South Dakota

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 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

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

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

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

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

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

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................16

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 16

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 19

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................................................................26

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................26

Application of Special Rules....................................................................................................................40

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................43

SHSP Emphasis Areas..............................................................................................................................45

Groups of similar project types...............................................................................................................50

Systemic Treatments...............................................................................................................................55

Project Evaluation...................................................................................................................................61

Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................63
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

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 (RSA), Roadway Safety Improvement (RSI) 

inspections, and a Safety Module software program to identify locations that would benefit from 

a safety improvement project. RSI inspections are developed by utilizing the South Dakota 

Department of Public Safety’s (SDDPS) crash reporting database, SDDOT’s roadway and traffic 

data, and ArcMap software to determine high crash locations. Both the RSA process and RSI 

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, Consulting Firms, Law Enforcement representatives, among other 

agencies. The SDDOT HSIP process will be explained in further detail in the Program 

Methodology section of this report.
2015 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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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 injury crashes and vehicle 

miles traveled.

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

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

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

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.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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

the last reporting period.
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Meetings with operation and maintenance personal to identify crash locations to 

implement safety strategies.

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

would like to elaborate.

The SDDOT has recently completed their SHSP. Emphasis has been placed on implementing safety 

strategies within the SHSP.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Intersection
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Intersection Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

When ADT is available and intersects with State road.

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C 4
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

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 Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

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 Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

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 Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 4

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 2

Cost Effectiveness 2

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?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

The county wide signing project prioritization process has changed. The process now calculates a crash 

rate for each county based on number of injury crashes and vehicle miles traveled.
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 9202000 43 % 10462000 49 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 429000 2 % 429000 2 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

2884000 13 % 3810000 18 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

9034000 42 % 6520500 31 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Totals 21549000 100% 21221500 100%

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

$6,407,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$5,709,380.00

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

$1,043,000.00

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

$130,500.00

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

period?

$15,158.00
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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

period? 

0 %

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 timeline 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.

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.
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

0.7 

Miles

40500 361106 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

skidresistant 

pavement 

surfaces 

on 

identified 

locations.

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

2.1 

Miles

54000 452845 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3000

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

skidresistant 

pavement 

surfaces 

on 

identified 

locations.

Corridor 

Signing

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

113 

Miles

534276 534276 Penalty 

Transfer 

– Section 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

3500 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

164 Other

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

27221 

Number

s

873804 873804 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

37841 

Number

s

156187

1

156187

1

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

39439 

Number

s

117011

9

117011

9

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

Signing and 

Delineation

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

36542 

Number

s

152143

6

152143

6

Penalty 

Transfer 

– Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage

Signing 

Upgrades

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

126 

Number

s

71487 71487 Penalty 

Transfer 

– Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage

Install 

rumble 

strips

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

41.5 

Miles

92708 92708 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

edge line 

rumble 

strip/stripe
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Shoulder 

widening, 

Milling and 

AC Surfacing

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

6.3 

Miles

333036

9

553646

2

Penalty 

Transfer 

– Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

850 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Apply 

shoulder 

treatemen

ts - Widen 

shoulders

Shoulder 

widening, 

Milling and 

AC Surfacing

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

2 Miles 174965

7

229496

6

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5430 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Apply 

shoulder 

treatemen

ts - Widen 

shoulders

Cold plastics 

durable 

pavement 

marking

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

14 

Miles

139787 139787 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3300 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines

Durable 

pavement 

marking

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

28 

Miles

462186 462186 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

4000

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines

Durable 

pavement 

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

2.14 

Miles

270917 270917 HSIP 

(Section 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

2300 65 State 

Highway 

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

marking pavement 

markings -

remarking

148) Other Agency

Sprayable 

Durable 

Pavement 

Marking

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

24 

Miles

214583 214583 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3200 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines

Intersection 

Improvemen

ts

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0.2 

Miles

78834 78834 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

800 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

Redesign 

intersectio

n to 

improve 

sight 

distance

Durable 

pavement 

marking

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

8.2 

Miles

243847 243847 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2300 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines

Corridor 

Signing

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

112.7 

Miles

173298 173298 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

6000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

Durable 

pavement 

marking

Roadway 

delineation 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

new

4 Miles 19375 19375 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1425 25 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

edge lines

Rumble 

Stripes and 

Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

80.7 

Miles

499615 499615 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

600 65 Indian 

Tribe 

Nation

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

edge line 

rumble 

strip/stripe 

and 

pavement 

markings

Corridor 

Signing

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

633 

Miles

788524 788524 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1166 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

proper 

signage

Roadway 

Safety audit 

Noninfrastructur15 

Number

18000 18000 HSIP 

(Section 

Statewide, 

all function 

1000 55 Statewide

, all public 

Statewide, 

all SHSP 

Statewide, 

all SHSP 
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Reviews e Road 

safety audits

s 148) classes roadways emphasis 

areas

strategies

Local 

Government 

Highway 

Safety 

Engineering

Noninfrastructur

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

1000 

Number

s

62500 62500 Penalty 

Transfer 

– Section 

164

Statewide, 

all local 

public 

roadways

500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Statewide, 

all SHSP 

emphasis 

areas

Statewide, 

all SHSP 

strategies

Promote 

Highway 

Safety

Noninfrastructur

e 

Educational 

efforts

100 

Number

s

50000 50000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Statewide, 

all function 

classes

500 55 Statewide Roadway 

Departure

Promote 

highway 

safety with 

media 

campaigns
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 145.8 129.8 127.2 130 131

Number of serious injuries 904.4 850.8 836.4 818 797.2

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.7 1.49 1.44 1.45 1.45

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

10.52 9.79 9.49 9.14 8.82

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

27
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

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

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

14.8 76.2 0.74 3.84

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

30.6 136.8 1.72 7.65

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

21.2 87.6 2.12 8.68

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

2.8 22.2 2 15.58

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

27.8 113 2.68 10.91

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

15.2 74.6 3.29 16.13

URBAN PRINCIPAL 3.8 36.4 0.58 5.42
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

3.2 80.8 0.61 15.43

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

5.2 66.8 0.59 7.53

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

1.4 32.6 0.55 12.96

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

4.6 58.2 1.76 22.66
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 77.8 397.8 1.28 6.52

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 27 143.8 2.11 11.27

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 5 36.2 2.03 14.75

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 11.4 182.8 0.88 14.25

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER 9.8 36.6 7.28 26.21

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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 can not be quantified.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.1 0.11 0.104 0.102 0.108

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.474 0.462 0.444 0.45 0.436

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.574 0.574 0.55 0.554 0.544

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

2005 Fatality rate (per capita) = 12/136 = 0.09

2006 Fatality rate (per capita) = 20/143 = 0.14

2007 Fatality rate (per capita) = 15/143 = 0.10

2008 Fatality rate (per capita) = 15/144 = 0.10

2009 Fatality rate (per capita) = 10/144 = 0.07

2010 Fatality rate (per capita) = 20/144 = 0.14

2011 Fatality rate (per capita) = 16/146 = 0.11
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

2012 Fatality rate (per capita) = 13/145 = 0.09

2013 Fatality rate (per capita) = 19/147 = 0.13

2005 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 77/136 = 0.57

2006 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 72/143 = 0.50

2007 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 60/143 = 0.42

2008 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 61/144 = 0.42

2009 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 66/144 = 0.46

2010 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 74/144 = 0.51

2011 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 60/146 = 0.41

2012 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 65/145 = 0.45

2013 Serious Injury rate (per capita) = 52/147 = 0.48

2005 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (12+77)/136 = 0.65

2006 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (20+72)/143 = 0.64

2007 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (15+60)/143 = 0.52

2008 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (15+61)/144 = 0.53

2009 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (10+66)/144 = 0.53

2010 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (20+74)/144 = 0.65

2011 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (16+60)/146 = 0.52

2012 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (13+65)/136 = 0.54

2013 Fatal + Serious Injury rate (per capita) = (19+52)/147 = 0.48
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Reduction in number of fatal and serious injury crashes

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Exploring more systemic improvements

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

Systemic improvements have been explored such as horizontal curve delineation, signal corridor timing, 

corridor signing projects, and intersection improvements. The use of high friction surface treatments 
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

(HFST) along with additional projects to use HFST. Exploring the use of ITS projects such as South 

Dakota's first Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System.
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 17.2 52.8 0.19 0.59 0 0 0

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 61.4 318.6 0.68 3.53 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 24.4 229.2 0.27 2.54 0 0 0

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 7.2 32.4 0.08 0.36 0 0 0

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 1 10.2 0.01 0.11 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 18 62.4 0.2 0.69 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 23.4 181.8 0.26 2.01 0 0 0

Work Zones All 4.4 21.4 0.05 0.24 0 0 0
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

46
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

47
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Horizontal Curve Run-off-road 28.4 147 0.34 1.73 0 0 0

Local Safety All 53.4 383.8 2.02 14.48 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 61.4 318.6 0.68 3.52 0 0 0

Intersection Intersections 24.4 229.2 0.27 2.53 0 0 0
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

51
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Rumble Strips Run-offroad65.2 366.8 0.72 4.06 0 0 0
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

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.
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

Intersection 

of West 

Main 

Avenue and 

Sheridan 

Lake Road 

in Rapid 

City

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

0 2 7 13 22 0 1 1 6 8 20
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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