Page 1 of 34

IDAHO

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 34

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................10

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................10

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................12

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................16

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................16

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................23

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................24

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................24

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................24

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................28

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................29
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 34

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section[HSIP], shall not be subject 

to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other 

purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed 

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, 

or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety 

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court 

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence 

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 34

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fatal and serious injuries to determine what jurisdiction have priority for HSIP funding.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 34

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

Highway Safety Plan, and expected outcomes from the project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Division of Highways

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

The Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) works with ITD to address the safety of the Idaho 

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

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

FHWA using PSS.

Determine Funding Split (ITD & LHTAC)

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

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

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

for FY21 and FY22 is 50%. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions

• Other-Office of Highway Safety

• Other-Transportation Planning

• Other-Highway Data
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 34

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

Location (HAL) reports on an annual basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

1. How is the project safety-driven?

· Base Answers upon the Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

· Site statistics and results such as the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other datasupported means.

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

Plan?

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

· Identify counter measures to address those problems;

· Priortize projects for implementation; and

· Evaluate projects to determine their effectiveness

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

· Address identified safety issues within a highway wsafety corridor or a spot location such as an intersection 

or High Accident Location (HAL) or does it incorporate a system-wide approach such as rumble strips.

· Each district has a corridor map outlining safety corridors (also known as the Highway Safety Corridor 

Analysis (HSCA)). Make sure to review these maps for pertinent system-wide safety corridor analysis.

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

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

Transportation Systems using the TREDIS process. TREDIS calculates benefits in safety and mobility as a 

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

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

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

evaluate the projects to ensure they fit within the scope of the SHSP and then make the final approval.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 34

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HSIP (no subprograms)

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-High Accident Location (HAL) List

• Other-HSCA
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 34

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

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

apply for funding.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 1

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

This is based on the projects obligated and included in this submittal.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Other-Highway Safety Corridor Analysis process

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

This may be addressed in the long range transportation plan when it is released in the near future.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 34

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

elaborate. 

After Idaho was notified that we triggered the HRRR rule, we went back and double checked that projects fell 

into the functional classifications for the high risk rural roads. With Idaho being a largely rural state, we have 

many projects that are on rural roads. We really didn't have to adjust anything to our methodology to ensure 

we have projects on high risk rural roads.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 34

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

ITD follows the state fiscal year, as that is how we program and manage our projects.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $29,509,000 $18,769,285 63.61%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$1,391,491 $1,391,491 100%

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 $0 $0 0%

Totals $30,900,491 $20,160,776 65.24%

This has been corrected. I misread the obligations report I received.

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

safety projects?

12%

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

10%

FY18 programmed and obligated funds were programmed in prior years. Also, the 50% split was mentioned 

starting in FY20 per Question #6.

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

0%

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

0%
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 34

Two road safety audits were performed by the Local Highway Technical Advisory Council for approximately 

$82,000 total.

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. 

At this time there are no impediments to obligating HSIP funds.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 34

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

US 12; 18th St. 

to Clearwater 

Rv. Bridge

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 30; E 4000 

North Rd

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $758645 $758645 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,300 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 20 Int 

Farmway Rd.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $370366 $370366 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,800 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

SH 16 Int 

Beacon Light 

Rd.

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $764992 $764992 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,500 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 95 / Elmira 

Rd Turnbay

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $478371 $478371 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

SH 6 / Sh 9 

Turnbays

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $210000 $210000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 95, 

Windfall Pass 

Curve

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment $3523206 $3523206 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,400 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

US 93 / 100 

South Rd

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures 

and 

Intersections

US 95 / 

Culdesac 

Canyon 

Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway - other 7.2 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

US 12 - 

Lochsa 

Ranger Station 

to Holly Creek

Roadway Roadway - other 7 Miles $320000 $320000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther540 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

Hankins and 

Addison

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $481827 $481827 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,400 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

SH 3 Curve, 

Kooskia

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 34

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

Signing and 

Delineation, 

Worley

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

1 Locations $58000 $58000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

Gannet Rd. 

Sign 

Improvement, 

Blaine County

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing - add basic 

advance warning

Intersections $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 County

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

US 95, 

Riverside NB 

Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

1 Miles $155000 $155000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

US 93, 300 S. 

Rd, Jerome

Roadway Roadway - other 1.1 Miles $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures 

and 

Intersections

US 12, Valley 

View Dr. 

Turnbay

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.32 Miles $1246841 $1246841 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 95, 

Culdesac 

Canyon 

Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2.3 Miles $630000 $630000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

Hillsdale Curve 

Immprovement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs and 

flashers

$39000 $39000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

US 20 - 

Chester to 

Ashton

Roadway Roadway - other 11.18 Miles $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,800 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

Signal Head 

Visibility 

Improvement, 

Idaho Falls

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

Intersections $26000 $26000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersections

17 St. Curb 

Medians, 

Idaho Falls

Roadway Roadway - other $162028.93 $162028.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 27,000 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

US 95, 

Grangeville 

Truck Bypass

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $45000 $45000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

6th St. 

Pedestrian 

Improvement, 

Moscow

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

$22000 $22000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,000 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Pedestrians
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 34

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

US 20, Median 

Cable Barrier

Roadway Roadway - other 20.7 Miles $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

SH 41, 

Lancaster to 

Boekel, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1 Miles $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

SH 55 INT 

Florida Ave, 

Caldwell

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $55000 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

STC-5705 

RSA, 

Benewah 

County

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 19.866 Miles $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 180 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data RSA

Intersection 

Safety, Golden 

Gate

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 62 Intersections $39000 $39000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersections

State St. 

Lighting, 16th 

to 23rd

Lighting Lighting - other 0.549 Miles $71000 $71000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,000 35 Other Local 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

US 20, Star 

Rd. to SH-16

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 1 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

US 26, Clark 

Hill Rest Area 

Turn Lanes

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 95 

Culdesac 

Canyon 

Passing Lane, 

Ph 4

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2.62 Miles $230000 $230000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther25,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

US 26, 

Antelope Flats 

Passing Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

2.7 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,900 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

SH 21, 

Technology 

Way to 

Surprise Way

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or other 2.236 Miles $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,100 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departures 

and 

Intersections

I 90, SH 41 IC Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 0.7 Miles $2000000 $2000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate60,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

SH 200, 

McGhee to 

Kootenai St

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.45 Miles $180000 $180000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 10,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Lane 

Departures 
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 34

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

and 

Intersections

I 15, Exit 113 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate2,800 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

ADA ramps, 

thermoplastic 

xwalks, Idaho 

Falls

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 60 Intersections $15000 $15000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Pedestrians

SH 53, Hauser 

Lake Rd to N 

Bruss Rd

Roadway Roadway - other 2.7 Miles $1300000 $1300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

Broadford Rd 

Safety Audit

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

640 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data RSA

US 20, Sheep 

Falls to 

Pinehaven 

Passing Lanes

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

8.5 Miles $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,800 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure

US 20, SH 16 

to Linder

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

3 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departure 

and 

Intersections

SH 53, INT N 

Ramsey Rd

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - other 1 Intersections $190000 $190000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

I 90, Cedars to 

Dudley Rd

Roadway Roadway widening - travel lanes 3.85 Miles $180000 $180000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,600 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departures

US 2, Moyie 

Springs Turn 

Bays

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $125000 $125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther5,000 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 95, 

McArthur Lake

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

0.7 Miles $850000 $850000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,700 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departures

Dynamic 

Speed Limit 

Signs, Lapwai

Speed 

management

Speed management - other Locations $5000 $5000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,300 65 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departures

SH 53, N Latah 

St to MP 9.3, 

Rathdrum

Roadway Roadway widening - add lane(s) 

along segment

0.91 Miles $280000 $280000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Lane 

Departures
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 34

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 209 167 184 214 186 216 253 245 234

Serious Injuries 1,400 1,303 1,298 1,278 1,294 1,360 1,336 1,247 1,250

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.340 1.080 1.160 1.350 1.150 1.300 1.480 1.410 1.320

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.000 8.450 8.190 8.050 8.000 8.120 7.640 8.150 7.060

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

14 11 15 18 16 8 24 20 20

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

89 103 106 108 102 90 118 108 121
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 34

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 34

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 34

I made a few minor tweaks to the older data.

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

29.2 101.8 1.13 3.96

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

50.6 189.2 2.35 8.71

Rural Minor Arterial 23.4 94 2.34 8.89

Rural Minor Collector 6.2 25.4 2.79 11.34

Rural Major Collector 32.2 117.8 2.46 8.98

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 34

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

32 85.2 1.41 3.74

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

10.8 66.2 0.67 4.24

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal

Arterial (UPA) - Other

21.6 293.2 0.98 13.35

Urban Minor Arterial 11.8 177.2 0.89 14.07

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 3.4 61.4 0.49 8.81

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4.8 59 0.54 6.31
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 34

Year 2018

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

135.2 600.6 1.45 6.46

County Highway 

Agency

91.4 677.2 1.19 8.82

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

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

We had to readjust our goals last year because of an uptick of crashes and having our lowest year ever drop 

out of the calculation.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:249.0
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 34

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

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

Idaho roadways.

Number of Serious Injuries:1287.0

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

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

Idaho roadways.

Fatality Rate:1.410

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

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

Idaho roadways.

Serious Injury Rate:7.300

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

Goals are set and performance will be measured using five-year averages and five-year rates. 

Regression analysis in EXCEL was used to set targets. In some instances the Analyst who develops 

the performance measures may adjust the values based on additional information. All goals are 

based off of goals set for the emphasis areas within our SHSP.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:120.0

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

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

relied on his years of working with data. The numbers for Idaho are so low that there is a lot of 

variability in the data, therefore the value isn't strictly based on the trend analysis. The value supports 

the SHSP goal of reducing non motorized fatalities and serious injuries in Idaho. Idaho's SHSP has a 

section on vulnerable roadway users with Bicycle and Pedestrian being one sub group in that 

category. The goals are to reduce the 5 year average of bicycle involved fatal crashes to 2 bicyclist or 

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

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

are related to reducing the number of crashes of bicyclists and pedestrians.

The values that are submitted by NHTSA from the HSP are incorrect. Idaho is working with their regional office 

in order to make the corrections. The values that were inputted by Idaho for the HSIP are the correct values.

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

safety performance targets. 

The majority of the MPO's do not have access to volume data and therefore cannot determine rates for their 
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 34

areas. All five MPO's have indicated that they are going with our targets.

With the way the new system is set up printing the HSP is not easy. We can provide you with a copy but it is 

super redundant and hard to follow. Lisa is making you a copy. Just wanted to give you a heads up on it not 

being super straight forward. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 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. 

We have not met four of the five performance measures that we put in place for 2018. One of the issues is that 

we had multiple years with an increase instead of a decrease. The other issue is that the goal was set using 

our lowest year ever which was significantly lower than our past three years. Now that the low year is no longer 

part of the five year average, that average has jumped up quite a bit.

We did meet our non motorist fatal and serious injury measure.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

It was the year before that we triggered.

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

23 24 34 33 45 50 34

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

110 88 110 123 132 122 126
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 34

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. 

Unfortunately our fatality numbers have been on a increase instead of a decrease. Although the past 2 years 

have seen a decrease in fatalities, our five year average has gone up. This is partially due to the fact that our 

2011 number has dropped out and this was the year we had a record low, almost 100 people less than where 

we currently are at.

Serious injuries, however, have been decreasing slightly.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

We have had a lot of success with our most recent campaign. We have taken the message to social media as 

well as to many venues such as baseball games and hockey games. This really has increased the awareness 

of the public to what our issues are.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 175.2 739.4 1.03 4.36

Intersections 45 517.6 0.26 3.04

Pedestrians 15 66 0.09 0.38

Bicyclists 2.6 41.8 0.01 0.24

Older Drivers 53.2 283.4 0.31 1.66

Motorcyclists 27.8 154 0.16 0.9

Work Zones 4.4 26.2 0.03 0.15
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 34

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 77.6 601 0.46 3.53

Safety Restraints 90 252.2 0.53 1.49

Impaired 83.2 220.6 0.49 1.28

Youthful Driver 29.6 233.8 0.17 1.37

Commercial Driver 38 124.4 0.22 0.73

Single Vehicle Run off 

Road

107 350.4 0.63 2.05

Head On/Side Swipe 

Opposite

35.4 130 0.21 0.75
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 34

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 34

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

We are trying to put together a plan to do this but haven't done so yet.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 34

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 34

Compliance Assessment

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

 08/04/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 15 100 60

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 15

Access Control (22) 100 15

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 34

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

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

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 1

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 34

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 75

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

75

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 85.83 25.00 25.00 77.27 63.64 88.89 73.44 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

ITD has been working towards establishing a plan for data collection. While additional data has not been collected yet, foundational work is ongoing to explore the data structures needed to build and maintain a schema that will allow for 

integrated data analysis.

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. 

•

As part of MAP-21 and FAST Acts, states are required to “adopt and use” a subset of data items for roadway safety analysis purposes [23 USC 148(f)(2)]. These Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data items are 

referred to as the Fundamental Data Elements (FDEs) and explicitly defined in 23 USC 924.17. 

• In short, states need to make available these data items for safety analysis purposes by September 2026. However, the state is not required to collect data on roads they neither own nor maintain. In fact, it is not feasible for ITD to 

collect data on these roads. A more robust solution would be to provide the tools to enable local agencies to make these changes against ITD’s comprehensive roadway network. 

• In 2018, Idaho Transportation Department implemented a new Location Referencing System (LRS) called ESRI Roads and Highways. There are tools and processes that are part of the new LRS that would allow local agencies 

the ability to update data being maintained on the ITD LRS. ITD’s GIS section is currently exploring these tools and believe this to be a viable and sustainable solution. 

The plan would include defining:

• Gap analysis, 

• Data schema standards, 

• Business and systems requirements, 

• Change management needs, and 

• Implementation requirements. 

• To broadly summarize, ITD intends to leverage new tools that are included in our new LRS (ESRI Roads and Highways) to provide local and state agencies the ability to update their own information within the framework of these 

tools. 

• The proposed plan would have these tools online by the end of Idaho state fiscal year 2024. 
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 34

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2022
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 34

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Idaho HSIP Standard Planning Process August 2017.pdf

Project Implementation:

FY18-HSIPObligations-EOY-2019-08-16.pdf

FY18-HSIPSchedule-BOY-2019-08-16.pdf

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Idaho Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 34

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.