42

Groups of similar project types...............................................................................................................49

Systemic Treatments...............................................................................................................................54

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................60

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................64
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

Utah has experienced long-term downward trends in overall serious and fatal injury crashes, but that 

trend leveled off in 2015. We noted in previous year HSIP annual reports that as fatalities continue to be 

reduced it would become more difficult to find projects that have a large impact on improving safety. It 

is possible that this phenomenon is coming to fruition and could partially explain why the downward 

trend of the previous 5 years seems to have leveled off. We are hopeful that our diligent efforts to 

prioritize future safety projects will lead to a resumption of previous year downward trends. We 

continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the projects most likely to reduce 

serious and fatal injury crashes.

Project delivery continues to be administered through the UDOT region offices. We work closely with 

our region counterparts to make sure safety projects are addressed in a timely manner through UDOT's 

standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes. For the past few years our biggest 

obstacle to obligating HSIP funds has been the addition of the Section 164 penalty transfer funds. It took 

a while to ramp up to the point where we could identify enough projects to use the available funds but 

this year we were finally able to obligate nearly all of the regular HSIP and SEC164 funds before the fiscal 

year end.

Several significant changes to Utah law took place during this annual reporting period. First, our 

legislature adopted a primary seat belt law. UDOT is working with counterparts at the Department of 

Public Safety to leverage this law into actual increases in seatbelt usage. Second, the law governing the 

use of DUI ignition interlock devices was updated such that it should result in Utah no longer being 

subject to the SEC164 penalty transfer.

UDOT continues to demonstrate high benefit-cost ratios for safety projects through three year beforeafter analysis. The aggregate benefit-cost ratio for past projects reported in this submittal is 22.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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

comprehensive data about 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 911 operators 

to develop more complete roadway inventory data on local roads.

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 are also planning to apply the usRAP 
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

safety protocol to select Federal Aid routes in FY16. This protocol is not dependent on an LRS or limited 

by UDOT's current roadway attribute databases.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Planning

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

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

consideration. The Traffic & Safety Division then screens the crash data, traffic data, and input from the 

region offices. A meeting is then held with each region office to identify safety projects based on the 

screened data and the region submittals. Although the annual submittal is the primary mechanism by 

which the regions request HSIP funding, the regions may request other projects mid-year and the same 

process is conducted to analyze, prioritize, program, and implement them. For the second method, the 

Traffic & Safety Division employs a systemic 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, 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 Central Traffic & 

Safety staff to attend scoping and design review meetings to make sure that the safety elements are 

properly incorporated into the project.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-SHSP Partners

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-None

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

would like to elaborate.

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

Driving, Distracted Driving, and Intersection Safety emphasis areas. The other emphasis areas (Public 
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Outreach and Education, Use of Safety Restraints, Impaired Driving, Aggressive Driving, Teen Driving 

Safety, Motorcycle Safety, and Speed Management) are addressed primarily through non-infrastructure 

efforts such as education, media, and enforcement campaigns. UDOT partners with other state, local, 

and federal agencies to implement the non-infrastructure components of the SHSP. 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 seatbelt 

use.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: Other-Reduce Serious 

& Fatal Injuries

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 3/5/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

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

Yes
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

No

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

Yes

No

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

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

respective region offices.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 20

Available funding 20

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 20

Other 

Time to Completion 20

Coordination with other 20
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Projects

Program: Other-Reduce Serious & Fatal Injuries

Date of Program Methodology: 3/5/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

Other-usRAP model

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

We 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 highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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).
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 20

Available funding 20

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 20

Other 

Timeline to completion 20

Coordination with other 

projects

20

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

27

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Structure Protection on Interstate 
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Freeways

The systemic percentage was calculated by dividing the amount of funding currently dedicated to 

projects selected systemically by the total amount of currently funded projects (including noninfrastructure projects).

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-Systemic modeling

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

would like to elaborate. 

Non-Infrastructure Projects

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

projects include:

Educational Campaigns

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

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

driving, aggressive driving, impaired driving, and lack of seat belt usage. UDOT successfully achieved a 

goal of getting Utah to institute a primary seat belt law when the State legislature passed the measure in 

spring 2015.

Integrating Safety Into Planning

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

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

state to supply them with needed data and tools so they can better integrate safety into their internal 

planning processes. UDOT continues to partner with the MPOs in order to provide them with tools to 

incorporate safety into their transportation planning efforts. Integrating safety into UDOT and MPO 

planning processes helps all agencies proactively address safety. A "Safety Boot Camp" was held with 

the MPOs in May 2015 to aid in these efforts.

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.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 36997179 75 % 31827680 72 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 270954 1 % 142853 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

7150520 14 % 7419080 17 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds 5223387 11 % 4860320 11 %
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Totals 49642040 100% 44249933 100%

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

$2,744,126.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$1,705,101.00

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

$13,771,992.00

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

$13,771,992.00

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

period?

$7,419,080.00
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

For the past few years our biggest obstacle to obligating HSIP funds has been the addition of the Section 

164 penalty transfer funds. It took a while to ramp up to the point where we were capable of identifying 

enough projects to use the available funds but we are finally to the point where we are better able to 

keep up. There are two primary ways in which we are addressing the issue. The first is that we are 

setting up as many of the projects as we can a few months before the new fiscal year and seeding them 

with enough current year money to begin design. This allows the regions to begin design early enough 

to comfortably advertise the projects before the end of the following fiscal year, thereby achieving 

higher obligated percentages. The second way is continuing the development of systemic models that 

will allow us to identify projects for multiple years in advance so that there is always a list of projects the 

regions can choose from and we don't have to scramble each year to find projects.

Another ongoing obstacle is scope changes that result in some projects either being cancelled or 

advertised with estimates far below the funded amounts. We are working with the regions to get them 

more involved in up-front scoping of their safety projects so that initial concept estimates are closer in 

line with the amounts of funding we place in the projects.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

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

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

programmed, project managers from the applicable UDOT region offices are assigned to each project. 

These project managers then shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal environmental, 

design, and construction processes.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AADT Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Evaluation 

of Lateral 

Pile 

Resistance 

(PIN 11075)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

10000 31200

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Study Statewide 

Safety 

Planning 

Support

SR-71/Ft. 

Union Blvd 

Int. Dual 

Lefts (PIN 

11407)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - left-turn 

phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

4 

Numb

ers

20000

00

20000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5104

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

SR-266 

(4500 

South); 

State Street 

to 700 East 

(PIN 

11409)

Access management 

Raised island - install new

1 

Miles

11050

00

11050

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3397

5

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

US-189 

RWIS and 

Speed management 

Speed management -

11 10000 10000 HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Principal 

9835 55 State 

Highway 

Lane Speed 

Managem
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

VMS, MP 

8.00 - 19.4 

(PIN 

11410)

other Miles 00 00 n 148) Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

Agency Departure ent

US-6; 

Barrier MP 

(192.56-

192.82) 

(PIN 

11411)

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

0.26 

Miles

12500

00

12500

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

7425 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Concrete 

Barrier

US-89; 

Improve 

Shoulders 

(MP 69-75) 

(PIN 

11412)

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments -

other

6 

Miles

25000

0

25000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3110 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Widen 

and Pave 

Shoulders

SR-18; MP 

34.40 -

39.10, 

Install 

Guardrail 

(PIN 

11413)

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 

Miles

45999

0

45999

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1605 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

SR-173; 

Redwood 

Rd. to State 

Street (PIN 

11494)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - left-turn 

phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

1 

Numb

ers

14290

00

54111

15

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3810

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

SR-24; MP 

69.40 - MP 

73.25 

Shoulder 

Improveme

nts (PIN 

12204)

Roadway delineation 

Roadway delineation -

other

4 

Miles

68778

3

68778

3

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1225 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Widen 

and Pave 

Shoulders

Safety 

Campaigns, 

Education, 

& 

Enforceme

nt FY15 

(PIN 

12210)

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

1 

Numb

ers

31000

00

31000

00

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver 

safety 

awarenes

s

Education

Traffic & 

Safety 

Program 

Manageme

nt Support 

FY15 (PIN 

12211)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

17400

00

17400

00

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and 

safety 

managem

ent 

Statewide 

Safety 

Planning 

Support
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

systems

Safety 

Campaigns 

and 

Education 

FY16 (PIN 

12212)

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

1 

Numb

ers

26000

00

26000

00

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver 

safety 

awarenes

s

Education

Traffic & 

Safety 

Program 

Manageme

nt Support 

FY16 (PIN 

12213)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

20000

00

20000

00

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and 

safety 

managem

ent 

systems

Statewide 

Safety 

Planning 

Support

500 

W/4800 S; 

Signal 

Upgrades 

(PIN 

12218)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - left-turn 

phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

2 

Numb

ers

41000

0

41000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

1806

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

SR-36; 

Canyon Rd 

Intersectio

n 

Improveme

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

right-turn lane

1 

Numb

ers

60000

0

75000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

1901

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Turn 

Lanes
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

nts (PIN 

12223)

and 

Expressw

ays

4100 S; 

4000 W, 

2700 W & 

1300 W 

Signal Imps 

(PIN 

12225)

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

3 

Numb

ers

24000

00

24000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

2536

5

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

US-89; 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

(PIN 

12361)

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

modify skew angle

2 

Numb

ers

20000

0

21087

04

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3265

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Intersecti

on 

Realignm

ent

GIS / 

Enterprise 

Data 

Manageme

nt Support 

(PIN 

12668)

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numb

ers

20000

0

38500

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

SR-71 & 

3900 

South, 

Traffic 

Signal 

Reconstruc

Intersection traffic 

control Modify traffic 

signal timing - left-turn 

phasing (permissive to 

protected-only)

2 

Numb

ers

44700

0

92200

0

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5479

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

t (PIN 

12714)

2014 

Statewide 

Pavement 

Condition 

Data 

Collection 

(PIN 

12761)

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numb

ers

85000

0

20324

03

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

I-15; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection 

(PIN 

12985)

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

1 

Numb

ers

29700

0

29700

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1184

55

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Concrete 

Barrier

Telegraph 

Rd; 

Guardrail & 

Rumble 

Strips (PIN 

13024)

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.7 

Miles

80000

0

80000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5745 45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

and 

Rumble 

Strips

SR-24; MP 

16.01-

24.13, 

Roadside 

Improveme

nts (PIN 

Roadside Barrier- metal 8 

Miles

80000

0

89800

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1240 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

13041)

Statewide 

SRTS SNAP 

Program 

FY15 (PIN 

13167)

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

1 

Miles

69900

0

71000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Child 

Safety

Education

SR-71; MP 

9.7-11.7, 

Raised 

Medians 

(PIN 

13223)

Access management 

Raised island - install new

2 

Miles

50000

0

50000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2838

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Access 

Managem

ent

I-15, I-80, I215; P2-

Structure 

Barrier 

(PIN 

13309)

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

1 

Numb

ers

27500

00

27660

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Concrete 

Barrier

BYU Traffic 

Safety Data 

Research 

2015-2016 

(PIN 

13403)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

12000

0

12000

0

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety 

modeling

Crash 

Mapping 

and 

Analysis

I-15 & I-70; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

1 

Numb

20000

00

20000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

0 80 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Concrete 

Barrier
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Protection 

Ph. 2 (PIN 

13483)

ers n 148) Interstate Agency

I-15; MP 

28.13-

29.30, 

Install 

Guardrail 

(PIN 

13484)

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 

Miles

50000

0

50000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2191

5

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail

SRTS SNAP 

Program 

FY16 (PIN 

13571)

Non-infrastructure 

Educational efforts

1 

Numb

ers

30000

0

30000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Child 

Safety

Education

High Risk 

Rural 

Roads 

Project 

Scoping 

(PIN 

13579)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

3 

Numb

ers

40000 40000 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

and 

Rumble 

Strips

I-80; MP 

138.7 -

141.1,Shoul

der Barrier 

& Lighting 

(PIN 

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

2.4 

Miles

19500

00

19500

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

5136

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Concrete 

Barrier
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

13596)

Safety 

Partner 

Programs 

FY15 (PIN 

13646)

Non-infrastructure 

Enforcement

1 

Numb

ers

10000

00

10000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Enforcem

ent

Enforcem

ent

US-191; MP 

138-146, 

Shoulder & 

Curve 

Improveme

nts (PIN 

13665)

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder grading

8 

Miles

20000

0

45885

2

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

6040 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Widen 

and Pave 

Shoulders

SR-186; 

Beck Street 

to North 

Temple

Intersection traffic 

control Systemic 

improvements - signalcontrolled

1 

Numb

ers

57200

0

28270

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1544

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on

The funding source chosen for a given project listing is the source that represents the majority of project funding. Many projects are funded with 

both regular HSIP and SEC164 HSIP.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 272 263 247 235 238

Number of serious injuries 1604 1407 1328 1291 1306

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.03 1 0.94 0.89 0.89

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.09 5.33 5.04 4.86 4.86

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

32 111 1.05 3.67

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 4 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

29 74 1.7 4.38

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

16 56 2.1 7.25

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

4 10 1.57 3.92

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

15 53 1.72 6.04

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

11 51 1 4.65

URBAN PRINCIPAL 27 109 0.42 1.68
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 8 1.1 2.75

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

50 392 1.22 9.66

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

20 173 0.72 6.22

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 2 1.09 8.74

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

12 99 0.81 6.63

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

18 127 0.58 4.03

URBAN COLLECTOR 

(MINOR + MAJOR)

12 101 0.82 6.65

UNKNOWN 0 37 0 0
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 172 825 0.96 5.84

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

ALL OTHER 66 480 0.74 6.69
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

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

In general, the 5-year averages for the crash number and rate categories tracked by UDOT are trending 

down or remaining nearly even. Overall fatalities and serious injuries increased slightly as compared to 

2013 figures but the rates remained exactly the same due to an increase in VMT that compensated for 

the crash increases.

A few functional class trends are worth mentioning. First, the "unknown" category of serious and fatal 

injuries has been decreasing sharply over the past few years. This is due to UDOT's ability to now locate 

every crash geospatially. Second, the reduction in unknown crashes has led to a corresponding increase 

in crashes attributed to the "rural local road or street" category because most of the crashes we were 

previously unable to locate were on rural local roads. We believe that the increases shown in this report 

for local road crashes can be properly attributed to this phenomenon and not on an actual increase in 

crashes occurring around the state on local roads.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.31 0.338 0.338 0.32 0.326

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.924 0.908 0.832 0.83 0.84

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

1.232 1.24 1.168 1.148 1.166

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

Each year's fatalities and serious injuries were divided by the "Number of People 65 Years of Age and 

Older (per 1,000 total population)" figures for each of the respective years, as instructed in Interim 

Guidance for the Older Driver Rule provided on the FHWA website. Those are the values we entered in 

the spreadsheet above. Then the system calculated the 5-yr rolling averages automatically. This method 

is in line with the instructions on the FHWA website.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-High obligation rate

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

There have not been any significant program changes within this reporting period.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure 106 383.2 0.41 1.4 0 0 0

Intersections 50.6 496.8 0.18 1.85 0 0 0

Pedestrians 31.4 109 0.11 0.41 0 0 0

Bicyclists 6 62.2 0.02 0.24 0 0 0

Older Drivers 44.8 180.4 0.16 0.65 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 31.8 200.2 0.11 0.73 0 0 0

Work Zones 14 55.8 0.05 0.21 0 0 0

Adverse Roadway 

Surface Condition

33 217.6 0.13 0.82 0 0 0

Adverse Weather 21.2 119.6 0.08 0.44 0 0 0

Aggressive Driving 10.8 46.8 0.04 0.17 0 0 0

Collision with Fixed 

Object

58.8 253 0.21 0.91 0 0 0
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle

29.4 90 0.11 0.33 0 0 0

Distracted Driving 19 134.4 0.07 0.49 0 0 0

Domestic Animal Related 0.4 6 0 0.02 0 0 0

Drowsy Driving 10.8 55 0.04 0.2 0 0 0

DUI 49.4 158.2 0.18 0.57 0 0 0

Interstate Highway 58.6 219.2 0.21 0.8 0 0 0

Night/Dark Condition 84.2 352.4 0.31 1.29 0 0 0

Overturn/Rollover 88.6 349.8 0.33 1.31 0 0 0

Railroad Crossing 1.4 5 0.01 0.02 0 0 0

Roadway Geometry 

Related

106.4 442.4 0.4 1.63 0 0 0

State Route 171.8 825.2 0.64 3.04 0 0 0

Single Vehicle 132.6 621.4 0.49 2.31 0 0 0

Speed Related 58.6 233.8 0.22 0.87 0 0 0

Teenage Driver Involved 32 210.2 0.12 0.78 0 0 0

Train Involved 1.6 4.2 0.01 0.02 0 0 0

Transit Vehicle Involved 4.4 14 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Urban County 136.6 926.6 0.5 3.41 0 0 0

Wild Animal Related 2.6 17.8 0.01 0.07 0 0 0

Improper Restraint 25.8 74 0.09 0.27 0 0 0

Rural Non-State 20.8 107.8 0.07 0.41 0 0 0

Unrestrained 49.4 129.6 0.19 0.48 0 0 0
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Reduce Serious & 

Fatal Injuries

All 237.8 1305.6 0.89 4.86 0 0 0

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

Roadway 

Departure

106 383.2 0.4 1.43 1 1 1
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barriers, Rumble 

Strips, Guardrails

Roadway 

Departure

106 383.2 0.4 1.43 0 0 0
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

As has been demonstrated in the other questions, Utah has experienced long-term downward trends in 

overall serious and fatal injury crashes, but that trend leveled off in 2015. It will be interesting to see 

whether future years resume the downward trend, exhibit stability, or continue to increase.

Also, nearly all individual crash categories (whether broken down by crash type, road ownership, SHSP 

emphasis area, etc) have experienced declines in recent years. Most of those declines continued this 

year (for rates, if not actual numbers) or the numbers remained fairly stable. One notable exception is 

pedestrian crashes, which have been trending upward. We have created a multi-disciplinary task force 

to address pedestrian safety. 

We noted in previous year HSIP annual reports that as fatalities continue to be reduced it will become 

more difficult to find projects that have a large impact on improving safety. It is possible that this 

phenomenon is coming to fruition and could partially explain why the downward trend of the previous 5 

years seems to have currently leveled off. UDOT will need to be vigilant about continuing to identify 

ways to further reduce serious and fatal injury crashes. Our gradual shift towards using systemic 

methods continues and we will be dependent upon projects identified through systemic means to 

resume our downward trends.
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functiona

l Class

Improvemen

t Category

Improvemen

t Type

BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injurie

s

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injurie

s

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluatio

n Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

I-84 Median 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 8659)

Rural 

Principal 

Arteria -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 1 1 7 26 35 1 0 6 21 28 11.8

US-89; MP 

71.5-72.5, 

Kanab 

Canyon 

Reconstruct 

Intersectio

n and Add 

Turn Lanes 

(PIN 7484)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes 

- add left-turn 

lane

0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 -0.99

I-80; MP 

143-196, 

Install 

Median 

Cable 

Rural 

Principal 

Arteria -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 2 5 37 76 120 0 4 21 63 88 17.91
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Barrier 

(PIN 8237)

I-15; MP 

354.6-

372.65, 

Install 

Median 

Cable 

Barrier 

(PIN 8288)

Rural 

Principal 

Arteria -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 4 5 97 236 342 5 5 63 215 288 2.85

I-15; MP 38-

184 & I-70; 

MP 0-75.2; 

Install 

Median 

Cable 

Barrier 

(PIN 8297)

Rural 

Principal 

Arteria -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 4 11 43 85 143 3 7 33 122 165 13.54

Region 4; 

Various 

Locations, 

Install 

Rumble 

Strips (PIN 

8222)

Various Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

9 22 82 146 259 6 9 42 103 160 127.81

SR-143; MP 

12, 

Runaway 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Speed 

management

Speed 

management -

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 23.74
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Truck 

Ramp (PIN 

9623)

Other Other
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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