Page 1 of 37

SOUTH DAKOTA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 

Photo Source: 

Photo image courtesy of South Dakota Department of Transportation 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 37

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 .......................................................................................................................6

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................16

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

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................18

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................21

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................21

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................28

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

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

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

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................32

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................33

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................36

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................37
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 37

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 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 37

Executive Summary

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

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

Road Safety Audits Review (RSAR), Roadway Safety Review (RSR) inspections, Safety Module software 

program, and ArcGIS to identify locations that would benefit from a safety improvement project. RSR 

inspections are developed by utilizing the South Dakota Department of Public Safety's

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

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

South Dakota. HSIP projects are selected for implementation by determining which project will result in the 

greatest safety improvement for the investment. The overall coordination and collaboration efforts for HSIP 

projects involve Regional SDDOT personnel, city representatives, county representatives, township 

representatives, consultant firms, law enforcement representatives, among other agencies. The SDDOT HSIP 

process will be expanded in further detail in the Program Methodology section of this report.
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 37

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. 

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

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

improvements ranked by benefit/cost. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Planning and Engineering

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Other-Central Office using SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

million vehicle miles traveled. 

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

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

systemic improvements. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 37

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

maintenance personal to identify locations to apply safety improvements. 

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

to increase safety. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 FHWA 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Law Enforcement Agency 

 Local Government Agency 

 Local Technical Assistance Program 

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

 Tribal Agency 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

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

place throughout the year. 

Program Methodology 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

 Horizontal Curve 

 Intersection 

 Local Safety 

 Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

 Roadway Departure 

 Shoulder Improvement 

 Sign Replacement And Improvement 

 Skid Hazard 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2013

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? 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 37

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume  Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2013

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 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 37

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume  Other-Intersection Type

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

When ADT is available and intersects with State road.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Incremental B/C:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:3/1/2015

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
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 37

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

Crash rates and crash clusters

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-SDDOT Project Developement Personel

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2014

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
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 37

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:2/2/2014

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 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 37

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

 Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2014

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? 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 37

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:4

Available funding:1

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2017

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 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 37

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:4

Available funding:1

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:2/1/2016

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  Traffic

 Volume
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 37

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-B/C ratio

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:4

Ranking based on net benefit:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 50

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Horizontal curve signs 

 Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

 Install/Improve Signing 

 Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

 Rumble Strips 

 Upgrade Guard Rails 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

 Engineering Study 

 SHSP/Local road safety plan 

 Stakeholder input 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 37

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

ITS technologies such as adaptive signal controls, and intersection conflict warning systems are installed 

within the HSIP program.

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

Yes

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

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

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

studies to compare different design alternatives.
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 37

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $43,132,574 $6,984,640 16.19%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$2,628,310 $79,083 3.01%

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 $45,760,884 $7,063,723 15.44%

The way projects are reported is based on the amount obligated when the first 292 is submitted for the project. 

In a lot of cases that amount is not the total project cost so that funding amount is tough to compare to the 

programmed amount. Although a project is only programmed within one study period it could be obligated over 

multiple study periods. A multi-million dollar project could be let within this study period but only a couple 

hundred thousand dollars is obligated during the same study period. 

Typical project obstacles such as estimating project costs to be programmed, projects time line slipping due to 

environmental impacts, right-of-way impacts, can all be expected on any type of project. 

Ways to overcome these obstacles is to do a better job of estimating projects and when scheduling projects 

allow for the proper time to accomplish environmental and ROW activities. 

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

safety projects? 

10%
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 37

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

10%

The way projects are reported is based on the amount obligated when the first 292 is submitted for the project. 

If the reporting was for the actually amount of projects let in the reporting period that amount would better 

represent the safety funds distributed to the local system.

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

3%

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

3%

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

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

the future.

The way projects are reported is based on the amount obligated when the first 292 is submitted for the project. 

In a lot of cases that amount is not the total project cost so that funding amount is tough to compare to the 

programmed amount. Although a project is only programmed within one study period it could be obligated over 

multiple study periods. A multi-million dollar project could be let within this study period but only a couple 

hundred thousand dollars is obligated during the same study period. 

Typical project obstacles such as estimating project costs to be programmed, projects time line slipping due to 

environmental impacts, right-of-way impacts, can all be expected on any type of project. 

Ways to overcome these obstacles is to do a better job of estimating projects and when scheduling projects 

allow for the proper time to accomplish environmental and ROW activities.
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 37

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

07A7 Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

10.3 Miles $448408.99 $453408.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate17,835 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

07A6 Roadway Rumble strips -

transverse

8 Intersections $113845.59 $129995.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,205 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Transverse 

Rumble Strips

07CU Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $1153151.63 $1282553.81 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,706 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane

06JE Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

5 Intersections $1736175.66 $1975928.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,159 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane

06JL Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

30.7 Miles $1294769.1 $1296269.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,624 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06DU Roadside Barrier- metal 32 Locations $2149203.49 $2149203.49 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate4,317 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Improvements

04HN Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

3.8 Miles $5934864.83 $11160921.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,329 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04JX Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

7 Miles $5641753.56 $6473403.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,104 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04JE Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

2.1 Miles $2280786.63 $2320978.19 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,466 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

04L4 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

1 County $3632892.98 $3736805.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

04JM Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

28.9 Miles $475366.52 $488866.52 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate19,038 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04JN Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings -

remarking

98.6 Miles $193290.35 $195790.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 488 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 37

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

04JP Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

20.5 Miles $254516.75 $259016.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate3,350 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04JQ Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

7.3 Miles $149006.88 $151206.88 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 1,841 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Durable 

Pavement 

Markings

04JR Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

4 Numbers $23737.46 $26374.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Road Safety 

Audits

Conduction 

Roadway 

Safety Audits

04JT Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

10 Numbers $117000 $130000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Data Highway 

Safety 

Planning

04XH Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

2.5 Miles $1558768.68 $4073988.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther540 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Improve 

horizontal 

alignment

05GL Roadside Fencing 10 Locations $18000 $20000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate3,500 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Snow Fence

03AW Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $311432.4 $398587.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,877 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Install Signals

025D Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8.2 Miles $5380590.73 $15568547.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,312 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Widening

062J Roadside Barrier- metal 19 Locations $1698347.33 $1699092.91 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate7,816 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Improvements

06AK Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

49.5 Miles $2320185.64 $2325751.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,706 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06AL Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

41 Miles $1573683.57 $1576183.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,088 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06AM Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

38.8 Miles $1366518.08 $1373018.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,578 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06C5 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

75 Intersections $347523.4 $352523.4 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,530 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Install signal 

backplates 

with 

retroreflective 

boarders
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 37

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

06C4 Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

145 Intersections $409260.13 $419260.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate7,293 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Install signal 

backplates 

with 

retroreflective 

boarders

06K3 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

2 Intersections $1377069.38 $1530077.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,467 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane

06TT Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

40 Miles $599755.64 $605255.64 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 200 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06TW Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

5 Intersections $611793.98 $694948.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,760 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Turn Lane

06TY Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

16 Locations $137017.63 $161241.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,745 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

06TX Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

6 Locations $48259.43 $58621.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

06U0 Roadway Rumble strips - 

transverse

17 Intersections $134854.56 $156338.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,043 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Transverse 

Rumble Strips

06TU Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

40 Miles $865918.07 $869949.07 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 200 65 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Edge Line 

Rumble 

Stripes

06U1 Roadway Rumble strips - 

transverse

18 Intersections $96290.39 $115184.51 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,143 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Transverse 

Rumble Strips

073K Roadside Barrier- metal 22 Locations $970186.62 $1157285.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,795 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Guardrail 

Improvements

0736 Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

130.9 Miles $196320.92 $196320.92 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate2,535 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing

074K Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

66.2 Miles $140337.25 $147037.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,041 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Signing
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 37

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 111 133 135 136 134 116 129 130 102

Serious Injuries 760 810 832 738 803 692 649 570 520

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.230 1.470 1.480 1.480 1.440 1.230 1.340 1.340 1.029

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.450 8.920 9.130 8.010 8.620 7.310 6.744 5.870 5.248

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

8 2 9 11 6 6 10 12 8

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

39 37 49 39 35 30 40 36 24
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 37

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 37

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

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

7

8

9

10

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 24 of 37

Describe fatality data source. 

Other

If Other Please describe

FARS & South Dakota Accident Records System

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

12.6 56 0.62 3.25

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

34.6 130.6 1.77 6.67

Rural Minor Arterial 15.2 70.8 1.49 6.98

Rural Minor Collector 3.8 15.8 2.56 10.67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 37

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 Major Collector 25.2 91.6 2.35 8.56

Rural Local Road or 

Street

12.2 65.2 2.66 14.23

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

5 26 0.66 3.45

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

2.6 51 0.51 10.13

Urban Minor Arterial 5.6 67.2 0.56 6.77

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 2.2 24.6 0.77 8.62

Urban Local Road or 

Street

3 35.4 1.08 12.73
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 37

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

58.4 303 0.94 4.89

County Highway 

Agency

25.6 120 2.01 9.4

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

3.4 29 1.4 11.88

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

8.6 135.4 0.65 10.17

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:125.2

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

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

External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were also considered 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 37

when establishing this target. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Number of Serious Injuries:656.7

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

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

External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were also considered 

when establishing this target. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Fatality Rate:1.240

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

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

External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were also considered 

when establishing this target. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Serious Injury Rate:6.630

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

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

External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were also considered 

when establishing this target. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:40.0

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

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

External factors such as VMT, laws, and investments along with stakeholder feedback were also considered 

when establishing this target. The identified target supports the goals of the SHSP by annually measuring the 

effectiveness of the program which then lends the opportunity to shift resources between emphasis areas.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

Division Office, Rapid City MPO, Sioux City MPO, and Sioux Falls MPO representatives in attendance. The 

work shop went through the 5 performance measures in detail and the reporting requirements. There was a lot 

of discussion on current crash trends and external factors such as VMT, laws, and investments. Everyone 

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

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 37

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 127.4 122.2

Number of Serious Injuries 703.4 646.8

Fatality Rate 1.310 1.276

Serious Injury Rate 6.740 6.758

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

43.0 41.4

Based on the numbers inputted at reporting time, 4 of the 5 safety targets were met; Fatalities, Serious Injuries, 

Fatality Rate, and Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries. I also looked at significant progress made to 

reach the Serious Injury Rate. Serious Injury Rate was below the base line so that target made significant 

progress. 5 of the 5 safety targets either were met or made significant progress, this requirement was met.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Based on the data reported in section 32, the 2013-2017 rate is 2.62 and the 2015-2019 rate is 1.99 so the 

HRRR special rule does not apply.

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

19 22 14 16 20 23 11

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

52 61 90 62 53 55 44
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 37

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

15% by the year 2020. The 2019 five year average fatal crash rate per 100MVMT was 15.4% lower and the 

serious injury crash rate was 28.8% lower than the 2010-2014 crash rates. The goal of the 2014 SHSP has 

already been met with 1 year to go. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 HSIP Obligations 

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)

Lane Departure 19.6 37.6 0.21 0.4

Roadway Departure 52.4 244.6 0.55 2.58

Intersections 22.4 180.4 0.23 1.9

Pedestrians 8.4 26.4 0.09 0.28

Bicyclists 0.4 6.8 0 0.07

Older Drivers 17 62.6 0.18 0.66

Motorcyclists 19.8 146.4 0.21 1.54

Work Zones 2 12.2 0.02 0.13
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 37

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

The state has not completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

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

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 37

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 37

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/19/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2015 To: 2024

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

 2024

The 2019 SHSP covers years 2020-2024.

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]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Number (8) 

[8]

1 1

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

1 1

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

1 1

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

1 1 1 1

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

1 1 1 1

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

1 1 1 1 1 1

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

1 1

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

1 1

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1 1 1 1 1 1
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 37

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

1 1

Access Control (22) 

[23]

1

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

1 0.95

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

1 1 1 1

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

1 1 1 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 1 1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1 1 1 1 1 1

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

1 1

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

1 1

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

1 0.99

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

1 1

AADT Year (80) [82] 1 1

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

1 1

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

1

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

1
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 37

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

1

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

1

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

1

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

1

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

1

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

1

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

1

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

1

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

1

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

*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. 

South Dakota is aggressively collecting the needed data for the MIRE fundamental data elements. South Dakota will continue on this path as only a few data elements remain incomplete on the list.
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 37

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 South Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 37

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.