Page 1 of 39

UTAH 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 39

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................19

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................19

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................25

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

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................28

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................28

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................28

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

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................35

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................38

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................39
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 39

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. 407 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.”
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

Executive Summary

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

period marked a return to our past long-term downward trends in fatalities. Suspected serious injury crashes 

peaked in 2015 and then trended downward through 2019. However, 2020 and 2021 experienced significantly 

higher numbers of fatal and suspected serious injury crashes than in previous years, resulting in higher totals 

for both metrics than at any other time in the last decade. These rises mirror trends seen in other states during 

the COVID-19 pandemic and in the year that followed. We are hopeful that our efforts to prioritize safety 

projects with the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and suspected serious injuries will lead to a resumption 

of the downward trends in those crash types as more normal traffic patterns emerge following the pandemic.

We continue to use both crash analysis and systemic modeling to identify the projects most likely to reduce 

fatalities and suspected serious injuries. We modified our project selection process in 2019 to fund the projects 

with the highest B/C ratios even if doing so results in HSIP funding not being allocated to each region of the 

state evenly. The first two years of this change have proven to be a success and we expect that continuing 

along this path will lead to the best projects being funded each year.

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

efforts with HSIP funds. We used State funds to continue these programs while the FAST Act was in effect. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law restored our ability to use HSIP funds for education and enforcement 

purposes, so UDOT plans to resume using federal funds for these purposes.

During FY22, we were able to officially sign a new Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The new SHSP has 

been upgraded to emphasize a web-based version rather than a static PDF report. The new web version is 

complete with charts that show real-time crash and fatalities data. This allows SHSP readers to use this realtime data to track progress and inform decisions regarding the different focus areas.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 39

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation 

and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated 

December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

mandates. The UDOT region offices also play a major role in the development and implementation of HSIP 

projects. They work in concert with the UDOT Traffic & Safety Division to identify potential project locations, 

submit HSIP funding applications, and participate in the screening and prioritization process. Once projects are 

selected and funded in each region, the region offices take ownership of project delivery, assigning project 

managers, and proceeding according to standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

efforts. 

The project process includes the following steps: 

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

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

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

offices. 

• Programming of projects into discrete funding years. 

• Assignment of project managers and beginning of design process. 

• Advertisement and construction. 

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

• Reporting in the annual HSIP report. 

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

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

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

prioritize their funding allocation to projects of their choosing as long as those projects had an estimated 

benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0. This historic funding allocation model has continued through FY22. 

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

prioritized based on projects' benefit-cost ratio. This means that the projects most likely to reduce severe 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

crashes will be funded regardless of location. The Traffic and Safety Division believes that this new process 

will lead to fewer severe crashes and help Utah best meet the Zero Fatalities goal. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

• Formula via Districts/Regions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UDOT performs crash analysis on non-State Federal Aid routes and accepts applications from local agencies 

for HSIP funding consideration on all public roads. We also apply the usRAP safety protocol to select nonState Federal Aid and local routes. UDOT completed coding for all Federal-aid routes in all counties of the 

state during the FY21 period. 

Additionally, near the end of FY22, UDOT senior leadership made a commitment to collaborating more closely 

with local municipalities towards the shared goal of improving roadway safety. Going forward, UDOT will be 

working closely with local governments to provide better insights from crash data and other traffic safety 

support. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 

• Districts/Regions 

• Maintenance 

• Operations 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

Planning

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

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

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

determine whether each project meets HSIP eligibility criteria. 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

For the second method, the Traffic & Safety Division employs a network-wide approach to identify projects. 

This is done by looking at crash and roadway attribute data from a statewide perspective. UDOT has several 

efforts underway to identify projects systemically and through network screening tools, including the usRAP 

model and BYU crash prediction model. During FY22, UDOT also created a calibrated predictive model of all 

State-managed roadways. The calibration is based on SPFs from the HSM. This will allow UDOT to quantify 

the safety benefits of systemic countermeasures for selection by region offices if the countermeasure fits within 

their future plans. It is anticipated that this model will be available for implementation in FY23. Preliminary 

countermeasures may include rumble strips, median barrier, raised median, horizontal curve treatments, and 

others. 

Design

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

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

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

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

into the project. 

Maintenance & Operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access to Data

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

analysis tool so everyone has equal access to safety data. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University 

• FHWA 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-SHSP Partners 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Academia

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

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

develop and continually refine Bayesian crash predictive models that show where crashes are overrepresented. Each year BYU provides model output reports to the region offices. The reports show potential 

safety project locations and countermeasures for their consideration. 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

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

database and to expand the usRAP model on non-State maintained roads. They completed coding of all 

federal-aid routes in all counties of the state in the FY21 period.

UDOT has used Utah State University to conduct research into educational materials that could be used to 

educate first responders about the limitations of automated driving systems. UDOT plans to partner again with 

Utah State in FY23 to analyze skid data for potential safety applications.

FHWA

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

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

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

implementing with our HSIP funds.

Governor's Office of Highway Safety

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

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

programs.

MPOs

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

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

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

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

Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) in 2018. During the FY21 period, coding of all necessary 

usRAP roadway attributes was completed for all federal aid routes in all counties across the state.

SHSP Partners

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

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period.

Two new program administrative changes are worthy of mention here. First, UDOT is planning to take 

advantage of the recently restored ability to use up to 10% of HSIP for its Zero Fatalities educational 

campaign. Only about 2.5% of FY22 HSIP funds will be obligated for the Zero Fatalities campaign, but future 

year obligations will be much closer to reaching the 10% mark.

Second, UDOT’s leadership has made the decision to commit at least 15% of HSIP funding each year to 

infrastructure projects that address vulnerable road user (VRU) safety. UDOT will be required by FHWA in 

FY23 and FY24 to obligate at least 15% of HSIP on VRU projects, but UDOT intends to maintain this 

commitment each year indefinitely, whether or not it is required to do so by FHWA. It is also worth noting that 

UDOT took notice of its increase in pedestrian crashes and was already working on developing a portfolio of 

VRU-related infrastructure projects before FHWA put requirements in place to mandate doing so. As a result, 

we already have a list of projects programmed in FY23 and FY24 that are capable of obligating 15% of the 

total HSIP funding amount.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

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

elaborate. 

UDOT focuses its infrastructure improvements primarily on the Roadway Departure Crashes and Intersection 

Safety emphasis areas. Most of the other emphasis areas (Public Outreach and Education, Use of Safety 

Restraints, Impaired Driving, Drowsy Driving, Distracted Driving, Aggressive Driving, Teen Driving Safety, 

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

education, media, and enforcement campaigns. The other emphasis area, Pedestrian Safety, gets addressed 

with a combination of infrastructure improvements and non-infrastructure efforts. UDOT partners with other 

state, local, and federal agencies to implement the non-infrastructure components of the SHSP. UDOT funded 

its education and enforcement efforts with state funds during the period in which the FAST Act was in effect, 

but it will be funding those efforts with HSIP now that federal eligibility for these activities has been restored. 

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

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

seat belt use. Those safety messages continue to be posted today. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• HRRR

• HSIP (no subprograms) 

• Other-Zero Fatalities Safety Campaign 

Beginning in FY23, UDOT will be setting aside 15% of annual HSIP funds for vulnerable road user (VRU) 

projects. This will apply in all years regardless of whether the VRU federal requirement is triggered. 

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Crash data trigger from FHWA

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Functional classification
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Coordination with region offices

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:50

Other-Ability of region to identify eligible project:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

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

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Other-Hierarchical Bayesian

• Other-usRAP model

• Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C:100

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Zero Fatalities Safety Campaign

Date of Program Methodology:11/15/2021

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 39

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Probability 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?

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Consulting with a marketing/PR firm

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

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 47

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Install/Improve Lighting 

• Other-Raised medians 

• Rumble Strips 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis 

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

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

• Stakeholder input 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

funded a project in FY18 to use DSRC technology in snow plows in order to allow them to coordinate their 

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

street. 

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

Yes 

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

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

HSM: 

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

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

spreadsheet tools developed and published in the CMF Clearinghouse. 

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

represent a risk-based approach based on roadway characteristics. 

4. Methods in Chapter 4 in conjunction with the SPFs of Part C are used to prioritize potential locations of 

systemic treatments such as rumble strips, median barrier, and raised medians. 

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

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

involving the SPFs and CMFs found in the HSM. 

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

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

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

9. The CAP-X and SPICE worksheets provided at the CMF clearinghouse are used to help decide on 

installation options of various intersections. Intersections that warrant further study use IHSDM and 

capacity projection models to determine the best alternatives. 

10. Where applicable, design deviations use the predictive methods of Part C to evaluate the safety impact 

of proposed deviations. 

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

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

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

elaborate.

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

Such projects include: 

Integrating Safety Into Planning

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

planning into their core processes. UDOT also works with MPOs and other safety partners across the state to 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

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

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

safety.

Improving Crash Data Analysis

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

understand crash characteristics is vital to programming HSIP funds.

University & Consultant Support

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

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

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

and HSM analysis.

Zero Fatalities Safety Campaign

During the FAST Act period, UDOT used State funds for education and enforcement efforts that fall within the 

State's Zero Fatalities effort umbrella. However, UDOT plans to resume using HSIP funds for these efforts now 

that federal eligibility for them has been restored in the new federal transportation bill passed earlier in FY22.

High Risk Rural Road Special Rule

UDOT was not subject to the HRRR Special Rule during FY22, but there were still some HRRR funds from 

previous years that were obligated during FY22 in order to use them all up. UDOT anticipates being subject to 

the HRRR Special Rule again in FY24. To identify HRRR-eligible projects, we first look at the roads that qualify 

for application of the funding. Then, we look for systemic improvements such as warning signs, shoulder 

treatments, barrier/guardrail, and rumble strips that could be applied to make the roads safer. It is generally 

difficult to find crash hot spots on these roads due to the lower volumes and crash concentrations so we rely 

heavily on systemic approaches to finding locations where the money can be wisely spent. We are also 

occasionally able to use projects that are already planned for HSIP funding when those projects have been 

selected through other means and are located on a route that qualifies for HRRR funds.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 39

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $29,943,578 $26,340,450 87.97%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$158,470 $158,470 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $6,066,181 $5,962,414 98.29%

Totals $36,168,229 $32,461,334 89.75%

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

safety projects?

1%

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

1%

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

27%

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

30%

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
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

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. 

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

end. From FY19 to FY22 we were able to effectively obligate all of our HSIP funds. The main reason we were 

able to reach our goal of full obligation was that we consistently encouraged the four region offices to overprogram, and they delivered enough of the projects to obligate all available funding. 

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

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

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

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

intended. This became a significant challenge during the last half of FY21 when several projects 

delayed advertisement to FY22 in order to get better bid prices. This was primarily due to a market 

where construction costs skyrocketed and bids came in significantly higher than already-inflated 

engineers estimates. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

boundary. These measures were necessary from FY19 to FY22 because we were very aggressive with overprogramming. 

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

shepherd the projects through UDOT's standard federal environmental, design, and construction processes.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

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

500 W; 3300 

S to 3900 S 

(PIN 14034)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,500 35 State 

Highway

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

U of U Crash 

Database 

Management 

FY22 (PIN 

14470)

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Numbers $311763 $311763 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureNoninfrastructureData Data

Traffic & 

Safety 

Program 

Management 

Support FY22 

(PIN 14473)

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous -

other

1 Numbers $1900000 $1900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureNoninfrastructureProgram 

Management 

Support

All

Statewide 

Roadway 

Data 

Inventory 

FY22 (PIN 

16330)

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Numbers $505000 $505000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

NoninfrastructureData Data

SR-171; MP 

9.20-9.23, 

Safety 

Improvements 

(PIN 17837)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

1 Intersections $1800000 $3245000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

I-15; Various 

Locations, 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 18301)

Roadside Barrier – cable 16 Miles $4400000 $4400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate22,800 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

I-70; Various 

Locations, 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 18302)

Roadside Barrier – cable 16 Miles $4800000 $4800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate4,300 80 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-36; MP 

62.89-65.12, 

Median 

Barrier (PIN 

18296)

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

2 Miles $1900000 $1900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

30,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Barrier

SR-201; MP 

0-10, Various 

Safety 

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, QR)

1 Intersections $2448000 $2723000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

20,500 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

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

Improvements 

(PIN 18297)

SR-39; MP 

19.36, 

Construct 

Roundabout 

(PIN 19667)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersections $3120000 $3120000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,350 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersection 

Improvements

R1 Sight 

Distance 

Project 

Incorporation 

(PIN 19721)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 200 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

NoninfrastructureData Data

R2 Sight 

Distance 

Project 

Incorporation 

(PIN 19722)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 200 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

NoninfrastructureData Data

R3 Sight 

Distance 

Project 

Incorporation 

(PIN 19723)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 200 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

NoninfrastructureData Data

R4 Sight 

Distance 

Project 

Incorporation 

(PIN 19725)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 200 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

NoninfrastructureData Data

SR-204; MP 

1.23-1.95, 

Corridor 

Lighting (PIN 

19988)

Lighting Continuous 

roadway lighting

1 Miles $546000 $546000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,000 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Lighting

Various 

Locations; 

Lighting 

Improvements 

(PIN 19995)

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

4 Miles $2406000 $2406000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther34,500 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Lighting
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 220 256 278 281 273 260 248 276 328

Serious Injuries 1,343 1,404 1,499 1,477 1,453 1,399 1,357 1,544 1,760

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.814 0.928 0.946 0.913 0.866 0.806 0.753 0.914 0.972

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.971 5.092 5.099 4.799 4.611 4.337 4.120 5.114 5.214

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

31 45 53 44 49 40 48 44 51

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

153 161 155 168 170 174 173 173 199
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 39

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

 

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 39

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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

30.4 100 0.85 2.82

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

1.8 3 2.1 3.44

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

31.8 98.4 1.59 4.96

Rural Minor Arterial 17 62.8 1.94 7.13

Rural Minor Collector 5.4 20.4 1.87 7.2

Rural Major Collector 18 64.8 1.75 6.22

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

 
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 39

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

13.6 82.6 1.1 6.67

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

23.4 138.6 0.29 1.7

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

4.2 11.2 0.87 2.35

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

70.2 444.8 1.25 7.92

Urban Minor Arterial 26.8 183.4 1 6.83

Urban Minor Collector 2.4 22.4 0.75 6.88

Urban Major Collector 16.2 116.6 0.85 6.11

Urban Local Road or 

Street

15.8 155.4 0.41 4
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 39

Year 2021

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

203.4 959.2 0.93 4.41

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

All Other 73.6 543.6 0.71 5.24

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

The 5-year rolling average for total fatalities increased from 2017-2018, decreased from 2018-2020, and then 

increased again from 2020-2021. The 5-year rolling average for fatality rate was essentially the same in 2017 

and 2018, decreased from 2018-2020, and then increased from 2020-2021. The actual number of annual 

fatalities went down each year from 2017 to 2019 but saw significant upticks in 2020 and 2021 that resulted in 

the 2021 figure far outpacing the previous high of the last decade that occurred in 2016. The annual fatality 

rate decreased sharply from 2017-2019 but then increased even more sharply from 2019-2021, resulting in the 

2021 figure being higher than the previous high of the last decade that occurred in 2015.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 39

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

injuries increased from 2017-2018, decreased in 2019, and then increased in both 2020 and 2021. The 5-year 

rolling average for suspected serious injury rate, however, decreased from 2017-2019, stayed almost exactly 

constant from 2019-2020, and then increased in 2021. Actual numbers of serious injuries and the suspected 

serious injury rate decreased significantly from 2017 to 2019, but both metrics rose sharply in 2020 and 2021 

to levels higher than any other year in the past decade. 

The rise in crashes and crash rates in 2020 was associated with a spike in crashes coupled with significantly 

reduced traffic volumes, both of which are likely attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Traffic volumes 

rebounded in 2021, but fatal and suspected serious injury crashes increased from 2020-2021 by an even 

larger margin, which resulted in the fatal and suspected serious injury rates being higher than at any point in 

the last decade.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:296.8

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

Step 1: The number of fatalities from 2021 were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2022 and 2023 to reflect the 

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

1. The 2019-2023 value for this performance measure is our 2023 target.

Number of Serious Injuries:1610.2

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

Step 1: The number of suspected serious injuries from 2021 were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2021 and 2022 

to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using the values 

calculated in Step 1. The 2019-2023 value for this performance measure is our 2023 target.

Fatality Rate:0.895

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

Step 1: The number of fatalities from 2021 were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2022 and 2023 to reflect the 

goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 2021 VMT estimate was held constant for 2022 and 2023 given the highly 

variable nature of VMT from year-to-year. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in Step 1 

and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were computed 

using the values calculated in Step 1 through Step 3. The 2019-2023 value for this performance measure is 

our 2023 target.

Serious Injury Rate:4.898

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 39

Step 1: The number of suspected serious injuries from 2021 were reduced by 2.5% per year for 2022 and 2023 

to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 2021 VMT was held constant for 2022 and 2023 given the 

highly variable nature of VMT from year-to-year. Step 3: Rates were estimated using the values calculated in 

Step 1 and Step 2 and also reflect a 2.5% reduction per year. Step 4: The 5-year rolling averages were 

computed using the values calculated in Step 1 through Step 3. The 2019-2023 value for each performance 

measure is our 2023 target. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:234.6

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

Step 1: The number of fatalities and suspected serious injuries from 2021 were reduced by 2.5% per year for 

2022 and 2023 to reflect the goal set in our SHSP. Step 2: The 5-year rolling averages were computed using 

the values calculated in Step 1. The 2019-2023 value for each performance measure is our 2023 target. 

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

safety performance targets. 

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

safety performance targets. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 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 251.7 277.0

Number of Serious Injuries 1363.2 1502.6

Fatality Rate 0.780 0.862

Serious Injury Rate 4.210 4.679

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

215.2 224.2

We remain committed to our goal of Zero Fatalities. Implementing measures to improve safety through the 

HSIP is bringing UDOT closer to that goal. Our fatality rate is down 42% from 2000. Despite being the 

country’s fastest-growing state between 2010 and 2020, and the state with the 2nd largest percent growth from 

2020 to 2021, Utah’s fatality rate for 2021 of 0.96 is 28% lower than the national average of 1.33 fatalities per 

100 million vehicle miles traveled*. 

We continue to focus on opportunities to reduce fatalities and suspected serious injuries across all 

performance measures. These increases represent unacceptable trends. We continue to monitor each 

performance measure closely, seeking to identify and implement projects that will improve safety and 

significantly reduce the number of fatalities and suspected serious injuries on Utah’s roads.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

*Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-traffic-fatalities

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

52 50 58 42 51 62 66

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

146 147 138 140 166 144 182
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio 

• Other-Reduction of severe crashes 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

presented in this report show that UDOT is continuing to show a strong overall B/C ratio for the infrastructure 

projects it is selecting. The overall weighted B/C of the 3-year before/after project results is 3.7. Unfortunately, 

fatal and suspected serious injury crashes have risen sharply in both 2020 and 2021 to levels higher than at 

any other point in the last decade. This rise mirrors nationwide trends. 

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 2021

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure 114 452.6 0.35 1.41

Intersection Related 69.4 620.6 0.22 1.93

Pedestrian 40.6 130 0.13 0.4

Bicyclist 5.8 47.8 0.02 0.15

Older Driver Involved 62.6 240.4 0.2 0.75

Motorcyclist 40.6 231.8 0.13 0.72

Work Zone Involved 12 60.4 0.04 0.19

Adverse Roadway 

Surface Condition

35.6 207.8 0.11 0.65

Adverse Weather 24.2 113.4 0.07 0.35
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

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)

Aggressive Driving 17.4 83.6 0.05 0.26

Collision with Fixed 

Object

102.4 461.2 0.32 1.44

Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Involved

42.6 124 0.13 0.39

Distracted Driving 16.4 133.2 0.05 0.42

Domestic Animal Related 1.4 4.8 0.01 0.01

Drowsy Driving 9.8 57.8 0.03 0.18

DUI 122.6 190.4 0.38 0.59

Interstate Highway 54.6 244.2 0.17 0.76

Night/Dark Condition 105 424.6 0.33 1.32

Overturn/Rollover 88.2 361.6 0.27 1.13

Railroad Crossing 1.6 4.4 0.01 0.01

Roadway Geometry 

Related

108.6 506 0.34 1.58

State Route 203.4 959.2 0.63 2.99

Single Vehicle 140.2 654.2 0.44 2.04

Speed Related 81.2 326 0.25 1.01

Teenage Driver Involved 35.8 279 0.11 0.87

Train Involved 1.2 5.2 0 0.02

Transit Vehicle Involved 3 20.6 0.01 0.06

Urban County 160.8 1,056.6 0.5 3.29

Wild Animal Related 1 12 0 0.04

Improper Restraint 9.6 47.4 0.03 0.15

Rural Non-state 24.4 119.8 0.08 0.37

Unrestrained 66.4 155.4 0.21 0.48
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

 

 

 

 

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

 

 

 

 

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 39

 

 

 

 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

 

 

 

 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 39

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR-173; MP 

9.29-9.41, 

Signal 

Improvements 

(PIN 14962)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) -

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal timing –

left-turn phasing

52.00 49.00 14.00 9.00 66.00 58.00 3.75

I-15, I-80, I215; P2-

Structure 

Barrier (PIN 

13309)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

7.00 6.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 -0.23

SR-12; MP 0 to 

MP 30, Barrier 

& Signage 

(PIN 14444)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 55.07

SR-95; MP 16-

117, Curve 

Signage (PIN 

13493)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

2.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 2.56

Various Rtes; 

TX Turndown 

& Guardrail 

Replacement 

(PIN 15231)

Rural –

Multiple

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 8.96

Various 

Routes; NoPass Pennant 

Signing (PIN 

14426)

Rural –

Multiple

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

13.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 16.00 8.00 0.88

4100 S/3200 

W Signal 

Upgrade (PIN 

14457)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

12.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 13.00 3.00 27.00 12.00 13.11

I-80; MP 18.7-

32.55; EB & 

WB Median 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 15284)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 6.00 28.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 13.00 14.00 24.00 45.00 2.28

US-91/SR-252 

Intersection 

Urban 

Principal 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

new traffic signal

19.00 18.00 1.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 28.00 28.00 -14.64
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 39

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Improvements 

(PIN 15157)

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

I-84; MP 0-40, 

Median Cable 

Barrier (PIN 

15280)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 5.00 17.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 5.00 17.00 22.00 13.27

I-15 & I-84; 

Interstate 

Structure 

Protection 

(PIN 13486)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 8.51

SR-20; MP 0 - 

20.49, 

Roadside 

Improvements 

(PIN 13040)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.85

Various 

Routes; 

Rumble Strips 

(PIN 14448)

Rural –

Multiple

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

25.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 34.00 18.00 2.66

Various 

Freeway 

Routes; 

Structure 

Protection 

(PIN 14459)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier –

concrete

4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 -0.01

SR-35; MP 

17.30-20.75, 

MotorcycleSafe Guardrail 

(PIN 13490)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -9.3

I-15; MP 132-

133, Shoulder 

Improvements 

(PIN 14446)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Slope Flattening 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 14.47

I-70; MP 96.2 - 

146.7, Median 

Cable Barrier 

(PIN 14443)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier – cable 2.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 0.51

SR-113 Safety 

Improvements 

& Bike Lanes 

on SR-114 

(PIN 13900)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 14.69
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

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

The overall weighted B/C was 3.7 for the projects we reported 3-year before-after crash analysis for this year. This is lower than the similar overall B/C ratios we’ve reported over the last 5 years, but it still shows a strong return on the 

safety investments that UDOT is making, and demonstrates that UDOT is selecting projects that are helping to reduce suspected serious and fatal injury crashes.

The actual numbers of fatal and suspected serious injury crashes generally decreased between 2016 and 2019 despite strong VMT growth, but they unfortunately rose sharply in both 2020 and 2021. Fatal and suspected serious injury 

crash rates experienced similar trends over the past 5 years, including the increases from 2019 to 2021.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 39

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/01/2021

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2021 To: 2026

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

 2025

The goal is to update the SHSP every four years. Generally the SHSP is approved by its stakeholders as a part of Utah's bi-annual Zero Fatalities Summit. That will happen next year (2023) and then again in 2025, which fits with a 4 year 

update cycle.

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 3.4 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 39

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

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 3.4

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 3.4

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 3.4 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 3.4

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 3.4

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 3.4

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 3.4

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 3.4

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 3.4

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 78.53 100.00 3.40 81.82 100.00 100.00 66.67 100.00 100.00

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026. 

UDOT has now collected all required FDE. However, we are still working to merge and organize the data so we are not marking them as complete until data is in a usable and accessible format. For state-maintained roads, FDE are 

collected using our biennial asset inventory and various internally managed business systems. For the non-state Federal-Aid system, data are collected using various internally managed business systems and the usRAP protocol. This 

data has all been collected and is going through the organization process. Local road FDE data are collected through the ARNOLD system and are completed and available now. For unpaved state roads, data are collected via biennial 

asset inventory and with internal business systems. For non-state unpaved roads, data are collected with the ARNOLD system. UDOT anticipates having all MIRE FDE available and complete within 1-2 years.
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

200929_HSIP Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Utah Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 39

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.