Page 1 of 45

IDAHO
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 45

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......................................................................................................................................... 11

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 11

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 13

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 17

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 17

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 30

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 32

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 34

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 34

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 39

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 40
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 45

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.” 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 45

Executive Summary 

Highway safety is one of the primary objectives of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is comprised of projects proposed by the ITD Districts and the Local 

Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC). They are selected based upon highway safety data and align 

with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) fulfilling the requirements defined by the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation Act (FAST). The SHSP outlines strategies to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

through projects specified in the HSIP, providing a standard way to evaluate progress on a regular basis. 

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) continues to work on enhancing the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) for all public roadways in Idaho. ITD uses data from the Highway Safety Corridor Analysis 

(HSCA) to identify high priority corridors. ITD has started using the Transportation Economic Development 

Impact System (TREDIS) to evaluate HSIP eligibility for all projects nominated for FY20 and beyond. At the 

local level, work continues by the Idaho Local Highway Technical Advisory Council (LHTAC) to plan and 

prioritize highway safety projects at the local level. LHTAC continues to enhance their process based on the 

fatal and serious injuries to determine what jurisdiction have priority for HSIP funding.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 45

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

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

ITD and LHTAC use benefit-cost ratio analysis to determine funding of HSIP projects. Any project selected has 

to follow a data-driven criteria that shows what safety concern is being addressed, how it ties into the State 

Highway Safety Plan, and expected outcomes from the project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Engineering Services 

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

The program is managed within the Division of Engineering Services, while data analysis is performed and 

performance measures maintained in the Division of Engineering Products and Plans. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

HSIP funds are split between state and local roads. ITD administers funding for state-owned roads, while Local 

Highway Technical Advisory Council (LHTAC) administers funding for local roads. 

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

The Local Highway Technical Assistance Council works with ITD to address the safety of the Idaho local 

roads. LHTAC also uses the HSIP funding from the FHWA. These funds are dedicated for use on local safety 

projects. LHTAC provides a recommended project list. The projects are reviewed and approved by the FHWA 

using PSS.

Determine Funding Split (ITD & LHTAC) 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 45

For funding FY20 and beyond, ITD and LHTAC will review the data together to determine the appropriate 

funding split based on the total number of Fatal (K) plus Serious Injury (A) crashes. The percentage of K+A 

Crashes on local roads will equal the funding split between ITD and LHTAC. The current approved funding 

split for FY20 and FY21 is 50%. 

 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-Office of Highway Safety

Other-Transportation Planning 

Other-ITD District Offices

Other-Transportation Systems 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

ITD's Office of Highway safety produces the Highway Safety Corridor Analysis (HSCA) and the High Crash 

Location (HAL) reports on an annual basis. 

Each district uses these reports and other tools to develop potential projects. Once a project is proposed, the 

districts put together a Project Charter that meets FAST eligibility requirements to be considered for 

funding. An acceptable charter must include a Project Objective Statement (POS) and a Scope of Work 

clearly identified to support HSIP funds. It also must include a timeline with realistic start and finish dates. 

Most importantly the charter must include an appropriate HSIP justification that addresses the following:

1. How is the project safety-driven? 

• Base Answers upon the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

• Site statistics and results such as the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or 

other data-supported means. 

2. How does the project align with and help implement the strategies found in the Strategic 

Higheay Safety Plan?

• Pinpoint safety problems either through a site analysis or systematic approach;

• Identify counter measures to address those problems;

• Priortize projects for implementation; and

• Evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness

3. How does the project eliminate death and serious injury? 

• Address identified safety issues within a highway wsafety corridor or a spot location such 

as an intersection or High Accident Location (HAL) or does it incorporate a system-wide 

approach such as rumble strips. 

• Each district has a corridor map outlining safety corridors (also known as the Highway 

Safety Corridor Analysis (HSCA)). Make sure to review these maps for pertinent system-wide 

safety corridor analysis.

All project evaluations are based upon the information that has been entered in PSS and the Office of 

Transportation Information System (OTIS). The projects are prioritized by the Economics Office and 

Transportation Systems using the TREDIS process. TREDIS calculates benefits in safety and mobility as a 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 45

result of a project, including economic value that can be realized related to transportation and the mobility it 

affords to the citizens and businesses of the state of Idaho. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Other-Local Highway Technical Assistance Council-representing all local highway districts

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Once the funding split has been decided. LHTAC will solicit local agencies for projects based on a data driven 

approach. LHTAC evaluates each of the projects and the selected projects are sent on to ITD. ITD will 

evaluate the projects to ensure they fit within the scope of the SHSP and then make the final approval. 

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

Below is an excerpt from Idaho's HSIP Standard Planning Process document. 

The foundation of consistency within the HSIP process is completing a project charter for each project. The 

charter contains information that can be used to consistently compare projects against each other and provide 

details needed for analysis in TREDIS. Another important aspect of the HSIP program is specified justification 

which is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration - Idaho (FHWA-ID) to assess the funding eligibility 

of the proposed projects. The project must be focused on reduction of fatalities and serious injuries. 

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 45

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

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

ITD does not have any subprograms designated within the HSIP. However we do utilize other tool

HSIP. 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2015 

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

s within the 

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Other-state competes with all projects while local uses funding set-aside approach

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Other-High Accident Location (HAL) List

Other-HSCA

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.

They look for areas that have multiple fatal and serious injury crashes and have the local agencies apply for 

funding. 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 45

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

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 

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

HAL and HSCA documentation is attached for further information. 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 30 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

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

The majority of the local road projects are a systemic approach. The local highway districts will identify a 

location with at least one fatality or serious injury and then implement a project at that location and possibly 

other locations with similar characteristics.

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP) 

Other-Highway Safety Corridor Analysis process 

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

We use a variety of tools to identify possibly countermeasures. Our Highway Safety Corridor Analysis 

provides corridors that are a high priority. Individuals planning projects in these corridors utilized engineering 

studies, the CMF clearinghouse, recommendations from RSA's and the shared successes of other projects with 

similar characteristics.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 45

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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.

Our two main processes used to identify possible areas for projects are based on methodology from the 

HSM. The first, High Accident Location (HAL) uses a weighted score of frequency, rate and severity to 

determine locations. Our Highway Safety Corridor Analysis (HSCA) process uses weights to determine 

priority corridors. Both documents are attached. 

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
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 45

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $19,882,000 $15,167,709 76.29%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

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 $19,882,000 $15,167,709 76.29%

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?

18% 

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

Through FY19 LHTAC received approximately $3.9M for Local HSIP projects. For funding FY20 and beyond, 

ITD and LHTAC will review the data together to determine the appropriate funding split based on the total number of 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 45

Fatal (K) plus Serious Injury (A) crashes. The percentage of K+A Crashes on local roads will equal the funding split 

between ITD and LHTAC. The current approved funding split for FY20 and FY21 is 50%.

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

2% 

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

2% 

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

A small percentage of funding is set aside for local road safety audits.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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.

At this time there are no impediments to obligating HSIP funds.

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

No
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 45

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

STP-7343, 

CHERRY LN; N 

LINDER TO N 

MERIDIAN

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting $462112 $481000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,000 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

SMA-7563, 

OVERLAND RD & 

VISTA AVE 

LIGHTING,

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting $143184 $143184 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

21,000 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

STP-7073, COLE 

RD; SPECTRUM 

TO CENTURY 

WAY

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

0.26 Miles $251599 $251599 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

28,000 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

LOCAL, FY17 

DURABLE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS, BO

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other $120731 $120731 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

STC-4771, 

CAVENDISH 

HWY SIGNS & 

DELINEATO

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

14.3 Miles $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

500 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

LOCAL, SIGNING 

& DELINEATION, 

EASTSIDE HD

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

7 Locations $48000 $48000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

STC-4717, 

GREENCREEK 

RD SIGNS & 

BEACONS, GR

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

2 Numbers $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

620 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OFFSYS, 

INTERSECTION & 

SIGN 

IMPROVEMENTS,

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

$52000 $52000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

STC-4715, 

CLEAR CR RD 

GUARDRAIL, 

IDAHO CO

Roadside Barrier- metal 11.5 Miles $308259 $308259 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

170 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

STC-7117, 9TH 

ST; BONNEVILLE/ 

PED XINGS, IDAH

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 0.29 Miles $176237 $176237 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

STP-7316, INT 

HOLMES AVE & 

ELVA ST, IDAHO 

FA

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 2 Locations $4637790 $4637790 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,000 City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

OFFSYS, 

INTERSECTION & 

SIGN 

IMPROVEMENTS, 

J

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

$32000 $32000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 45

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

LOCAL, 

INTERSECTION 

SIGN & MARKING 

UPGRAD

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

4 Locations $46000 $46000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

LOCAL, FY17 

LHTAC PREPROJECT 

PLANNING

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

not applicable 0 LHTAC Other planning

STC-3805, SIMCO 

RD 

DELINEATORS, 

MOUNTAIN H

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 20 Miles $41867 $41867 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

800 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

NHS-3761, 

NORTHSIDE 

BLVD SIGNAL, 

NR NAMPA

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

2 Locations $434000 $434000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,500 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 45, 12TH AVE 

S; SHERMAN TO 

DEWEY BEACON

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

3 Locations $391220 $391220 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

SH 45, 12TH AVE 

S; 10TH ST S TO 

12TH ST S, NAM

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

3 Locations $294564 $294564 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

STC-4771, 

SOUTHWICK & 

COYOTE GRADE 

GRDRL,

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.293 Miles $252958 $252958 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

430 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

OFFSYS, RIVER 

RD; BEDROCK 

RD TO 

RAILROAD AV

Roadway Roadway - other $62165 $62165 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SMA-7071, POLE 

LINE RD; 

ALAMEDA TO 

QUINN, P

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $60679 $60679 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,000 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure

OFFSYS, BYU 

CROSSWALKS, 

REXBURG

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 12 Crosswalks $57000 $57000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

STC-5711, ST 

JOE RV RD; 

DURABLE PV 

MARKINGS,

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

22.37 Miles $587499 $587499 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

610 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

STC-4792, 

GENESEEJULIAETTA RD 

IMPRV, S LATA

Roadside Barrier - concrete 3 Locations $290000 $290000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

700 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

SH 55, INT 

KARCHER RD & 

LAKE AVE, 

CANYON CO

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Locations $3215717 $3215717 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 45

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

SH 55, INT 

MIDWAY RD, NR 

NAMPA

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Locations $3141301 $3141301 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 8, MILL RD 

TURNBAY, 

LATAH CO

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Locations $885952 $885952 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,900 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 72, JCT US 

30, PAYETTE CO

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Locations $564869 $564869 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

STATE, FY17 D4 

ISP WORKZONE 

PATROL

Speed 

management

Speed management - other $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones

US 93, 200 

SOUTH RD, 

JEROME CO

Roadway Roadway - other 2.06 Miles $7370000 $7370000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

8,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 55, INT 

FARMWAY RD & 

KARCHER RD, 

CANYO

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Locations $1218745 $1218745 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

STATE, FY17 

HWY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY DATA

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $1800000 $1800000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

not applicable 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data

US 20, INT 

FARMWAY RD & 

CHINDEN BLVD, 

CANY

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Locations $989968 $989968 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,500 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 16, INT 

BEACON LIGHT 

RD

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Locations $2569000 $2569000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,300 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95, ELMIRA 

RD TURNBAY, 

BONNER CO

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Locations $865000 $865000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,000 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 6, 

FLANNIGAN CR, 

N & S SH 9 

TURNBAYS

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Locations $1190000 $1190000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,500 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 48, 

4000E/4100E 

INTERSECTIONS 

IMP

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Locations $770000 $770000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

4,400 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 20, CAT CR 

SUMMIT TO 

BENNETT MT RD

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.173 Miles $1207000 $1207000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,700 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

US 95, 

CULDESAC 

CANYON 

PASSING LANE. 

PHASE

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.5 Miles $5008000 $5008000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

370 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 45

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

US 95, JCT SH 6 

TURNBAY, 

LATAH CO

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 0.715 Miles $1400000 $1400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SH 13, CURVE 

IMPROVEMENT, 

NR KOOSKIA

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.4 Miles $1444400 $1444400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

2,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 95, 

RIVERSIDE NB 

PASSING LANE

Roadway Install / remove / modify 

passing zone

1 Miles $1678000 $1678000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,300 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 20/26, 

CHINDEN; 

LOCUST GROVE 

TO EAGLE

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1 Miles $8475000 $8475000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

23,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

US 12, VALLEY 

VIEW DRIVE 

TURNBAY, 

IDAHO CO

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Locations $830000 $830000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

SMA-7406, 17TH 

ST CURB 

MEDIANS, IDAHO 

FALLS

Access 

management

Change in access -

miscellaneous/unspecified

2.204 Miles $216000 $216000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

25,000 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 95, 

GRANGEVILLE 

TRUCK ROUTE 

BYPASS RD T

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Locations $804000 $804000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,300 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I 84, HAMMETT 

HILL PASSING 

LANE

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.5 Miles $5750000 $5750000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

16,500 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

SH 41, 

LANCASTER RD 

TO BOEKEL RD, 

RATHDRUM

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Miles $5050000 $5050000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

SH 74, JCT SH74/US-93Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Locations $735000 $735000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

OFFSYS, SIGN 

IMPROVEMENTS 

AT 4 CURVES, 

WE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

4 Locations $19000 $19000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 45

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 233 226 209 167 184 214 186 216 253

Serious Injuries 1,506 1,401 1,400 1,302 1,297 1,278 1,291 1,353 1,311

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.520 1.460 1.340 1.080 1.160 1.350 1.150 1.300 1.480

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.860 9.080 9.000 8.450 8.190 8.050 8.000 8.120 7.640

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

13 17 14 11 15 18 16 8 24

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

101 111 89 102 105 107 102 87 111
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

We have chosen to use the state crash database for a fatality source. This is mainly because the information is 

available a lot sooner. We generally do not have much of a difference between what is reported to FARS and 

what is in our database. 

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

28.2 99.2 1.18 4.16

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 45

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

43 185 1.96 8.38

Rural Minor Arterial 22.2 101.2 2.37 10.9

Rural Minor Collector 7 31.8 2.94 13.38

Rural Major Collector 37.2 140.2 2.87 10.79

Rural Local Road or Street 29.4 87.2 1.27 3.75

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

6.6 58.4 0.45 4.01

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

18.6 284.4 0.83 12.73

Urban Minor Arterial 10.4 190.4 0.84 15.47

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Major Collector 3.2 59.4 0.47 8.82

Urban Local Road or Street 4.6 59 0.52 6.67
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 45

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 123.4 609.2 1.39 6.9

County Highway Agency 87.2 693 1.16 9.23

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

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
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 45

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 45

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 45

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 45

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 45

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 188.0 

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing 

fatalities on Idaho roadways. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our primary 

goal is to reduce the number of traffic deaths to 185 or fewer by the year 2020. The 

table showing the 5 year average total fatalities shows 188 for the year of 2018. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Other Local Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 45

Number of Serious Injuries 1239.0 

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing 

serious injuries on Idaho roadways. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our 

secondary goal is to reduce the number of serious injuries due to traffic crashes to 

1221 or fewer by 2020. 

Fatality Rate 1.140 

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing 

the fatality rate in Idaho. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our secondary 

goal is to reduce the rate of traffic deaths to 1.1 per 100 million miles traveled by 

2020. The table showing the 5 year fatality rate shows 1.14 for the year of 2018. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.490 

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

The target was established using trend analysis. It supports the SHSP goal of reducing 

the rate of serious injuries in Idaho. On page 11 of the Idaho SHSP it shows that our 

secondary goal is to reduce the rate of serious injury crashes to 7.27 per 100 million 

annual vehicle miles traveled by 2020. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 120.0 

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

Although trend analysis was use on setting this target, the analyst who provided these 

values also relied on his years of working with data. The numbers for Idaho are so low 

that there is a lot of variability in the data, therefore the value isn't strictly based on the 

trend analysis. The value supports the SHSP goal of reducing non motorized fatalities 

and serious injuries in Idaho. Idaho's SHSP hase a section on vulnerable roadway 

users with Bicycle and Pedestrian being one sub group in that category. The goals are 

to reduce the 5 year average of bicycle involved fatal crashes to 2 bicyclist or fewer 

and to reduce the five year average of pedestrian involved fatal crashes to 10 or fewer 

pedestrians by 2020. The SHSP does not include a goal value of serious injuries but 

the strategies are related to reducing the number of crashes of bicyclists and 

pedestrians. 

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

A copy of the SHSP has been attached for verification. 
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 45

 

 

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

targets. 

Idaho recently hosted two workshops on developing performance measures. These workshops were run by 

FHWA staff and were attended by ITD staff and members from all five of Idaho’s MPO’s plus the Local 

Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC). The first workshop, State Safety Target Setting Coordination 

was held on February 21, 2017 and the second workshop took place in April. The method that is used by ITD to 

set measures was shown and discussed. The majority of the MPO’s do not have access to volume data and 

therefore cannot determine rates for their areas. The MPO’s are currently deciding if they want to set their own 

performance measures or use the one established by ITD. As it stands the majority of the MPO's are going with 

the State's target. The largest MPO has not indicated what their preference is.

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? 

Yes

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

Depending on the methodology used, Idaho may trigger the HRRR special rule.

If using just the straight annual rate Idaho shows an increase in rate for 2015 and 2016. 

However if we use a 5 year average, as done for all the performance measures, we only show an increase in 

2016. 

There is a spreadsheet attached showing the data and rates.

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 45 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

29 24 24 23 24 34 33

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

85 94 94 110 88 110 123

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 45

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.

The state looks at the overall measures of serious and fatal injury rates in determining effectiveness on a statewide basis. However, ITD has begun exploring reviewing projects and analyzing before-and-after serious and 

fatal injury rates.

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

level evaluations.

Using five year rates, Idaho had seen a decline in the fatality rates until this year. This past year we had the 

highest year we have had in 10 years and has caused a slight increase in our rates. Last year's rate was 1.21 

fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. This year we are at 1.29 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled.

 

Our five year rate for serious injury crashes is continuing to decrease. Last year the rate was 8.16 serious 

injuries per 100 million miles traveled and this year it is 8.0 serious injuries per 100 million miles traveled.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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

Every year Idaho works to enhance our HSIP program. Once we started using a benefit cost ratio as our 

prioritization tool, those individuals planning projects have increased their knowledge of possible safety 

enhancements to their plans. We have increased overall awareness of safety in general.

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.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 45

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

Intersections 40.4 500.6 0.25 3.06

Pedestrians 13.4 57.6 0.08 0.35

Bicyclists 2.8 46.4 0.02 0.28

Older Drivers 43.6 269.8 0.27 1.65

Motorcyclists 24.8 162 0.15 0.99

Work Zones 1.4 6 0.01 0.04

Aggressive 76.4 629.8 0.47 3.86

Safety Restraints 95.8 336.2 0.58 2.07

Impaired 82.8 228.6 0.51 1.4

Youthful Driver 24.2 230.8 0.15 1.41

Commercial Driver 29.4 121.6 0.18 0.74

Single Vehicle Run off 

Road

107 382.2 0.65 2.34

Head On/Side Swipe 

Opposite

29.8 128 0.18 0.78
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 45

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

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?
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 45

No

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

Our program has not been in place long enough to be able to do an effective job of evaluation. We do not have 

enough projects for each type of countermeasure to do this yet.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 45

Project Effectiveness

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

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?

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

Two of the individuals involved with the HSIP program are hoping to attend a peer exchange that will discuss evaluation of the HSIP program. This may lead to some ideas to more effectively evaluate our success and those things we need 

to modify.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 45

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/04/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020 

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

 2020 

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

The SHSP is attached in an early section. 

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 15 100 60

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 15
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 45

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) 100 15

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 1

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 45

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 75 5

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 75 5

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 85.83 25.00 25.00 77.27 64.55 88.89 73.44 100.00 100.00

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

Some data items are calculated, such as length, functional class, and type of governmental ownership. ITD is working to develop a plan to meet MAP-21 and FAST Act data availability requirements. 

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.

The following excerpt in the Idaho Traffic Records Strategic Plan:

The following outlines the plan to meet the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Model Inventory for Roadway Elements (MIRE) requirements per MAP-21 and the FAST Act:

• By June 30, 2018: Write a letter to exclude qualifying unpaved public roads.

• By December 31, 2018: Establish a set of performance measures,

• By December 31, 2019: Create a Data Business Plan to include recommendations for the MIRE FDE’s.

• By December 31, 2020: Develop a schema for data standards, and

• By September 30, 2026: provide access to the FDEs on all public roads.

This plan will be reviewed annually by the TRCC and updated accordingly.

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 Incapacitating: Serious-requires immediate 

medical attention

No None listed No

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A No N/A No
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 45

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 Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No Serious-requires immediate medical 

attention.

No None listed No

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

Idaho will work towards redefining our definition so it fits the requirements. This will mean we have to go in and change the name of our field and update all related manuals. This is in the plans to be done in the next two months as we 

make changes in anticipation of our e-citation program going online.

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

Idaho has used the ANSI-D16.1-2007 Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Accidents for our serious injury definition. However it doesn't look like the actual definition is listed in our documents.

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

The state and local representatives met with FHWA to perform a gap analysis to ensure compliance with MAP-21 and FAST Acts.
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 45

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSCA Final Report with Appendices.pdf

High Accident Location Methodology re-write 2009.docx

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

2016-2020 FINAL SHSP.pdf

HRRR data.xlsx

HSP FINAL SUBMITTED 8-4-17.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 45

Glossary

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. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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