South Dakota

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: SD
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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 3

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

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

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

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 15

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 15

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 29

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................31

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 33

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 37

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 42

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 49

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 52
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

2. Executive Summary

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

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

SDDOT uses Road Safety Audits Review(RSAR), Roadway Safety Review (RSR) inspections, and a Safety 

Module software program to identify locations that would benefit from a safety improvement 

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

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

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

roadways in South Dakota. HSIP projects are selected for implementation by determining which project 

will result in the greatest safety improvement for the investment. The overall coordination and 

collaboration efforts for HSIP projects involve Regional SDDOT personnel, city representatives, county 

representatives, township representatives, consultant firms, law enforcement representatives, among 

other agencies. The SDDOT HSIP process will be expanded in further detail in the Program Methodology 

section of this report.
2016 South Dakota 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 MAP21 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

3. How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds administered in the State? 

Central

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

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

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

fatal crashes per million vehicle miles traveled.

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

over representation of crash clusters and higher than average crash rates.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

6. Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

maintenance personal to identify locations to apply safety improvements.

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

options to increase safety.
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Local Government Association

Other-Tribal Agencies

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

the last reporting period.

Other-Meetings with operation and maintenance personal to identify winter road condition crash 

locations to implement safety strategies

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

would like to elaborate.

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

strategies within the SHSP.

Program Methodology

10. Select the programs that are administered under HSIP. 

Intersection Horizontal Curve Roadway Departure

Local Safety

11. Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Other-Intersection Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

Yes

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.

When ADT is available and intersects with State road.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Incremental B/C 4

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

11. Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

11. Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 2/2/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

Crash rate

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

11. Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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.

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

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

33%

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

improvements?

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

13. What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

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

the last reporting period.

Other-None

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

you would like to elaborate. 

The SDDOT continues to implement the Strategic Highway Safety Plan with the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

16. Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

Amount Percentage Amount Percentage

HSIP (Section 148) $22,512,000.00 67 % $7,726,022.00 51 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $3,573,172.00 11 % $3,660,368.00 24 %

HRRR Special Rule $1,609,340.00 5 % $712,190.00 5 %

Penalty Transfer – $5,907,487.00 18 % $3,072,963.00 20 %
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

$9,995,999.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$6,167,601.00

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

$245,000.00

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

$135,833.00

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

reporting period?

0 %

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

period?

0 %

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

overcome this in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

thousand dollars is obligated during the same study period.

Section 164

Totals $33,601,999.00 100% $15,171,543.00 100%
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

The proper emphasis to project management needs to be placed to ensure an HSIP project is kept on 

schedule and with in budget from the beginning to the end of the life of the project.
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

Shoulder 

Widening, 

Super 

Elevation, 

and 

Guardrail

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

0.1 

Miles

1422000 1422000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule

Rural Minor 

Collector

400 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

shoulder 

width and 

improvemen

ts

Improve 

pavement 

friction

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface -

high friction 

surface

244.8 

Miles

70000 70000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide skidresistant 

pavement 

surfaces

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

33115 

Numbe

rs

1220000 1220000 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Intersection 

Improvemen

ts

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

0.3 

Miles

350000 350000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2205 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Continue 

reviewing 

intersection 

geometry 
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

left-turn 

lane

improveme

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

23673 

Numbe

rs

1220000 1220000 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

38837 

Numbe

rs

1379000 1379000 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

2.2 

Miles

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1500

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

pavement 

marking 

policy

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

126.8 

Miles

220000 220000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

pavement 

marking 

policy

Guardrail 

Improvemen

Roadside 

Barrier0.5 Miles

230000 230000 HRRR 

Special 

Rural Major 

Collector

500 45 County 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

ts metal Rule Agency guardrail 

policy

Shoulder 

drop-off 

Improvemen

ts

Shoulder 

treatments 

Shoulder 

treatments 

- other

93 

Miles

558000 6748000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

shoulder 

drop-off 

improvemen

ts

Intersection 

Improvemen

ts

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn 

lane

0.2 

Miles

384000 384000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1127 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Continue 

reviewing 

intersection 

geometry 

improveme

Intersection 

Improvemen

ts

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn 

lane

1.8 

Miles

1950000 1950000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Continue 

reviewing 

intersection 

geometry 

improveme

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

15.5 1000000 1000000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Guardrail 

Improvemen

ts

Roadside 

Barriermetal

149.7 

Miles

1000000 1000000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

guardrail 

policy
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

21949 

Numbe

rs

1209000 1209000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Shoulder 

Widening

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

17 

Miles

1751400

0

2605400

0

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1827 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

shoulder 

width and 

improvemen

ts

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

31910 

Numbe

rs

1170000 1170000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

31550 

Numbe

rs

1461000 1461000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

signing 

policy
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Grade 

Modification

s

Alignment 

Horizontal 

and vertical 

alignment

0.2 

Miles

500000 500000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Collector

285 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

reviewing 

roadway 

geometry 

improvemen

ts
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

2015

(5-yr avg)

Number of fatalities 129.8 127.2 130 131 129.8

Number of serious injuries 850.8 836.4 818 797.2 788.8

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.49 1.44 1.45 1.45 1.42

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.79 9.49 9.14 8.82 8.64

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

16
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

17
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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

Year - 2015

Function 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 - INTERSTATE

15.4 58.2 0.78 3.51

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

30 141.2 1.63 7.65

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

20.4 85 2.07 8.57

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

2.6 21.8 1.77 14.86

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

27 111.4 2.57 10.59

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

14.8 79.8 3.22 17.35

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

4.4 36.4 0.65 5.3

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

3.2 74 0.62 14.51

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

4.8 71.6 0.52 7.71

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

1.4 33.8 0.54 13.01

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

5.4 53.8 2.02 20.22
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

20
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 77.8 396.2 1.26 6.44

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 28.2 148.6 2.21 11.63

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

5.4 40 2.2 16.33

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

11.6 174.2 0.88 13.27

OTHER 6.8 29.8 4.54 19.9
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

elaborate.

The crash rates are shown very high for the "other - local system" category. This is caused by a 

difference between how crashes are coded and the availability of VMT data. If crashes are not coded 

as either state, county, or township they are lumped into the "other - local system" while this category 

represents a very small portion of the vehicle miles traveled.

The overall crash trend seems to be going down, but the amount of distracted driving seems to be rising 

with more use of hand held devices by drivers. At this time the number of crashes that have an element 

of distracted driving involved cannot be quantified.

Application of Special Rules

27. Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians 65 

years of age and older.

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010

(5-yr avg)

2011

(5-yr avg)

2012

(5-yr avg)

2013

(5-yr avg)

2014

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.126 0.124 0.126 0.13 0.146

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.528 0.528 0.552 0.53 0.512

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.654 0.652 0.676 0.658 0.656

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

2008 Fatality rate (per capita) = 15/116 = 0.13

2009 Fatality rate (per capita) = 10/117 = 0.09

2010 Fatality rate (per capita) = 20/118 = 0.17

2011 Fatality rate (per capita) = 16/120 = 0.13

2012 Fatality rate (per capita) = 13/121 = 0.11

2013 Fatality rate (per capita) = 19/125 = 0.15

2014 Fatality rate (per capita) = 22/129 = 0.17

2008 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 61/116 = 0.53

2009 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 66/117 = 0.56
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

2010 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 74/118 = 0.63

2011 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 60/120 = 0.50

2012 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 65/121 = 0.54

2013 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 52/125 = 0.42

2014 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 61/129 = 0.47

2008 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (15+61)/116 = 0.66

2009 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (10+66)/117 = 0.65

2010 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (20+74)/118 = 0.80

2011 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (16+60)/120 = 0.63

2012 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (13+65)/121 = 0.64

2013 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (19+52)/125 = 0.57

2014 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (22+61)/129 = 0.64
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

28. Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Reduction in number of fatal and serious injury crashes

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

Other-Implementation of centerline rumble stripes to reduce cross centerline crashes

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

The SDDOT has recently implemented a policy for installing centerline rumble stripes on rural two lane 

highways.
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

SHSP Emphasis Areas

32. Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

serious injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other-1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Lane Departure 19.4 50.2 0.21 0.55 330.4

Roadway Departure 60 317.4 0.66 3.48 2381.2

Intersections 24.4 266.8 0.27 2.52 3789.2

Pedestrians 6.6 29.6 0.07 0.33 90.2

Bicyclists 0.8 10 0.01 0.11 71.8

Older Drivers 16.8 65.6 0.18 0.72 2044.2

Motorcyclists 23.8 186.4 0.26 2.04 389.8

Work Zones 3.6 18 0.04 0.2 218.2
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Groups of similar project types
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

33. Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

serious injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other-1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Local Safety All 53.4 383.8 2.02 14.48

Intersection Intersections 24.4 229.2 0.27 2.53

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 61.4 318.6 0.68 3.52

Horizontal Curve Run-off-road 28.4 147 0.34 1.73
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Systemic Treatments
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

34. Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2015

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

serious injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other-1

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-2

(5-yr 

avg)

Other-3

(5-yr 

avg)

Rumble Strips Run-offroad60 317.4 0.66 3.48
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The SDDOT has found a reduction of 21% of targeted crashes with the deployment of stand alone 

shoulder rumble stripe projects. Shoulder rumble strips showed a reduction of 24% of fatal crashes, 

20% of injury crashes and 8% of all crash types.
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Project Evaluation

36. 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)

SD73 from 

US212 to 

south 

junction with 

SD20

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or other

1 4 21 26 1 1 13 15 1.57

Various 

Locations on 

the State 

System in 

the Mitchell 

Region

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

9 106 495 610 8 82 433 523 713
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Various 

Locations on 

the State 

System in 

the Rapid 

City Region

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

4 127 432 563 6 89 485 580 1015

Various 

Locations on 

the State 

System in 

the Mitchell 

Region

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

1 47 284 332 2 44 226 272 240

Various 

Locations on 

the State 

System in 

the

Aberdeen 

Region

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or 

shoulder

2 37 260 299 3 25 227 255 300
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2016 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

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.