Page 1 of 44

UTAH

2020 ANNUAL REPORT
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 44

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence.............................................................3

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology .......................................................................................................................9

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................15

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................15

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................17

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................20

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................20

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................26

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................27

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................29

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................29

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................29

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................35

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................40

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................43

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................44
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 44

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. 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.”
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 44

Executive Summary 

From 2013-2016, the State of Utah experienced an increase in traffic fatalities each year. The 2017-2019 

period has marked a return to our past long-term downward trends in fatalities. Serious injury crashes peaked 

in 2015 and have trended downward each year since. We are hopeful that our efforts to prioritize safety 

projects with the greatest potential to reduce fatalities will continue to reduce both fatalities and serious injuries

in the years to come. We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the projects 

most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. We also modified our project selection process in 2019 to 

fund the projects with the highest B/C ratios even if doing so results in HSIP funding not being allocated to 

each region evenly.

The FAST Act approved by Congress four years ago removed our ability to fund education and enforcement 

efforts with HSIP funds. We have been using State funds to continue these programs. Education and 

enforcement remain important parts of our comprehensive safety strategy to reduce severe crashes.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 44

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. 

UDOT’s Safety Programs Engineer (located within the Traffic & Safety Division) oversees HSIP activities within 

Utah. This person is responsible for setting the policies and procedures required to fulfill the federal HSIP 

mandate set forth by the FAST Act. The UDOT region offices also play a major role in the development and 

implementation of HSIP projects. They work in concert with the UDOT Traffic & Safety Division to identify 

potential project locations, submit HSIP funding applications, and participate in the screening and prioritization 

process. Once projects are selected and funded in each region, the region offices take ownership of project 

delivery, assigning project managers, and proceeding according to standard federal environmental, design, 

and construction processes.

HSIP funds can be used for infrastructure improvements on any publicly owned roadway. Any local agency 

may apply for HSIP funding as long it controls the right-of-way for the location in question. However, the Traffic 

& Safety Division researches the crash history at these locations just as they do with projects developed 

internally. In order for HSIP funds to be used, all locations must show either a proven crash history or have 

characteristics that conform to systemic situations that UDOT has identified as a funding priority. UDOT also 

works with Metropolitan Planning Organizations to help them integrate safety into their long-range planning 

efforts.

The project process includes the following steps:

• Crash data evaluation and coordination with region offices to identify candidate projects.

• Analysis of candidate projects to determine anticipated benefit/cost ratios. 

• Joint prioritization and selection of projects between the Central Traffic & Safety office and the region 

offices.

• Programming of projects into discrete funding years. 

• Assignment of project managers and beginning of design process. 

• Advertisement and construction. 

• Evaluation based on three years of crash data before and after construction. 

• Reporting in the annual HSIP report. 

Additionally, UDOT began during FY20 to implement a new procedure that will take effect beginning in FY23. 

UDOT's four region offices have historically been prorated a percentage of Utah's HSIP funds based on the 

relative numbers of severe crashes that occur within each region. The region offices were given discretion to 

prioritize their funding allocation to projects of their choosing as long as those projects had an estimated 
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 44

benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0. This historic funding allocation model will continue through FY22. Beginning 

in FY23, however, regions will not be given a set funding allocation. Instead, funding will be prioritized based 

on projects' benefit-cost ratio. This means that the projects most likely to reduce severe crashes will be funded 

regardless of location. The Traffic and Safety Division believes that this new process will lead to fewer severe 

crashes and help Utah best meet the Zero Fatalities goal.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via Districts/Regions

UDOT has historically allocated funds to region offices according to a preset formula based on the share of 

severe crashes occurring within each region. This model will continue through FY22. Beginning with FY23, 

however, UDOT plans to move to a competitive selection process based on estimated project benefit-cost 

ratio.

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

Local roads are eligible for HSIP funds if projects meet program requirements. UDOT currently lacks 

comprehensive roadway data for local roads (non-State and non-Federal Aid) that would make it easier to 

compare relative safety needs on State roads and local roads, especially for systemic treatments. However, 

efforts are underway to work with other State agencies, local governments, and emergency dispatch centers to 

develop more complete roadway inventory data on local roads. In the meantime we will continue to perform 

hot-spot analysis on all public roads, including locals. Once we identify a hotspot location and potential 

countermeasures, we approach the local government to assess their willingness to proceed with an HSIPfunded safety project.

UDOT does perform crash analysis on non-State Federal Aid routes and accepts applications from local 

agencies for HSIP funding consideration on all public roads. We also apply the usRAP safety protocol to select 

non-State Federal Aid and local routes. To date, we've completed coding for all Federal-aid routes except for 

those in the following counties, which are expected to be completed by the end of 2020: Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, Kane, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Uintah, and Wayne.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

The Central Traffic & Safety office leads the HSIP effort, but various other divisions are involved in the process. 

The traffic/safety, project management, maintenance, and design groups are all involved at the region level, 

both with helping to identify candidate projects and to design and construct them.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 44

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Planning

UDOT uses two methods to plan HSIP projects. For the first method, the Traffic & Safety Division works 

throughout the year with each region to determine their priority projects for HSIP funding consideration. The 

Traffic & Safety Division then screens the crash data, traffic data, and input from the region offices to 

determine whether each project meets HSIP eligibility criteria. For the second method, the Traffic & Safety 

Division employs a network-wide approach to identify projects. This is done by looking at crash and roadway 

attribute data from a statewide perspective. UDOT has several efforts underway to identify projects 

systemically and through network screening tools, including the usRAP model and BYU crash prediction 

model.

Design

After projects are programmed, project managers from the applicable UDOT region offices are assigned to 

each project. These project managers then shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal 

environmental, design, and construction processes. Project managers generally invite Traffic & Safety staff to 

attend scoping and design review meetings to make sure that the safety elements are properly incorporated 

into the project.

Maintenance & Operations

Each region office works with their maintenance and operations staff to give them an opportunity to suggest 

safety projects based on their experience maintaining the state roadway network every day. Periodic meetings 

are held between region traffic and safety engineers and maintenance crews. Their round of meetings in the 

fall is where engineers specifically solicit safety project ideas from maintenance staff. Following these 

meetings, region traffic and safety engineers submit safety project applications for projects they believe merit 

funding. These applications are then reviewed by Central Traffic & Safety as described above.

Access to Data

In order to assist each of our partners in this process, we have developed an online crash visualization and 

analysis tool so everyone has equal access to safety data.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Partners

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Academia

UDOT has active and ongoing partnerships with both Brigham Young University (BYU) and the University of 

Utah to further safety work in Utah. BYU has worked with UDOT over the past several years to develop and 

continually refine Bayesian crash predictive models that show where crashes are over-represented. Each year 

BYU provides model output reports to the region offices. The reports show potential safety project locations 

and countermeasures for their consideration.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 44

The University of Utah has been working with UDOT the last few years to improve the statewide crash 

database and to expand the usRAP model on non-State maintained roads.

FHWA

We work closely with the Safety Operations Engineer in the local FHWA office to ensure that we are complying 

with appropriate guidelines in our implementation of the HSIP. We routinely involve him in coordination 

meetings with the region offices so that he stays informed about the projects we are selecting and 

implementing with our HSIP funds.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

The Utah Highway Safety Office (HSO) is housed within the Department of Public Safety. We hold regular 

meetings involving the HSO to ensure coordination of data, funding, and strategies for our respective 

programs.

MPOs

The MPOs in Utah have been very motivated to integrate safety into their planning process. UDOT has tried to 

use several different tools to accomplish this goal, with mixed results. During the past couple of years we have 

made significant headway by introducing our MPO partners to the usRAP safety model and showing how it can 

be used as a regional safety planning tool. Specific conversations were held with Cache MPO in 2017 and 

MAG in 2018. We are currently working toward coding non-State Federal-aid routes in all Utah counties. To 

date, we've completed coding for all Federal-aid routes except for those in the following counties, which are 

expected to be completed by the end of 2020: Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Kane, San Juan, 

Sanpete, Sevier, Uintah, and Wayne.

SHSP Partners

SHSP Partners are actively involved in working groups for each of our SHSP emphasis areas.

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

elaborate. 

UDOT focuses its infrastructure improvements primarily on the Roadway Departure Crashes, Drowsy Driving, 

Distracted Driving, and Intersection Safety emphasis areas. The other emphasis areas (Public Outreach and 

Education, Use of Safety Restraints, Impaired Driving, Aggressive Driving, Pedestrian Safety, Teen Driving 

Safety, Motorcycle Safety, and Speed Management) are addressed primarily through non-infrastructure efforts 

such as education, media, and enforcement campaigns. UDOT partners with other state, local, and federal 

agencies to implement the non-infrastructure components of the SHSP. The FAST Act removed UDOT's ability 

to fund education and enforcement efforts with HSIP, so we have been using state funds to continue those 

programs.

A "Zero Fatalities" goal (ut.zerofatalities.com) is also part of the SHSP. UDOT began displaying weekly safety 

messages on variable message signs during the summer of 2015 to encourage safe driving behaviors such as 

seat belt use. Those safety messages continue to be posted today.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 44

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal Injuries

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Crash data trigger from FHWA

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal crashes only • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Coordination with region offices

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 
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 44

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

Available funding:50

Other-Ability of region to identify eligible project:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:3/5/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian Model

• Relative severity index

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.

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their 

respective region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP model to federal aid routes in 

counties across the state. In addition, we conduct hot spot analysis on all public roads statewide to 

identify other opportunities on local roads.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 44

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-usRAP model outputs

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C:20

Available funding:20

Ranking based on net benefit:20

Other-Time to Completion:20

Other-Coordination with other Projects:20

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Reduce Serious and Fatal Injuries

Date of Program Methodology:3/5/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

• Other-usRAP model

• Relative severity index
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 44

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.

We accept safety project applications from local government agencies that submit them through their 

respective region offices. We are also working on applying the usRAP systemic model to federal aid 

routes in counties across the state.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• Other-usRAP model outputs

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C:20

Available funding:20

Ranking based on net benefit:20

Other-Timeline to completion:20

Other-Coordination with other projects:20

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 23

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 44

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

Connected and autonomous vehicles are identified as a Special Safety Area in our SHSP. We do not have a 

committed program of HSIP funds being used for V2I technologies. However, we do consider project 

applications submitted by our region offices. If an application for V2I or other ITS-related technologies is 

submitted and is worthy of funding, we are able to program the project. We have funded (or are currently 

funding) ITS technologies such as variable speed limit signing and wrong-way driving sign arrays. We also 

funded a project to use DSRC technology in snow plows in order to allow them to coordinate their movements 

with signalized intersections, thereby facilitating much faster snow clearance on a key arterial street.

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. 

All construction projects that are funded with HSIP funds are assessed using the following procedures from the 

HSM:

1. Preliminary analysis is done with crash history and CMFs following procedures of Part D from the HSM.

2. If a more technical analysis is warranted, the predictive method of Part C is used by utilizing the 

spreadsheet tools developed and published in the CMF Clearinghouse.

3. Where applicable, potential infrastructure projects are also compared to the usRAP results, which 

represent a risk-based approach based on roadway characteristics.

4. Methods in Chapter 4 are used to prioritize potential locations of systemic treatments such as rumble 

strips (with region offices weighing in on priority).

5. Utah maintains a list of approved mitigation measures from Part D and the CMF Clearinghouse.

6. Systemic projects are developed on the basis of roadway characteristics by using a sensitivity analysis 

involving the SPFs and CMFs found in the HSM.

7. Benefit-cost ratios are calculated based on guidance from Chapter 7. No HSIP funds are applied to 

projects that have a benefit cost ratio less than 1 unless the project can be justified systemically.

8. All projects are prioritized based on benefit-cost ratio. 

The Bayesian statistical methods outlined in the HSM are also used extensively in a modeling partnership with 

Brigham Young University in order to identify hot spot crash locations for consideration of HSIP funding.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

UDOT began during FY20 to implement a new procedure that will take effect for programming of projects 

beginning in FY23. Under this new process, HSIP projects will be prioritized based on their estimated benefitcost ratios. This means that the projects most likely to reduce severe crashes will be funded regardless of 

where they are located within the state. The new process was used during FY20 to identify projects to add to 
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 44

UDOT's three-year plan for FY23. The Traffic and Safety Division believes that the process change will lead to 

fewer severe crashes and help Utah best meet its Zero Fatalities goal.

Prior to this process change, UDOT's four region offices were prorated a percentage of Utah's HSIP funds to 

program based on the relative numbers of severe crashes that occured within each region. The region offices 

were given discretion to prioritize their funding allocation to projects of their choosing as long as those projects 

had an estimated benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0.

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to 

elaborate.

Non-Infrastructure Projects

UDOT uses some of its HSIP funding for eligible non-infrastructure projects that aid roadway safety efforts. 

Such projects include:

Integrating Safety Into Planning

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

planning into their core processes. UDOT also works with MPOs and other safety partners across the state to 

supply them with needed data and tools so they can better integrate safety into their internal planning 

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

safety.

Improving Crash Data Analysis

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

understand crash characteristics is vital to programming HSIP funds.

University & Consultant Support

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

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

crash data mapping, statistical analysis, safety modeling, report preparation, SPF/CMF development, training, 

and HSM analysis.

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

Fatalities effort umbrella. With passage of the FAST Act that led to ineligibility of those activities, UDOT has 

been using State funds to continue those efforts.

High Risk Rural Road Special Rule

UDOT was subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY20 (and will also be for FY21). To identify HRRReligible projects, we first look at the roads that qualify for application of the funding. Then, we look for systemic 

improvements such as warning signs, shoulder treatments, barrier/guardrail, and rumble strips that could be 

applied to make the roads safer. It is generally difficult to find crash hot spots on these roads due to the lower 

volumes and crash concentrations so we rely heavily on systemic approaches to finding locations where the 

money can be wisely spent. We are also occasionally able to use projects that are already planned for HSIP 

funding when those projects have been selected through other means and are located on a route that qualifies 

for HRRR funds.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 44

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $38,218,408 $32,084,695 83.95%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$1,498,607 $1,331,318 88.84%

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 $6,445,486 $6,445,486 100%

Old HRRR $40,203 $40,203 100%

Totals $46,202,704 $39,901,702 86.36%

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

We still have a few local safety projects that are going through the construction or closeout phases, but none of 

the funds available for programming or obligation in FY20 were used on new local projects. There is one 

project currently planned to be constructed on a local road in FY22.

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

21%

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

25%
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 44

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? 

$46,791,601

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

the future. 

Over the past few years we have made great strides toward getting our HSIP funds obligated by the fiscal year 

end. In both FY19 and FY20 we were able to effectively obligate all of our HSIP funds. The main reason we 

were able to reach our goal of full obligation was that we consistently encouraged the four region offices to 

over-program, and they delivered enough of the projects to obligate all available FY19 and FY20 funding.

The principal ongoing challenges we face when trying to achieve full obligation are:

• Reprogramming funds that return from closed projects (or from projects where scope changes reduce 

the budget) to other projects where they can be spent.

• Delays in project delivery timelines that prevent projects from advertising in the fiscal year originally 

intended.

• Projects that are cancelled for political, practical, or economic reasons.

Over-programming is our primary mitigation tool, which means planning more projects than we have budget 

for. Experience has taught us that there will always be some projects that ultimately get cancelled and others 

that return part of their budget, so the only way to have all of our funds obligated at the end of the year is to 

plan for these occurrences. In the event that we run out of HSIP funds to obligate, we have the option to delay 

advertisement to the following fiscal year or use some state funds as a temporary bridge across the fiscal year 

boundary. These measures were necessary in both FY19 and FY20 because we were very aggressive with 

over-programming.

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

Project delivery is administered through the UDOT region offices. We work closely with our region counterparts 

to make sure safety projects are addressed in a timely manner. After projects are programmed, project 

managers from the applicable UDOT region offices are assigned to each project. These project managers then 

shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 44

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

SR-130; North 

Cedar to MP 9 

(PIN 11532)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1000000 $6100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

SR-59; Passing 

and Turn Lanes 

(PIN 14365)

Roadside Roadside grading 4 Miles $1000000 $6000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Grading

SR-24; MP 104-

117, Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 15335)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

28 Miles $5000000 $18538430 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 760 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

SR-113; 

Shoulder 

Widening 

Charleston to 

Midway (PIN 

15574)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4 Miles $750000 $5445000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

Various Routes; 

No-Pass 

Pennants 

Centerline RS 

(PIN 16321)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

299 Miles $658010 $658010 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Rumble Strips

U of U Crash 

Database 

Management 

FY21 (PIN 

16329)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 All public 

roads

N/A Data All

Traffic & Safety 

Program 

Management 

Support FY21 

(PIN 16331)

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 Numbers $1800000 $1800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 All public 

roads

N/A Program 

Management 

Support

All

I-80; MP 0-20, 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 16430)

Roadside Barrier - cable 20 Miles $7500000 $7500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate8,000 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

I-80/SR-201 Aux 

Lane Connector 

to SR-36 (PIN 

16443)

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

2.2 Miles $2100000 $5650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate26,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Widening

Roadway 

Widening

I-15; MP 260.0-

260.5, Off-ramp 

Widening & Aux 

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

0.8 Miles $800000 $2200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate121,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Widening

Roadway 

Widening
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 44

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Reconfig (PIN 

16494)

US-189; MP 8.8-

18.7, Median 

Barrier Upgrade 

(PIN 16506)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 10.2 Miles $2000000 $6730000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther26,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-132 Pvmnt 

Rehab & 

Rumblstrips Var 

Routes (PIN 

16554)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

38.3 Miles $278907 $2889365 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

US-6; SR-68 

Elberta to I-15 

(PIN 16580)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

8.7 Miles $131000 $5600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,700 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips

I-15/SR-13 

Interchange SB 

On-ramp 

Widening (PIN 

16663)

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

1 Miles $350000 $6600000 HSIP (23

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate29,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Widening

Roadway 

Widening

SR-97; 

Intersection 

Improvements at 

5100 West (PIN 

16668)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $3000000 $4000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,000 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

SR-31; 2.0-2.6, 

Runaway Truck 

Ramp (PIN 

17335)

Roadside Roadside - other 1 Truck Ramp $1000000 $1000000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,800 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Truck Ramp

SR-63/SR-12 

Roundabout 

(PIN 17337)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2000000 $9600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

SR-35; MP 5.4-

6.1, Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 17485)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

0.5 Miles $1029159 $1029159 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 800 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

SR-126; MP 

10.73, Free 

Right Elimination 

(PIN 17510)

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island - 

remove from one 

or more 

approaches

1 Approaches $550000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther35,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

SR-150; MP 

13.5-15.5, 

Shoulder 

Widening & 

Rumble Strips 

(PIN 17608)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

2 Miles $1271000 $1271000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble Strips
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 44

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

MUTCD Curve 

Sign Updates 

(R2) (PIN 

17742)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

1 Region $834000 $834000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve Signs

MUTCD Curve 

Sign Updates 

(R3) (PIN 

17743)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

1 Region $224820 $224820 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Curve Signs

FY2020 Mandli 

Communications 

Collection (PIN 

17779)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $480000 $480000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Data All

SR-143; MP 30-

40, Signing & 

Guardrail (PIN 

18306)

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.9 Miles $500000 $500000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 870 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Barrier
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 44

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 243 217 220 256 278 281 273 260 248

Serious Injuries 1,182 1,346 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477 1,453 1,399 1,357

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.921 0.815 0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913 0.866 0.806 0.758

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.481 5.053 4.971 5.092 5.099 4.799 4.611 4.337 4.149

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

37 34 36 46 54 44 49 40 48

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

171 192 153 161 155 168 170 173 172
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 44

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 44

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 44

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

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 (RPA) - 

Interstate

32 120.2 0.97 3.64

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

2.2 2.8 1.62 1.38

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

30.8 103.6 1.63 5.49

Rural Minor Arterial 15.4 59.4 1.86 7.25

Rural Minor Collector 4 18.4 1.58 7.14

Rural Major Collector 18.4 55.8 1.9 5.77

0

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 44

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 Local Road or 

Street

12.4 65.6 1.02 5.42

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

23 149.8 0.29 1.87

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

4 13 0.91 2.94

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

66 416.8 1.19 7.53

Urban Minor Arterial 26.2 179.8 0.99 6.82

Urban Minor Collector 3.2 16 1.18 5.61

Urban Major Collector 13.6 111.8 0.73 5.96

Urban Local Road or 

Street

17 124.2 0.44 3.2
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 44

Year 2019

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

194.8 960.4 0.96 4.7

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or 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

All Other 73.2 476.6 0.75 4.96

Some years do not have data for fatality and serious injury rates for the "Other Freeways and Expressways" 

functional class (both urban and rural) because UDOT did not collect VMT data for this functional class until 

2014.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

The 5-year rolling average for total fatalities increased each year from 2015-2018 but decreased slightly in 

2019. The 5-year rolling average for fatality rate was virtually flat from 2015-2018 but decreased significantly in 

2019. The actual number of annual fatalities has gone down the past 3 years and the fatality rate has gone 

down each of the last 4 years. The fatality rate reduction from the high in 2015 to the low in 2019 represents a 

20% drop.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 44

Trends for serious injuries have been similar. The 5-year rolling average for serious injuries increased each 

year from 2015-2018 and then decreased in 2019. The 5-year rolling average for serious injury rate, however, 

has decreased the past 3 years. Actual numbers of serious injuries and the serious injury rate have decreased 

for the past 4 years. The serious injury rate reduction from the high in 2015 to the low in 2019 represents a 

19% drop.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:251.7

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2020 and 2021 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in Step 1. The 

2017-2021 value for each performance measure is our 2021 target.

Number of Serious Injuries:1363.2

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2020 and 2021 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in Step 1. The 

2017-2021 value for each performance measure is our 2021 target.

Fatality Rate:0.780

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2020 and 2021 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2019 

estimate for 2020 and 2021. There were no adjustments made to the 2020 VMT to reflect potential COVID-19 

impacts. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 and also reflect a 

2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in 

Step 1 through step 3. The 2017-2021 value for each performance measure is our 2021 target.

Serious Injury Rate:4.210

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

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2020 and 2021 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: VMT, which can be highly variable from year-to-year, was held constant from our 2019 

estimate for 2020 and 2021. There were no adjustments made to the 2020 VMT to reflect potential COVID-19 

impacts. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in Step 1 and Step 2 and also reflect a 

2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in 

Step 1 through step 3. The 2017-2021 value for each performance measure is our 2021 target.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:215.2

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 44

Step 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2020 and 2021 to reflect the goal set 

in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values calculated in Step 1. The 

2017-2021 value for each performance measure is our 2021 target.

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

safety performance targets. 

We held a series of meetings with our MPO and SHSO partners to coordinate and gain consensus on our 

safety performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 272.0 268.0

Number of Serious Injuries 1445.0 1437.0

Fatality Rate 0.890 0.858

Serious Injury Rate 4.750 4.599

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

212.0 214.6

We remain committed to our goal of Zero Fatalities. Our fatality rate continues to decline despite Utah ranking 

No. 4 among states for growth in 2019 (1.7%) and No. 1 since 2010 (16%). We met four of our five targets for 

2019, with the target for the total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries being slightly 

exceeded by 2.6.

We continue to focus on opportunities to reduce non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Non-motorized 

fatalities increased from 40 to 48 (20%) between 2018 and 2019. This is not an acceptable trend and we 

continue to monitor this area closely and seek to identify and implement projects that will improve safety for 

this important population. There was only a slight change (reduction of one) in the number of non-motorized 

serious injuries between 2018 and 2019.

1 Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-nation.html

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 44

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

47 38 53 50 58 42 51

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

114 118 146 149 139 142 165

During the process of preparing data for this year's HSIP report, we discovered that previous year data for 

older driver and pedestrian crashes has significant errors. These errors have been corrected in this report. As 

a result, the numbers reported this year differ considerably from what was reported in previous years.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 44

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Other-Reduction of severe crashes

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

The two measures of effectiveness chosen by UDOT are B/C ratio and reduction of severe crashes. Results 

presented in this report show that UDOT is making progress in both measures. The overall weighted B/C of the 

3-year before/after project results is 1.8. And for several years in a row now, Utah has achieved reductions in 

both fatal and serious injury crashes.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

UDOT began during FY20 to implement a new procedure that will take effect for programming of projects 

beginning in FY23. Under this new process, HSIP projects will be prioritized based on their estimated benefitcost ratios. This means that the projects most likely to reduce severe crashes will be funded regardless of 

where they are located within the state. The new process was used during FY20 to identify projects to add to 

UDOT's three-year plan for FY23. The Traffic and Safety Division believes that the process change will lead to 

fewer severe crashes and help Utah best meet its Zero Fatalities goal.

Prior to this process change, UDOT's four region offices were prorated a percentage of Utah's HSIP funds to 

program based on the relative numbers of severe crashes that occured within each region. The region offices 

were given discretion to prioritize their funding allocation to projects of their choosing as long as those projects 

had an estimated benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2019

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)

Roadway Departure 108 412.6 0.35 1.32

Intersections 63.4 562.6 0.2 1.8
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 44

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)

Pedestrians 42 120.4 0.14 0.39

Bicyclists 5 47.2 0.02 0.15

Older Drivers 54.4 228.6 0.18 0.73

Motorcyclists 39.4 199 0.12 0.64

Work Zones 11.6 58 0.04 0.18

Adverse Roadway 

Surface Condition

36.2 218.4 0.12 0.7

Adverse Weather 22.8 127 0.07 0.41

Aggressive Driving 13 61.2 0.04 0.19

Collision with Fixed 

Object

103.2 443.4 0.33 1.42

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Involved

38.4 111.6 0.12 0.36

Distracted Driving 21.2 143.8 0.07 0.46

Domestic Animal Related 1.8 3.6 0.01 0.01

Drowsy Driving 12.6 60 0.04 0.19

DUI 100.6 162.4 0.32 0.52

Interstate Highway 55.6 278.4 0.18 0.89

Night/Dark Condition 99.8 395.6 0.32 1.27

Overturn/Rollover 91 329.6 0.29 1.06

Railroad Crossing 2.4 3.6 0.01 0.01

Roadway Geometry 

Related

108 497 0.34 1.59

State Route 194.8 960.4 0.62 3.07

Single Vehicle 139.2 609.4 0.44 1.95

Speed Related 66.8 280 0.21 0.89

Teenage Driver Involved 35.4 264.6 0.11 0.85

Train Involved 2 3.8 0.01 0.01
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 44

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)

Transit Vehicle Involved 4.6 15.8 0.01 0.05

Urban County 159.8 1,013.4 0.51 3.24

Wild Animal Related 1 14 0 0.04

Improper Restraint 15 56.6 0.05 0.18

Rural Non-state 21.8 104.4 0.07 0.33

Unrestrained 58.4 131 0.19 0.42
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 44

0

50

100

150

200

250

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 44

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Roadway Departure

Intersections

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Adverse Roadway...

Adverse Weather

Aggressive Driving

Collision with Fixed...

Commercial Motor...

Distracted Driving

Domestic Animal...

Drowsy Driving

DUI

Interstate Highway

Night/Dark Condition

Overturn/Rollover

Railroad Crossing

Roadway Geometry...

State Route

Single Vehicle

Speed Related

Teenage Driver...

Train Involved

Transit Vehicle...

Urban County

Wild Animal Related

Improper Restraint

Rural Non-state

Unrestrained

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 44

Each year we enter our before/after results for projects that have achieved 3 years of post-construction crash 

history, so there is information available there for specific types of projects. But we have not completed any 

grouped studies of the effectiveness of certain types of countermeasures.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 44

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

No Passing 

Zone Signage; 

Various 

Locations (PIN 

12301)

Various rural 

types

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

2.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 9.00 6.1

SR-225; 

Interchange 

Signing 

Improvements 

(PIN 12175)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

18.00 24.00 10.00 11.00 28.00 35.00 -0.93

I-15 & I-84; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12176)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

1.00 1.00 0.01

US-89; MP 

402.54-403.70, 

Median Barrier 

(PIN 12884)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

1.00 1.00 1.41

I-80; MP 99.50-

113, Upgrade 

Barrier (PIN 

12221)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 72.00 66.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 10.00 11.00 88.00 80.00 13.62

US-191; MP 

251.45 - 

259.19, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 12191)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

SR-14; MP 13-

17, Guardrail & 

Barrier 

Improvements 

(PIN 12187)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.58

US-163; MP 

0.00-41.41, 

Install 

Guardrail (PIN 

12188)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 0
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 44

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR-39; 

Shoulder Imps 

(MP 36.86 - 

48.12) (PIN 

11382)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

Rural Roads in 

Garfield 

County (PIN 

11742)

Rural Local 

Road or Street

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 -0.03

Various 

Locations; 

Install Rumble 

Strips (PIN 

12190)

Various rural 

types

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

33.00 40.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 8.00 23.00 24.00 63.00 74.00 -7.75

SR-132; Safety 

Improvements 

(MP 34.80-

38.75) (PIN 

11393)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Roadside - other 9.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 12.00 8.00 -0.22

SR-35/SR-208 

Intersection 

Realignment 

(PIN 11395)

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

0

I-15 & I-70; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12931)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 -0.48

SR-12; MP 

64.3-117.0, 

Sign and 

Geometry 

Improv (PIN 

12186)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 3.36

SR-14; MP 

35.4-35.7, 

Curve 

Improvements 

(PIN 12192)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 11.99

SR-266/SR-71 

Intersection 

Reconstruction 

(PIN 11404)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

12.00 2.00 13.00 2.00 25.00 4.00 1.45
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 44

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR-266; Auto 

Blvd/Main St 

Intersection 

Imps (PIN 

11405)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

7.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 12.00 10.00 4.35

I-15; MP 108.0 

to 188.6 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12189)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

3.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 14.00 5.55

SR-95; MP 

117.0-120.5, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 12193)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

I-80; MP 138.7 

- 

141.1,Shoulder 

Barrier & 

Lighting (PIN 

13596)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 10.00 -0.22

I-15; Interstate 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12985)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

1.00 1.00 2.00 2.34

Telegraph Rd; 

Guardrail & 

Rumble Strips 

(PIN 13024)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.03

SR-201/SR202 

Intersection 

Realignment 

and Signal 

(PIN 11367)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic 

improvements - 

signal-controlled

7.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 10.00 14.00 2.84

SR-67; Median 

Cable Barrier 

(MP 3-10.84) 

FFY14 (PIN 

11384)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 -0.01

SR-266/500 W. 

Intersection 

Imps (PIN 

11408)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

60.00 87.00 38.00 20.00 98.00 107.00 4.19
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 44

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

(permissive to 

protected-only)

SR-266 (4500 

South); State 

Street to 700 

East (PIN 

11409)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

6.00 3.00 9.00 1.71

SR-18; MP 

34.40 - 39.10, 

Install 

Guardrail (PIN 

11413)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

SR-273; MP 

2.0-2.2, 

Intersection 

Realign & 

Signal (PIN 

13023)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic 

improvements - 

signal-controlled

1.00 1.00 -0.5

SR-24; MP 

69.40 - MP 

73.25 Shoulder 

Improvements 

(PIN 12204)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 0

I-15, I-80, I215, SR-201; 

Structure 

Protection (PIN 

12222)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

0

US-189 RWIS 

and VMS, MP 

8.00 - 19.4 

(PIN 11410)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic 

message signs

84.00 133.00 1.00 17.00 29.00 102.00 162.00 1.51

I-15; MP 28.13-

31.89, Install 

Guardrail (PIN 

13484)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 -31.63

500 W/4800 S; 

Signal 

Upgrades (PIN 

12218)

Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - 

left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

7.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 13.00 9.00 1.77

US-89; 

Improve 

Shoulders (MP 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadside Roadside 

grading

1.00 1.00 -0.06
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 44

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

69-75) (PIN 

11412)

US-89; Two 

Segments, 

Median Barrier 

(PIN 12892)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 1.00 11.59

SR-36; Canyon 

Rd Intersection 

Improvements 

(PIN 12223)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add acceleration 

lane

3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 0.02

SR-24; MP 

16.01-24.13, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 13041)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadside Barrier- metal 5.00 7.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 0.5

I-15 & I-70; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection Ph. 

2 (PIN 13483)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - 

concrete

4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 -0.01

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

The overall weighted B/C was 1.8 for the projects we reported 3-year before-after crash analysis for this year. This is not as high of a B/C ratio as the previous few years, but it nevertheless still shows that UDOT is selecting to fund HSIP 

projects that are helping to reduce serious and fatal injury crashes. The actual numbers of fatal and serious injury crashes also decreased for the past several years despite strong growth in VMT. Additionally, the fatal and serious injury 

crash rates decreased 20% and 19%, respectively, from 2015 to 2019.
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 44

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/10/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2016 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 3.4 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 3.4
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 44

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 3.4

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 3.4 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 3.4

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 3.4

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 3.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 3.4

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 44

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 78.53 100.00 3.40 81.82 100.00 100.00 22.22 100.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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. 

UDOT intends to use a variety of resources to collect the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements by the prescribed date. The following is a general summary of resources that will be used for each data group and the status of that resource.

State-Maintained Roads: FDE for these state roads is 100% complete. These data are collected using our biennial asset inventory and various internally managed business systems.

Non-State Federal-Aid System: These data are collected using various internally managed business systems and the usRAP protocol. Of Utah's 29 counties the urban areas have been collected and more are underway. We plan to finish 

this effort within a year.

Local Roads: Local road data will be collected through the ARNOLD system. The system is completed and data collection plans are in progress.

Unpaved Roads: State-owned unpaved road data is collected via biennial asset inventory and with internal business systems. Non-state unpaved roads will be collected with the ARNOLD system
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 44

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

200929_HSIP Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 44

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 noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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