SOUTH DAKOTA
 

Page 1 of 51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Table of Contents
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 7
 

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 18
 

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

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

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 23
 

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 23
 

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 36
 

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 38
 

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 40
 

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 40
 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 40
 

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 45
 

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 46
 

Page 2 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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.” 

Page 3 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Executive Summary
 

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

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

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

Module software program, and ArcGIS to identify locations that would benefit from a safety 

improvement project. RSR inspections are developed by utilizing the South Dakota Department of 

Public Safety's 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section of this report. 

Page 4 of 51 
 

 

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

 

 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

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

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure 

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

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

improvements ranked by benefit/cost. 

Other-Planning and Engineering 

HSIP staff are located in the Project Development Office which is within the Planning and Engineering 

Division. 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP. 

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

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

million vehicle miles traveled. 

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

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

systemic improvements. 

Page 5 of 51 
 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

 

 

 

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

period? 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

are involved with HSIP planning. 

Design 

Planning 

Maintenance 

Operations 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

maintenance personal to identify locations to apply safety improvements. 

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

to increase safety. 

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA 

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

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

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

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

also takes place throughout the year. 

No 

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate? 

Page 6 of 51 
Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate. 

 

Program Methodology 

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

and evaluation processes? 

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

 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Yes 

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

strategies within the SHSP. 

No 

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

to track performance. 

Intersection 

Horizontal Curve 

Skid Hazard 

Roadway Departure 

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Local Safety 

Shoulder Improvement 

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Page 7 of 51 
 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Traffic All crashes Horizontal curvature Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

Crash rate 

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

Yes 

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

Yes 

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Page 8 of 51 
 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Other-Intersection Type Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

Crash rate 

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs 

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

Yes 

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

No 

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

When ADT is available and intersects with State road. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Incremental B/C : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

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

Program: Local Safety 

Page 9 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2015 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

Crash rate 

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

Yes 

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

No 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

Page 10 of 51 
 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

Crash rate 

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

Yes 

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

Yes 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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). 

Page 11 of 51 
 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/2/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Horizontal curvature Traffic All crashes Functional classification Volume Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency 

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Crash rate 

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs 

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

No 

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

Yes 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

Page 12 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 

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

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

Crash rate 

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

Yes 

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

Page 13 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Yes 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Volume 

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

Crash rate 

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

Yes 

Page 14 of 51 
 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Yes 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2016 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one] 

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

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

Page 15 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Yes 

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

Yes 

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

Crash rates and crash clusters 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-B/C ratio 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 4 

Ranking based on net benefit : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

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

apply. 

Rumble Strips 

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply] 

Engineering Study 

Page 16 of 51 
 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Rumble Strips 

Crash data analysis 

Install/Improve Signing 

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ITS technologies such as variable speed limits, adaptive signal controls, and intersection conflict warning 

systems are installed within the HSIP program. 

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

Yes 

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

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

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

studies to compare different design alternatives. 

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

period? 

No 

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate? 

No 

Page 17 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Project Implementation 

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year 

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

July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED 

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $45,166,000 $41,738,175 92.41% 

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1)) 

$0 $0 0% 

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $1,453,000 $453,326 31.2% 

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $3,527,000 $5,497,083 155.86% 

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2)) 

$0 $0 0% 

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP) 

$0 $0 0% 

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0% 

Totals $50,146,000 $47,688,584 95.1% 

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

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

18% 

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

20% 

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

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

Page 18 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

1% 

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

1% 

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

57% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

0% 

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

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

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. 

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

No 

Page 19 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

General Listing of Projects 

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION 

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY 

02PT Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface 

2 Locations $29000 $2234000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

14,305 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Roadway 

Departure 

High Friction 

Surface Treatment 

02UE Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

20306 Signs $716000 $716000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

02UL Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

30289 Signs $1068000 $1068000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

036K Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen shoulder ­

paved or other 

6.6 Miles $6159000 $6159000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

763 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Roadway 

Departure 

Shoulder 

Widening 

03B1 Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration) 

0.8 Miles $6721000 $10229000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

9,726 35 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Modify roadway 

geometrics 

03KE Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration) 

0.7 Miles $9434000 $15388000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

17,812 35 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Modify roadway 

geometrics 

03R4 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface 

1 Locations $19000 $1268000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

7,424 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Roadway 

Departure 

High Friction 

Surface Treatment 

03UT Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new 

28.5 Miles $550000 $550000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

11,888 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Durable Pavement 

Markings 

03UU Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new 

112.6 Miles $220000 $220000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

6,220 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Durable Pavement 

Markings 

03UV Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new 

21.6 Miles $650000 $650000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

27,218 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Durable Pavement 

Markings 

03V1 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning 

999 Miles $130000 $130000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

1,500 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Other Roadway 

Departure 

Highway Safety 

Planning 

03V3 Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new 

25.5 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

7,746 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Durable Pavement 

Markings 

03V4 Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 999 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Local Road 

or Street 

1,500 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Roadway 

Departure 

Conduction 

Roadway Safety 

Audits 

03VA Roadside Barrier- metal 26 Locations $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

11,324 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Barrier Treatments 

044E Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

33352 Signs $1176000 $1176000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

Page 20 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION 

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY 

044F Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

44299 Signs $1562000 $1562000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

04H5 Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

28360 Signs $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

4,398 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

04HF Alignment Vertical alignment 

or elevation 

change 

0.7 Miles $1403000 $1403000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

1,876 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Intersections Increase 

intersection sight 

distance 

04JA Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary lanes ­

modify left-turn 

lane offset 

2 Intersections $399000 $399000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,408 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Add left turn lanes 

04K6 Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary lanes ­

add left-turn lane 

2 Intersections $700000 $700000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,932 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Add left turn lanes 

04R6 Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

29778 Signs $1050000 $1050000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

04R7 Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

49290 Signs $1738000 $1738000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

04TF Intersection traffic 

control 

Modify traffic 

signal timing ­

signal coordination 

21 Intersections $588000 $588000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Urban Major 

Collector 

37,561 35 State Highway 

Agency 

Roadway 

Departure 

Adaptive Signal 

Control 

Technology 

04TX Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary lanes ­

add left-turn lane 

1 Intersections $245000 $245000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

2,472 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Add left turn lanes 

053V Advanced 

technology and 

ITS 

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other 

1 Intersections $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

1,025 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Intersections Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System 

546N Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road 

diet, roadway 

reconfiguration) 

1.1 Miles $6700000 $12500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Urban Minor 

Arterial 

9,360 35 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Modify roadway 

geometrics 

05H7 Shoulder 

treatments 

Shoulder 

treatments - other 

43.3 Miles $1000000 $1000000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,102 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Shoulder edge 

drop-off 

05H8 Roadway Rumble strips ­

center 

74.3 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,222 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Centerline Rumble 

Stripes 

05H9 Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface 

17 Locations $2100000 $2100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

5,051 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Roadway 

Departure 

High Friction 

Surface Treatment 

05JJ Lighting Intersection 

lighting 

1 Intersections $33000 $33000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

2,461 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Lighting 

05NM Roadway Rumble strips ­

center 

20.2 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

4,034 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Centerline Rumble 

Stripes 

05W0 Lighting Intersection 

lighting 

1 Intersections $50000 $50000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

2,357 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Lighting 

Page 21 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION 

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY 

05X3 Roadway Rumble strips ­

center 

74.3 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

5,051 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Centerline Rumble 

Stripes 

05X4 Roadway Rumble strips ­

center 

5.3 Miles $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,019 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Centerline Rumble 

Stripes 

05X5 Roadway Rumble strips ­

center 

63.2 Miles $320000 $320000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

3,577 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Centerline Rumble 

Stripes 

060G Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

20306 Signs $716000 $716000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

060J Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Roadway signs 

(including post) ­

new or updated 

29778 Signs $1050000 $1050000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

200 65 County Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Signing 

060K Roadside Fencing 3 Locations $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate 

3,587 80 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Snow Fence 

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

Page 22 of 51 
 

General Highway Safety Trends 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Fatalities 121 131 140 111 133 135 136 134 116 

Serious Injuries 924 842 845 760 810 832 738 803 692 

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.430 1.500 1.580 1.230 1.470 1.480 1.480 1.440 1.230 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

10.910 9.630 9.540 8.450 8.920 9.130 8.010 8.620 7.310 

Number non-motorized 

fatalities 

10 4 11 8 2 9 11 6 6 

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries 

40 37 55 39 37 49 39 35 30 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Safety Performance 

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

Page 23 of 51 
 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Annual Fatalities
 

Annual Serious Injuries 

Page 24 of 51 
 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2
 

1
 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2
 

0
 

2008 2009	 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 

Page 25 of 51 
 

 

 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0
 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

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

Describe fatality data source. 

Other 

If Other Please describe 

FARS & South Dakota Accident Records System 

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

FARS is used for those years where it is available. The South Dakota Accident Report System is used to bridge 

the gap of FARS data. 

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

Year 2016 

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities 

(5-yr avg) 

Number of Serious 

Injuries 

(5-yr avg) 

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT) 

(5-yr avg) 

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT) 

(5-yr avg) 

Rural Principal Arterial ­

Interstate 

14.4 60.6 0.74 3.64 

Page 26 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities 

(5-yr avg) 

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg) 

Fatality Rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

Serious Injury Rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

Rural Principal Arterial ­

Other Freeways and 

Expressways 

Rural Principal Arterial ­

Other 

32.6 140.2 1.72 7.39 

Rural Minor Arterial 18.4 82 1.89 8.38 

Rural Minor Collector 3.2 17.8 2.18 12.16 

Rural Major Collector 28.8 108.6 2.73 10.31 

Rural Local Road or Street 15.4 77.4 3.35 16.86 

Urban Principal Arterial ­

Interstate 

3.8 35 0.54 4.96 

Urban Principal Arterial ­

Other Freeways and 

Expressways 

Urban Principal Arterial ­

Other 

2.6 68 0.53 13.89 

Urban Minor Arterial 4.4 72 0.46 7.43 

Urban Minor Collector 

Urban Major Collector 1.8 23.8 0.67 8.75 

Urban Local Road or Street 0.4 8.6 0.14 3.09 

Page 27 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Year 2016 

Roadways Number of Fatalities 

(5-yr avg) 

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg) 

Fatality Rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

Serious Injury Rate 

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

State Highway Agency 58.4 303 0.94 4.89 

County Highway Agency 25.6 120 2.01 9.4 

Town or Township 

Highway Agency 

3.4 29 1.4 11.88 

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency 

8.6 135.4 0.65 10.17 

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency 

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency 

Other State Agency 

Other Local Agency 

Private (Other than 

Railroad) 

Railroad 

State Toll Authority 

Local Toll Authority 

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University) 

Indian Tribe Nation 

Page 28 of 51 
 

35 

30 

25 

s ie20 litataF15 

10 

5 

0 

Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban 

Principal Principal Minor Minor Major Local Principal Principal Minor Major 

Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector Collector Road or Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector 

Interstate Other Street Interstate Other 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 29 of 51 
 

160 

140 

s e

120 

riuj

100 

n Is

80 

uori

60 

eS

40 

20 

0 

Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban 

Principal Principal Minor Minor Major Local Principal Principal Minor Major 

Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector Collector Road or Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector 

Interstate Other Street Interstate Other 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification
 

5 Year Average
 

Page 30 of 51 
 

4 

3.5 

3 

e t2.5 Raytil

2 

ata

1.5 

F

1 

0.5 

0 

Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban 

Principal Principal Minor Minor Major Local Principal Principal Minor Major 

Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector Collector Road or Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector 

Interstate Other Street Interstate Other 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 31 of 51 
 

20 

18 

e t

16 

a R

14 

ryu

12 

jn I

10 

su

8 

ori

6 

eS

4 

2 

0 

Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban 

Principal Principal Minor Minor Major Local Principal Principal Minor Major 

Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector Collector Road or Arterial - Arterial - Arterial Collector 

Interstate Other Street Interstate Other 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 32 of 51 
 

90
 

80
 

70
 

60
 

s ie50
 litata40
 F 30
 

20
 

10
 

0
 

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township City of Municipal
 

Highway Agency Highway Agency
 

2008-2012
 2009-2013
 2010-2014
 2011-2015
 2012-2016
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average 

Page 33 of 51
 
 

500
 

450
 

400
 

s e

350
 

riuj

300
 

n Is250
 uori200
 eS

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township City of Municipal 

Highway Agency Highway Agency 

2008-2012
 2009-2013
 2010-2014
 2011-2015
 2012-2016
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway
 

Ownership
 

5 Year Average
 

Page 34 of 51
 
 

Fatality Rate 

2.5
 

2
 

1.5
 

1
 

0.5 

0
 

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township City of Municipal
 

Highway Agency Highway Agency
 

2008-2012
 2009-2013
 2010-2014
 2011-2015
 2012-2016
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership
 

5 Year Average
 

Page 35 of 51
 
 

 

18 

16 

e 

14
 

ta R12
 ryuj

10
 

n Is

8
 

uori

6
 

eS

4
 

2
 

0
 

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township City of Municipal 

Highway Agency Highway Agency 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway
 

Ownership
 

5 Year Average
 

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

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate? 

No 

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 130.0 

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

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

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

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Number of Serious Injuries 759.0 

Page 36 of 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

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

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

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Fatality Rate 1.340 

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

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

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

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.900 

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

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

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

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 43.0 Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

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

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

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

stakeholder feedback were also considered when establishing this target. 

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

Describe efforts to coordinate with other stakeholders (e.g. MPOs, SHSO) to establish safety performance 

targets. 

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

SD Division Office, Rapid City MPO, Sioux City MPO, and Sioux Falls MPO representatives in 

attendance. The work shop went through the 5 performance measures in detail and the reporting 

requirements. There was a lot of discussion on current crash trends and external factors such as VMT, laws, 

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

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

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

Page 37 of 51 
 

 

140 

s e

120 

riujn Is100 uorieS

80 

d nas 

60 

eitilata

40 

 Ff o#

20 

0 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Years 

Fatalities Serious Injuries 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No 

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

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No 

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities 

10 22 16 14 21 22 14 

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries 

74 83 67 72 65 72 101 

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by
 

Year.
 

Page 38 of 51 
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Page 39 of 51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

SDDOT tracks the number of fatal and serious injury crashes to see if SHSP goals are being met. The HSIP 

program follows the SHSP. 

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

level evaluations. 

The goal of the 2014 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is to reduce the fatal and serious injury crash rates by 15% 

by the year 2020. In 2015 the fatal crash rate per 100MVMT was 4.3% lower and the serious injury crash rate 

was 6% lower than the 2010-2014 crash rates. In 2016 the fatal crash rate per 100MVMT was 16.4% lower and 

the serious injury crash rate was 19.5% lower than the 2010-2014 crash rates. Both years show a trend well on 

the way of meeting the establish goal of the 2014 SHSP. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

HSIP Obligations 

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

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2016 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash

Type 

Number of 

Fatalities 

(5-yr avg) 

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries 

(5-yr avg) 

Fatality

Rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

Serious 

Injury Rate 

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg) 

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3 

Lane Departure All 10 28 0.21 0.48 

Page 40 of 51 
 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type 

Number of 

Fatalities 

(5-yr avg) 

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg) 

Fatality 

Rate 

(per 

HMVMT) 

(5-yr avg) 

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT) 

(5-yr avg) 

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3 

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 58 228 0.66 3.24 

Intersections Angle 15 157 0.26 2.4 

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 6 24 0.07 0.31 

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 0 6 0.01 0.1 

Older Drivers All 14 61 0.18 0.71 

Motorcyclists All 22 127 0.27 1.91 

Work Zones All 3 8 0.03 0.18 

Page 41 of 51 
 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

s ielitataF

2008-2012
 2009-2013
 2010-2014
 2011-2015
 2012-2016
 

400
 

350
 

300
 

250
 

200
 

150
 

100
 

50
 

0
 

s eriujn IsuorieS

2008-2012
 2009-2013
 2010-2014
 2011-2015
 2012-2016
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities
 

5 Year Average
 

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average 

Page 42 of 51
 
 

 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

e t0.5 Raytil 0.4 ata0.3 

F 0.2 

0.1 

0 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

4.5 

4 

e t

3.5 

a R

3 

ryuj

2.5 

n Is

2 

uori1.5 eS

1 

0.5 

0 

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT)
 

5 Year Average
 

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

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period? 

Page 43 of 51 
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

No 

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

Page 44 of 51 
 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Project Effectiveness 

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS 

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO BEFORE 

PDO 

AFTER 

FATALITY 

BEFORE 

FATALITY 

AFTER 

SERIOUS 

INJURY 

BEFORE 

SERIOUS 

INJURY 

AFTER 

ALL INJURY 

BEFORE 

ALL INJURY 

AFTER 

TOTAL 

BEFORE 

TOTAL 

AFTER 

EVALUATION 

RESULTS 

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO) 

US385 - MRM 

114.0 

(Boondocks 

Area) & US14A ­

MRM 48.8 to 

51.58 (Boulder 

Canyon) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Speed 

management 

Radar speed signs 18.00 15.00 9.00 3.00 23.00 9.00 50.00 27.00 260 

I90 EB Ramp & 

LaCrosse St 

Urban Principal 

Arterial ­

Interstate 

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection geometrics ­

miscellaneous/other/unspecified 

35.00 15.00 10.00 6.00 45.00 21.00 6.4 

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

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate? 

No 

Page 45 of 51 
NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) 

ROADWAY SEGMENT 

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

Segment Identifier (12) 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Route Number (8) 1 1 

Route/Street Name (9) 1 1 

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21) 

1 1 

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20) 

1 1 1 1 

Surface Type (23) 1 1 1 1 

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10) 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

Segment Length (13) 1 1 

Direction of Inventory (18) 1 1 

Functional Class (19) 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Median Type (54) 1 1 

Page 46 of 51

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Compliance Assessment 

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

08/08/2014 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2015 To: 2019 

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

2019 

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

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

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

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

Access Control (22) 1 0 

One/Two Way Operations 

(91) 

1 0.25 

Number of Through Lanes 

(31) 

1 1 1 1 

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79) 

1 1 1 1 

AADT Year (80) 1 1 

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4) 

INTERSECTION 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120) 

1 1 

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122) 

1 1 

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123) 

1 1 

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

1 1 

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

1 0.9 

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79) 

1 1 

AADT Year (80) 1 1 

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) 

INTERCHANGE/RAMP 

1 1 

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) 

1 0 

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197) 

1 0 

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) 

1 0 

Ramp Length (187) 1 0 

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) 

1 0 

Page 47 of 51
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

STATE NON-STATE 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

STATE NON-STATE 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS 

STATE NON-STATE 

LOCAL PAVED ROADS 

STATE NON-STATE 

UNPAVED ROADS 

STATE NON-STATE 

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199) 

1 0 

Interchange Type (182) 1 0 

Ramp AADT (191) 1 0 

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 1 0 

Functional Class (19) 1 0 

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4) 

1 0 

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete): 

1.00 0.90 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

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

South Dakota does not have non-state owned interchanges to "0" was inputted of this column as "N/A" is not an eligible value. 

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

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

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No 

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. 

No Severe lacerations 

Broken or distorted limbs 

Skull or chest injuries 

Abdominal injuries 

Unconsciousness at or when taken from 

scene 

Unable to leave the accident scene without 

assistance 

EXCLUDED: 

Momentary unconsciousness 

No 

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

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

severity. 

No Attributes are not listed for each accident 

severity. 

No 

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

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

Page 48 of 51 
 

2018 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

No 

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment. 

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

Page 49 of 51 
 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Optional Attachments 

Program Structure:
 

Project Implementation:
 

Safety Performance:
 

Evaluation:
 

Compliance Assessment:
 

Page 50 of 51 
 

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

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. 

Older driver special 

rule 

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 in to 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. 

2017 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Glossary 

Page 51 of 51