Utah

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 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 .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 1

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................... 7

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................... 7

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 10

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 16

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 16

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 31

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................32

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 34

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 39

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 44

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 51

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 53
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The State of Utah has experienced an increase in traffic fatalities the past two years. We are hopeful 

that our efforts to prioritize safety projects that have the greatest potential to reduce fatalities will 

result in a resumption of our downward trend. We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic 

modeling to identify the projects most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

The recent FAST Act approved by Congress removes our ability to fund education and enforcement 

efforts with HSIP funds. We have been working on other ways to continue these programs. Education 

and enforcement are an important parts of our comprehensive safety strategy to reduce fatalities.

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

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 roadway data for local roads (non-State and non-Federal Aid) that would make it easier 
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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.

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 have also begun the process of applying 

the usRAP safety protocol to select non-State Federal Aid and local routes. We are currently working 

with Cache County and will then apply it to other counties in the future. 

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

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 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 
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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 internal partners in this process, we have developed an online crash 

reporting and analysis tool so everyone has equal access to safety data.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-SHSP Partners

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

the last reporting period.

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 

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 recent FAST Act approved by Congress removed UDOT's ability to fund education and 

enforcement efforts with HSIP, so we have been working on ways to find 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.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 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

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Lane miles Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

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

Yes

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

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

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 
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

Time to Completion 20

Coordination with other Projects 20

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

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Lane miles Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

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

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

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

Other-usRAP model outputs
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

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

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

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-Structure Protection on Interstate Freeways

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-Systemic modeling

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

last reporting period.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Other-use of usRAP model on non-State network

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 eligible non-infrastructure projects that aid roadway safety 

efforts. Such projects include:

Integrating Safety Into Planning

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

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

across the state to supply them with needed data and tools so they can better integrate safety 

into their internal planning processes. UDOT continues to partner with the MPOs in order to 

provide them with tools to incorporate safety into their transportation planning efforts. 

Integrating safety into UDOT and MPO planning processes helps all agencies proactively address 

safety.

Improving Crash Data Analysis

HSIP funding is also used to improve UDOT's crash database. The ability to accurately locate 

crashes and understand crash characteristics is vital to programming HSIP funds.

University & Consultant Support

The Traffic & Safety Division uses HSIP funding to contract with universities and consultants who 

assist with various HSIP functions. The functions include items such as program management, 

project management, crash data mapping, statistical analysis, safety modeling, report 

preparation, SPF/CMF development, training, and HSM analysis.

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

Zero Fatalities effort umbrella. With passage of the FAST Act and the recent ineligibility of those 

activities, UDOT has been working to identify State funds to continue those efforts.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Federal Fiscal Year
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

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

$3,510,607.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$2,862,664.00

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

$1,387,776.00

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

$1,387,776.00

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

period?

$0.00

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $22,149,150.00 77 % $15,861,789.00 80 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $1,175,000.00 4 % $804,267.00 4 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$732,171.00 3 % $0.00 0 %

State and Local Funds $4,564,907.00 16 % $3,206,654.00 16 %

Totals $28,621,228.00 100% $19,872,710.00 100%
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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.

A specific challenge we face is the FAST Act language that made education and enforcement ineligible 

activities for HSIP funds. We had been counting on using approximately 10-15% of our HSIP allocation on 

education and enforcement efforts so we had to regroup and find other projects to obligate the money 

towards.

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.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificat

ion

AADT Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

SR71/Ellerby 

Ave 

Intersectio

n Imps (PIN 

11391)

Intersection geometry 

Splitter island - install on 

one or more approaches

1 

Numb

ers

50000

0

51374

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2562

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Geometry

SR-111; SR209 to 

3500 S (PIN 

11498)

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 20000

00

74000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1300

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

US-191; 

Mormon 

Tank Wash 

to Kanes 

Spring (PIN 

1152

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder grading

2 Miles 50000

0

36450

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4505 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

flattening

SR-20; MP 

6.83-13.66, 

Roadside 

Improveme

nts (PIN 1

Roadside Barrier- metal 6.8 

Miles

45000

0

45000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2035 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

& Friction 

Pvmt

I-15, I-215, 

I-80; 

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

117 

Miles

30000

00

30000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Principal 

1400

00

70 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Roadside 

Barrier
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection

n 148) Arterial -

Interstate

Agency

I-15; Scipio 

to Juab 

County 

Line (PIN 

13331)

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments -

other

6 Miles 50000

0

17500

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

9720 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Stabilizati

on

US-91; SR13 to 

Mantua 

(PIN 13441)

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

4.6 

Miles

35000

00

50500

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

2948

5

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Roadside 

Barrier

SR-35; MP 

17.30-

20.75, 

Motorcycle

-Safe 

Guardrail (

Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Miles 60000

0

60000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

445 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail

SR-20; MP 

0.50-2.00, 

Runaway 

Truck 

Ramp (PIN 

13491

Speed management 

Speed management -

other

1 

Numb

ers

40000

0

40000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2035 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Runaway 

Truck 

Ramp

Various 

Routes; 

No-Pass 

Pennant 

Signing 

(PIN 13492

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

1 

Numb

ers

25000

0

25000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 4000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

No-Pass 

Pennants
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

SR-95; MP 

16-117, 

Curve 

Signage 

(PIN 13493)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

101 

Miles

25000

0

25000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Curve 

signs

US-191; MP 

356.6-

359.4, 

Motorcycle

-Safe 

Guardrail 

Roadside Barrier- metal 2.8 

Miles

20000

0

20000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1750 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail

BYU Safety 

Modeling 

FY17 (PIN 

13572)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

12000

0

12000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety 

Modeling

Crash 

Mapping 

& 

Analysis

usRAP 

Model 

Developme

nt (PIN 

13574)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

15000

0

15000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety 

Modeling

Crash 

Mapping 

& 

Analysis

FY 2016 

Research 

Work 

Program 

(PIN 13702)

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

90000 25555

50

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Safety 

Study

US-40; 

Daniels 

Canyon 

Shoulder 

Repair (PIN 

13721)

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8.3 

Miles

20000

00

80000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5815 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

SR-128; Jct 

US-191 to 

Roadside Barrier- metal 34 

Miles

50000

0

36450

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Major 

640 50 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Dewey 

Bridge (PIN 

13782)

n 148) Collector Agency

Bike 

Improveme

nts on SR113 & SR114 (PIN 

13900)

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numb

ers

40000

0

64700

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

7700 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Left Turn 

Striping

2016 

Statewide 

Pavement 

Condition 

Data 

Collection 

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numb

ers

43000

0

14650

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

n/a 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Roadway 

Data 

Collection

Protected 

Bike Lanes 

& Raised 

Medians 

Bulldog 

Blvd

Access management 

Raised island - install new

0.7 

Miles

15000

00

45000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2100

0

35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Raised 

Medians

SR-21; SR130 & Flat 

Rd 

Intersectio

n Study 

(PIN 14

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

2 

Numb

ers

50000 50000 Penalt

y 

Transf

er –

Sectio

n 164

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1685 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Safety 

Study

US-91; MP 

28.44-

28.70, 

Medians, 

Turn Lanes, 

& Sign

Intersection traffic control 

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

1 

Numb

ers

10650

00

10650

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1853

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Intersecti

on 

Signalizati

on
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

SR-201; MP 

2.8-3.5, 

Barrier 

Extension 

(PIN 14455)

Roadside Barrier -

concrete

0.74 

Miles

90000

0

90000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

1725

0

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Roadside 

Barrier

SR-201; MP 

11.2-12.7, 

Shoulder 

Cable 

Barrier (PIN 

Roadside Barrier - cable 3 Miles 10000

00

10000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys

6289

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Roadside 

Barrier

4100 

S/3200 W

Signal 

Upgrade 

(PIN 14457)

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 

Numb

ers

85000

0

85000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2655

5

40 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Signal 

Control

US-89; 

Orem 

Raised 

Medians 

Univ. Pkwy 

to Center 

St

Access management 

Raised island - install new

4.38 

Miles

22000

00

37000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4550

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Raised 

Medians

SR-173; MP 

9.29-9.41, 

Signal 

Improveme

nts (PIN 

149

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

1 

Numb

ers

60000

0

60000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2682

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Signal 

Control
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

15
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 263 247 235 238 243

Number of serious injuries 1407 1328 1291 1306 1355

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.88

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5.33 5.04 4.86 4.86 4.93

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

17
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

18
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

Year - 2015

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

34 115 1.12 3.8

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1 4

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

27 76 1.57 4.42

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

14 57 1.93 7.63

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

4 10 1.58 4.11

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

14 49 1.58 5.6

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

11 61 1 5.55

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

27 115 0.4 1.72
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 9 1.08 2.99

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

55 408 1.23 9.12

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

20 186 0.79 7.26

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

2 3.71

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

13 104 0.83 6.63

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

19 143 0.5 3.66

URBAN COLLECTOR 

(MINOR + MAJOR)

13 106 0.8 6.51

UNKNOWN 16
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

23
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Year - 2015

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

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 176 861 0.96 4.71

ALL OTHER 67 495 0.73 5.35
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

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

The number of fatalities and serious injuries in Utah have increased for the past two years. We will 

continue to install low-cost safety improvements and other proven safety countermeasures to reverse 

this recent trend.

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.11 0.11 0.11

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.3 0.3 0.3

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.41 0.41 0.41

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

We followed the guidance on the FHWA website for the older driver special rule. 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 the guidance. Those are the values 

we entered in the spreadsheet above. 
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Benefit/cost

If 'benefit/cost', indicate the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program benefit/cost ratio.

2.05

Other-Reduction of fatalities and serious injuries

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

None

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

None.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2015

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 102.6 378.6 0.37 1.37

Intersections 52.8 527.4 0.19 1.92

Pedestrians 35.6 109.2 0.13 0.4

Bicyclists 5.6 59.8 0.02 0.22

Older Drivers 46.6 194.4 0.17 0.7

Motorcyclists 34.6 203.6 0.13 0.74

Work Zones 14 55.6 0.05 0.2

Adverse Roadway 

Surface Condition

29.4 212 0.11 0.77

Adverse Weather 17.8 117.6 0.06 0.43

Aggressive Driving 11 49.8 0.04 0.18

Collision with Fixed 

Object

61.4 265.6 0.22 0.96

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle

28.8 93.2 0.1 0.34

Distracted Driving 20.6 145.2 0.07 0.53

Domestic Animal Related 0.6 5.8 0.02

Drowsy Driving 11.2 55 0.04 0.2

DUI 59.2 162.8 0.21 0.59

Interstate Highway 61 230.2 0.22 0.83

Night/Dark Condition 90.6 369.6 0.33 1.34
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Overturn/Rollover 87.4 343.2 0.32 1.25

Railroad Crossing 1.6 4.4 0.01 0.02

Roadway Geometry 

Related

103.8 459.2 0.38 1.67

State Route 175.6 860.8 0.64 3.12

Single Vehicle 134.4 618.4 0.49 2.25

Speed Related 54.8 230.4 0.2 0.84

Teenage Driver Involved 30.6 226.4 0.11 0.82

Train Involved 2 3.6 0.01 0.01

Transit Vehicle Involved 4.2 12.2 0.02 0.04

Urban County 140.4 972 0.51 3.53

Wild Animal Related 1.6 18.6 0.01 0.07

Improper Restraint 26.2 75.8 0.1 0.28

Rural Non-State 20.6 106.4 0.07 0.39

Unrestrained 47.6 129.2 0.17 0.47
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Groups of similar project types
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

Year - 2015

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Low-Cost Spot 

Improvements

Roadway 

Departure

103 379 0.37 1.38

Other-Reduce Serious 

& Fatal Injuries

All 243 1355 0.88 4.93
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Systemic Treatments
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

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

103 379 0.37 1.38
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

None.
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

Dummy 

Project

Rural Minor 

Collector
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

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. 

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.