Page 1 of 49

WYOMING
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 22

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 36

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 38

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 43

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 44
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 49

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 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary

WYDOT has an established HSIP program with processes in place for the collection of data, implementation of 

projects, and annual reporting requirements. Each fiscal year, historically, Wyoming obligates a majority of their 

HSIP apportionments, these funds are obligated on projects which are eligible under the requirements of the 

program. WYDOT effectively manages the HSIP and their Highway Safety Program manager is responsible for 

both the behavioral and engineering aspects of the program, reporting to both NHTSA and FHWA. This 

overarching management of the program provides for a consistent approach to addressing safety needs 

throughout the State. The Highway Safety Program continues to be very process driven and consistent when 

approaching HSIP projects and reporting requirements. WYDOT currently is inconsistent between the Highway 

Safety Program and other programs within the DOT. Safety elements are often included on projects that are 

funded through sources other than HSIP. WYDOT is working towards a standard process of coordination 

between programs to ensure that safety projects and safety project elements are being identified and prioritized 

prior to the funding being utilized. WYDOT is also improving their process for the evaluation of safety benefits 

from projects which are implemented using HSIP funding. The Safety Management System provides a 

mechanism for quantifying the benefits of safety treatments which in turn allows for more effective utilization 

of HSIP funds on future HSIP projects. WYDOT Highway Safety continues to implement the HSIP through 

strategies, activities, and/or projects on public roads that are consistent with their data driven Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) with the goal of reducing critical (fatal and serious injury) crashes.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 49

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. 

The HSIP is based upon the goals and areas identified in the SHSP. HSIP eligibility policies focus on 

addressing the greatest safety needs within the State. Rural road safety needs are addressed through the HRRR 

program (which is a subset of the HSIP) managed through an agreement with the UW LTAP Center. The 

greatest safety needs are identified through the Safety Management System (SMS) which establishes a 

mechanism for the prioritization of HSIP funding.

WYDOT considers crash, roadway and traffic data when identifying potential HSIP projects. The SMS allows 

for various programs and Districts to optimize the use of safety funds on the State's roadways. The SMS allows 

WYDOT decision makers to identify the locations that warrant attention and then select the most cost effective 

safety treatments to propose at each potential project location.

WYDOT implements both spot location treatments for high-crash/high-risk locations as well as systemic safety 

improvement projects. Due to the rural nature of Wyoming the majority of HSIP projects address rural road 

safety needs. Safety strategies proven to be effective on rural roads are applied using HSIP funds.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Safety Management System

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

Page 6 of 49

WYDOT uses its Safety Management System to identify and address safety treatments throughout the State 

system based on B/C ratio.

Local roads are included in the HSIP through a High Risk Rural Road program which utilizes the Wyoming 

rural road safety program developed and implemented in cooperation with the University of Wyoming, LTAP 

center.

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

The local county roads and tribal roads are included in the HSIP by the Wyoming rural road safety program 

(WRRSP) administered by the UW LTAP center. The program reviews crash and roadway feature data to 

develop high risk road locations. The work done by the LTAP then includes assistance in putting projects 

together with the local jurisdictions to address the identified roadway safety needs.

There are two MPO's in Wyoming and they are represented on the Safety Mangagement Committee that 

identifies emphasis areas for the SHSP. Projects are proposed and developed by the MPO's with regard to their 

own identified needs and assistance is provided in data and information.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Internal partners are asked to provide their expertise in the various areas that they represent. The coordination 

is required at many levels based upon the policies of WYDOT. Information is developed and disemminated by 

the Highway Safety Office. The information is used to make decisions regarding project programming and 

design by the other WYDOT programs responsible for that part of the project development and implementation.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 49

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

WYDOT is structured with the WHP and Governors Rep for Highway Safety (NHTSA) within its 

organization. The Highway Safety Office chairs a Safety Management Committee that meets 3-4 times per year 

to discuss, investigate, plan and direct the numerous safety partners throughout the state on the SHSP and other 

higher level issues regarding Highway Safety.

Program areas and strategies are discussed to assist other safety partners in their efforts to reduce fatal and 

serious injury crashes in the State.

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. 

The Highway Safety Office has been the lead in developing a Safety Management System (SMS) for 

WYDOT. The SMS is maturing rapidly and becoming the go to place for counter measures and projects that 

have higher benefit/cost ratios. The SMS is based upon the principles contained in the Highway Safety Manual 

and is very dependent upon data. The SMS development has been a long process but it is now on the verge of 

driving the HSIP project selection process for WYDOT.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

WYDOT has an operating policy regarding Highway Safety that needs updating as the Safety Management 

System becomes more widely used for Planning, Implementation and Evaluation of the HSIP. 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 49

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Other-Guardrail upgrade/replacement

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2009 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 49

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Disrtict and Traffic operations input

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 : 2

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Rural Intersections and the 

type of traffic control present for 

example signalized or not 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 49

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.

Rural off sytem intersections are studied independently from on system intersections. Urban intersections are 

also studied within the community that they exist. A statewide program does not currently exist.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Disrtict and Traffic operations input

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

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2008 

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

Other-HRRR subset of HSIP

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Other-A simple roadway drive 

through rating is used to identify 
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 49

roadway features needing 

improvement 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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.

The Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program (WRRSP) utilizes crash data and drive through surveys to rank and 

prioritize local road safety needs and assists in identifying projects to address needs.

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

Available funding : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 49

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

No

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

No

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

The Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program (WRRSP) utilizes crash data and drive through surveys to rank and 

prioritize local road safety needs and assists in identifying projects to address needs.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District and Traffic operations input

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

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

Page 13 of 49

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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.

The local roads utilize specific studies to determine project needs.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District and Traffic operations input
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 49

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

Available funding : 1

Other-Judgement based - some systemic geometric improvements and some crashed based : 2

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/9/2008 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Systemic approach to Lane Departure/Roadway Departure

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal crashes only 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Other-Age and condition of signs 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Age of signs in combination with functional classification of the roadway is the main factor 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 49

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.

Sign replacement and improvement projects are done through the WRRSP methodology for Counties. For 

Urban communities these type of projects are done on a corridor basis.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-District and Traffic operatins input

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

Available funding : 2

Other-Relative age of signage and functional classification : 1

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

Program: Other-Guardrail upgrade/replacement 

Date of Program Methodology: 2/2/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

Other-Systemic approach to Lane Departure/Roadway Departure

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Roadside features 
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 49

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

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.

Work with the LTAP center using the WRRSP

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

Available funding : 1

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 70

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

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

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

Engineering Study

Other-Use of Crash Information to identify over-represented crash types to be addressed

Other-Safety Management System

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

Projects included in the HSIP address information to drivers about roadway conditions primarily in winter 

weather. Also variable speed limits and other communication technologies are part of the HSIP.

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.

HSM methodologies are part of the Safety Management System. The Safety Management System was 

developed based upon the HSM.

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 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

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) $12,638,001 $9,850,948 77.95%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $4,032,541 $4,032,541 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $5,600,751 $5,600,751 100%

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 $22,271,293 $19,484,240 87.49%

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?

10%

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

10%

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

Each year the amount of funding programmed and obligated to local safety projects varies. The targeted 

amount is 10 %.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

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

0%

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

0%

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

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.

WYDOT doesn't have a problem obligating the HSIP funds.

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

No
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 49

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

0261020 Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

$4386980 $28165695 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Local Coordination Lane Departure

B169036 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

$1125788 $1125788 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Risk based Intersections Local Coordination

B151035 Roadside Barrier- metal $792720 $792720 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various roadways 

in District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Systemic -

Roadside 

Improvement

B151109 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

$247934 $247934 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Curves in 

District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Systemic - Curve 

treatment

B161026 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$101540 $111211 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various roadways 

in District 1

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Systemic Coordination with 

Law Enforcement 

and Emergency 

Response

I803149 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$335121 $335121 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Systemic

0252153 Roadway Roadway - other $3604024 $9728986 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Roadside 

Improvement

B162034 Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier 

$142165 $142165 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

Delineation

B162035 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

$129853 $129853 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Curve Chevrons

B162027 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$122591 $122591 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Coordination with 

emergency 

vehicles

I252161 Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message 

signs

$1655004 $2600720 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Systemic 

Improvements to 

Information to 

Drivers

ITS improvements

I254154 Roadside Roadside - other $150335 $810575 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Visibility 

Improvements

I255115 Roadside Roadside grading $938960 $9906246 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Roadside 

Improvements

2000057 Roadside Roadside - other $202802 $202802 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Roadside 

Improvement

B163028 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$187977 $187977 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Coordination with 

emergency 

vehicles

B154021 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

$219211 $219211 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roadways 

in District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Sign 

Improvements
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 49

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

B164029 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$103375 $103375 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roadways 

in District 4

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Coordination with 

emergency 

vehicles

B165030 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

$151031 $151031 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roadways 

in District 5

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Coordination with 

emergency 

vehicles

B165022 Roadside Barrier- metal $1160826 $1160826 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Upgrade guardrail

N332034 Roadside Barrier- metal $1287256 $1287256 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Upgrade guardrail

0202014 Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading $0 $2820790 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadside 

Improvements

CN10107 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

$110510 $110510 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

Pavement 

Markings

CN10108 Roadside Barrier- metal $14815 $14815 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Install guardrail

B169019 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

$1356264 $1356264 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various roadways 

statewide

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Improve 

Pavement 

Markings

HRRR016 Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$576087 $576087 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 County and Tribal 

roadways 

statewide

Statewide Safety 

Planning

HRRR 

coordination 

Local coordination

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

Page 22 of 49

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 159 134 153 135 120 87 150 145 112

Serious Injuries 750 640 571 491 458 467 476 460 387

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.710 1.420 1.670 1.490 1.320 0.960 1.600 1.550 1.200

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.060 6.800 6.220 5.400 5.050 5.160 5.090 4.930 4.160

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

8 4 3 7 6 4 10 5 6

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

33 22 28 27 22 17 28 20 30
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 25 of 49

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

25.8 96.2 1.06 3.95

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

37 101 2.21 6.29

Rural Minor Arterial 15.8 49.2 3.41 10.36

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 49

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 Minor Collector 8 32.4 11.21 31.66

Rural Major Collector 13.6 30.8 2.61 5.91

Rural Local Road or Street 4.8 12.6 12.7 25.47

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

2 10.6 0.37 1.99

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

4.6 24.6 0.65 3.62

Urban Minor Arterial 3.2 16.6 3.74 19.07

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 49

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 99 337.8 0 0

County Highway Agency 10.8 44.6 0 0

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 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Minor

Collector

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Minor

Collector

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 49

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Minor

Collector

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 49

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Minor

Collector

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

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 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 49

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 49

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 130.0 

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

The target was established by coordination with safety partners. The SHSP goal is to 

reduce fatalities. 

Number of Serious Injuries 470.0 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency County Highway 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 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 49

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

The target was established by coordination with safety partners. The SHSP goal is to 

reduce serious injuries. 

Fatality Rate 1.400 

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

The target was established by coordination with safety partners. The SHSP goal is to 

reduce fatalities. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.440 

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

The target was established by coordination with safety partners. The SHSP goal is to 

reduce serious injuries. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 30.0 

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

The target was established by coordination with safety partners. The SHSP goal is to 

reduce fatal and serious injuries. 

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

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

targets. 

Coordination meetings were held with the two MPO's regarding the establishment of targets for the 

State. When targets were selected a formal meeting and presentation was conducted. Concurrence was 

requested regarding the established targets.

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? 
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 49

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

11 18 18 14 10 20 15

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

49 53 45 47 42 46 47

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 49

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Other-Funding utilized for Safety related treatments

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

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

level evaluations.

Trend comparisons for fatal and serious injuries along with all crashes year to year. The trend for the State is 

down in both fatal and serious injuries.

Wyoming continues to utilize the full funding it is allocated for Safety Treatments on its roadways.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

HSIP Obligations

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 49

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure Run-off-road 74 238 0.8 2.56

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 74 238 0.8 2.56

Intersections All 11 45 0.12 0.48

Pedestrians All 5 24 0.05 0.26

Bicyclists All 1 6 0.01 0.06

Motorcyclists All 24 54 0.26 0.58
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lane Departure Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lane Departure Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 49

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?

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Lane Departure Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

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

Lane Departure Roadway

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 49

No

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

Page 43 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A

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

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

No
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/10/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

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) 100 100 100 100

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) 100 100
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

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 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 25 100 25

AADT Year (80) 100 25

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

100 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 0

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

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)

50 100
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 49

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)

50 100

Interchange Type (182) 50 100

Ramp AADT (191) 50 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 50 100

Functional Class (19) 50 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

50 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 86.11 100.00 0.00 68.18 100.00 100.00 91.67 100.00 100.00

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

With the large amount of federal lands in Wyoming with many paved and un-paved roadways it would be helpful if the Federal Government agencies would provide their roadway information to WYDOT so that it can be included.

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 State of Wyoming through the Department of Transportation Planning program will continue to pursue the necessary data collection to complete the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads. One glaring problem is the 

Federal Land agencies NOT providing this data to WYDOT.

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 Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

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

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.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 49

The WYDOT Highway Safety Office completed a Self-Assessment in cooperation with the State FHWA Office. The Assessment was to identify strengths and weaknesses of the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The document

serves as a guide to areas of concern to improve upon as WYDOT strives to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in Wyoming.
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Wyoming Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 49

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.