Page 1 of 58

MONTANA
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

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

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

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 19

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 30

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 30

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 43

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 45

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 47

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 48

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 52

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 53
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 58

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary 

In the reporting period, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) successfully utilized MDT's allotted 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds on public roads in Montana. All 2016 sites were 

approved by the Transportation Commission within the reporting period (State Fiscal Year) and the remaining 

projects are being processed for programming from FHWA at this time. MDT identified potential locations 

using its Safety Performance Functions (SPF's) and diagnostic norms in connection with its Roadway Departure 

Study. MDT's newer Safety Information Management System (SIMS) continues to provide an effective and 

efficient tool to identify, analyze and track HSIP projects. 

Montana continues to improve the accuracy of the database as new screening options are investigated. This 

includes tying all intersection data to a intersection specific geonode allowing for easier intersection crash 

identification as well as working with the Montana Highway Patrol to continue and improve the data being 

transferred to MDT's crash database (SIMS).

Overall, fatal crashes were down while serious injuries saw an increase in 2016. However, MDT continues 

efforts to cut fatal and serious injury crashes in half by 2030 by addressing crash clusters on all public roads.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 58

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The HSIP Program is a centrally administered program through the Safety Engineering Section which is within 

MDT's Traffic and Safety Bureau. 

Each year, the Safety Engineering Section develops criteria to identify potential hot-spot crash locations for 

review. The Section also identifies potential systemic improvements for longer roadway segments and/or 

corridors. Sites are then reviewed through an established process which includes reviewing Montana Highway 

Patrol crash records, completing an office review and usually a field review. The last step is completing a 

benefit cost for a potential safety countermeasure that addresses the identified crash trend. 

The sites that meet the minimum benefit cost threshold established by FHWA and are within the HSIP available 

funding, are nominated as HSIP Funded Safety Projects. 

 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering 

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

The Highway Safety Improvement Program is administered centrally by the MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau 

within the Engineering Division.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

Page 6 of 58

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

All crashes investigated by the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP), or submitted to the MHP by a local 

enforcement agency, are available to MDT. In 2014 MDT implemented a new crash database system. This 

system allows MDT staff to query local road crash data by route and reference post as well as spatially via GIS 

tools. Fatal crash data is available for the Tribal reservations; however, other crashes investigated by the Tribal 

enforcement agencies or Bureau of Indian Affairs are not consistently submitted. MDT solicits participation 

from local and Tribal agencies, who can submit documentation of sites to be evaluated and prioritized under the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. A nomination/application for HSIP projects is included on the MDT 

internet page at: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/forms/hsip_application.pdf. 

Potential HSIP projects on local and Tribal roads are currently evaluated using the same methodologies as are 

applied to potential projects on the state owned system. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-District Personnel

Other-Motor Carriers

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

The MDT Planning Division coordinates the safety activities and administers the Comprehensive Highway 

Safety Plan (CHSP). The CHSP has recently undergone an update. The CHSP update was completed in May 

2015. The updated CHSP is available at: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/visionzero/docs/chsp/current_chsp.pdf 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program is administered centrally by the MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau. 

Crash clusters are identified by roadway system and by various criteria. Enforcement agencies identify locations 

and request site reviews. Local and Tribal agencies can forward potential safety projects or request MDT 

evaluate areas of interest. MDT District Offices also submit sites for investigation and participate in the 

engineering study to determine crash trends and countermeasure selection. Project selection is currently based 

on the benefit/cost ratio method. MDT has advanced some systemic improvements (curve signing and 

centerline rumble strips - as examples) based on the strategies outlined in the CHSP. 

Appropriate entities within MDT are invited to participate in Corridor Safety Audits (CSA's). These entities 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 58

include, but may not be limited to, the State Highway Traffic Safety Section, Planning Division, Motor Carrier 

Services, Road Design, Traffic Operations, Maintenance, and District personnel. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Other-Tribes

Other-Law Enforcement

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

MDT routinely receives requests for specific sites identified for review from law enforcement, local 

government entities and tribal governments. MDT coordinates with these governments during the field review 

process to gather additional input for addressing the crash trends. MDT coordinates with the MPO's in the same 

manner; however, the coordination is done through MDT's District and Planning Division Offices rather than 

the Traffic and Safety Bureau. 

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

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

Yes

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

Since 2006 Montana has had a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC). The TRCC has representation 

from State agencies involved with safety records and Federal agencies for oversight and input. They meet 

regularly and attempt to coordinate and share projected record upgrades, new projects and pertinent records 

among participants. As the systems mature, the TRCC may include MPO and Tribal representation.

Starting September 2008, the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) implemented the CTS America Public Safety 

System dispatch-crash-record systems, including a MMUCC based crash reporting form. MHP investigates 

approximately 50% of all statewide crashes. This CTS America System is presently only used by the MHP via a 

mobile client in each patrol unit; however, a web-based crash reporting system has been developed and is being 

used by several local agencies. This web based system allows local enforcement agencies to input crash 

information via the internet, if they choose to participate. The project is starting with the eight largest local 

Police Departments. These eight departments report about 80% of all local crashes.

In 2014, MDT implemented an upgrade to the safety database and analysis tools. This new software, referred to 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 58

as the Safety Information Management System (SIMS), has been deployed and is now in production at 

MDT. This new system allows MDT to access the MMUCC compliant crash data being collected by the 

Montana Highway Patrol. The SIMS system also has access to many roadway data elements including many of 

the Fundamental Data Elements identified by FHWA. Additionally, MDT has access to the MHP crash 

investigator’s reports, if additional detail on the particular crash is required. The new system also allowed MDT 

to begin utilizing MHP citation data. 

The Traffic and Safety Bureau is actively involved in the implementation of the CHSP. Traffic and Safety is 

taking the lead in the areas of roadway departure crashes and intersection crashes. 

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

Although MDT has an outdated Safety Manual, MDT has a clearly defined and documented HSIP process in 

place. The existing MDT Safety Manual is currently being re-written for use by the Traffic and Safety 

Bureau. This Safety Manual will include formal documentation of the HSIP Process from project selection 

through implementation and project evaluation. 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Horizontal Curve 

Roadway Departure

Other-Hot Spot 

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

The Hot Spot Program is MDT's main program; however, MDT does have current focus areas or initiativ

marked (Intersections, Roadway Departure and horizontal curve systemic upgrades). 

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2015 

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

es as 

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-Systemic Improvement

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

Competes with all projects
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 58

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Horizontal curvature 

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

Other-Ball Bank Threshold 

Other-Road Classification

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-By District

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).

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

This is an initiative that MDT has implemented statewide to upgrade and provide consistency in horizontal 

curve signing. Therefore, a systemic improvement over multi-years to be in compliance with the new MUTCD 

requirements for curve signing.

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 58

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

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

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Benefit Cost 

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).

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

MDT has been utilizing this initiative the past few years to mitigate roadway departure crashes. This method of 

identifying locations based on its level of service of safety corresponds with MDT's Vision Zero. 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2015 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 58

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

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

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

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

MDT has been using this initiative for a few years to mitigate roadway departure crashes. This initiative assists 

MDT in focusing on locations where the actual total number of crashes and the severity of crashes are higher 

than predicted. 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 58

Program: Other-Hot Spot 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/1989 

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

Other-All public roads 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

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

Other-Requests - Areas to be investigated as requested by any agency or individual 

Other-See additional description provided in question #15. 

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.

LOSS is not available for local roads. For the 2016 HSIP, local road projects were identified by querying the 

data for road departure crashes occurring in dark conditions. Other areas were included via request.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Projects are evaluated and ranked on a benefit/cost system. 

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).

Ranking based on B/C : 1 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 58

Other-MDT has advanced some systemic projects (curve signing as an example) based on the strategies 

outlined in the CHSP without calculating a benefit/cost. : 1

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 12 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Horizontal curve signs 

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

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Other-Field review of location with personnel knowledgeable of the crash trend as well as personnel 

(MDT/Local/Tribal) familiar with the roadway.

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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.

MDT developed its Roadway Departure Study using Montana specific Safety Performance Functions (SPF) and 

Levels of Service of Safety (LOSS). These SPF's and LOSS's were developed based on methodologies in 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 58

the Highway Safety Manual. The Intersection Safety Study is also being developed based on similar 

methodology. 

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

MDT has been developing Intersection SPF's to improve safety at intersections. These tools are initially being 

utilized at spot locations for the 2017 HSIP List.

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

Yes

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

To identify potential locations for development of the 2017 HSIP, MDT has elected to screen the network 

using the following initial criteria: 1) Road departure crashes occurring for head-on and/or side-swipe 

opposite directional crashes; 2) Road departure crashes occurring for injury and fatal crashes; 3) Intersections 

identified by the Bureau and/or District where new analysis models were available to use; 4) Pattern Maps for 

rear end crashes or light pole crashes; and 5) Bighorn Sheep related crashes and 6)Requested Sites (By an 

Agency, District, Public Citizen, Safety Section). 

Once the sites are identified, a preliminary office review identifies the sites where there are near-term 

reconstruction projects, currently programmed safety projects, or sites that were recently field reviewed. 

After the preliminary office review, further review establishes the sites that need on-site field reviews. The 

sites showing no crash trend are not field reviewed. The field review team establishes crash causations and 

contributing factors. The team members debate potential countermeasures. Conceptual designs are 

developed with cost estimates.

The project prioritization process is based on a benefit-cost analysis. The costs are the annualized cost of 

construction over the service life of the proposed improvement plus the annual increase in operation and 

maintenance costs due to the improvement. The benefits are the anticipated annualized cost reductions due 

to a lower number of crashes and lower crash severity. The projects with the highest benefit-cost ratios are 

nominated for improvements. 

MDT has initiated several district wide horizontal curve signing upgrade projects. The goal of the projects is to 

complete a proactive improvement to upgrade all the curve warning signs to a consistent standard. The intent 

is to meet the compliance date of 2019. MDT also completed a systemic wrong way signing upgrade to all 

interstate ramps in 2015. The intent of the wrong way signing project was to bring the signing for all off-ramps 

to a consistent standard as shown in the 2009 MUTCD. MDT has also completed a large scale centerline 

rumble strip installation based on roadway segments and/or corridors meeting a previously established 

addressable crash threshold. This systemic project is on-going.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

MDT has also completed development of a Roadway Departure Study. This study included development of 

Safety Performance Functions (SPFs), Level of Service of Safety (LOSS), and diagnostic norms for rural onsystem routes. MDT is using these tools and methodologies for evaluation of the HSIP as well as analysis of 

other agency projects. As part of the Study, MDT begun nominating centerline rumble strip projects as a 

proactive effort to address head-on, sideswipe opposite direction, and run off the road left crashes. MDT 

is currently developing SPF's and diagnostic norms for intersections. These intersection tools will be utilized in 

the development of the 2017 HSIP List and used in future years as well.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Montana's State Fiscal Year 2017 is the reporting period (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017)

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $18,946,648 $18,946,648 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$660,743 $660,743 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $12,317,885 $12,317,885 100%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$65,665,479 $65,665,479 100%

State and Local Funds $5,477,808 $5,477,808 100%

Totals $103,068,563 $103,068,563 100%

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

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

$1,431,862

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

$1,431,862

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

$1,198,476

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

$1,198,476

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

The HSIP Administration Project (HSIP STWD(546)) is a yearly project that funds the HSIP Planning Process 

for MDT. The funds identified above are for the FY 2018 HSIP Program (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018).

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting 

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

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

The inability to utilize HSIP funding for non-infrastructure projects impedes MDT's HSIP Program. NHTSA has 

determined that 94% of crashes can be tied back to human error or bad decisions. By only focusing on infrastructure 

improvements, we are focusing on mitigating the result of the crash but not necessarily the contributing human factor 

cause to the crash (drinking, cell-phone usage, inattentiveness, distraction, occupant protection, etc). In order to 

move towards Vision Zero, drivers need continued awareness of their actions and how these actions are contributing 

to vehicular crashes.

In addition, MDT is required to participate in fall and spring media campaigns for occupant protection and seat belts. 

There is no additional funding available to provide media at other times of the year. However, Montana experiences its 

highest number of fatalities during the summer months and MDT has no active campaign during that time period.

MDT intends to improve public outreach to assist in this process. A new program has been implemented to increase 

public awareness during our construction projects. The intent is to send a consistent message of what is being 

constructed and in many cases how that benefits the traveling public's safety (for example, promoting the benefits of 

centerline rumble strips during the actual construction of those safety improvements).

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

Yes
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 58

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

would like to elaborate. 

Historically, MDT has been very successful in utilizing HSIP Funds and has strong support for the program 

from MDT Management.

MDT is currently developing a Safety Manual to (1) evaluate and document MDT’s current process for development of 

HSIP projects; (2) evaluate and document the current Fundamental Data Elements (FDE) contained in MDT’s Safety 

Information Management System (SIMS); (3) review and update, if necessary, MDT’s current process guidelines for 

completion of Road (Corridor) Safety Audits; (4) review, enhance, and consolidate current analytical processes, 

practices, and procedures for incorporation of safety enhancements into non-HSIP projects; (5) develop 

documentation and processes which combines documentation from the recently completed SIMS project, with the 

analytical tools developed as part of the Road Departure Study and the Intersection Study; and (6) prepare one 

chapter containing guidelines for inclusion of pedestrian safety countermeasures. The anticipated completion date for 

this manual is December 2018. 

MDT recently completed Phase I of its Intersection Safety Study. This study included development of Safety 

Performance Functions (SPF’s), Level of Service of Safety (LOSS), and diagnostic norms for urban and rural 3 or 4 

legged intersections. MDT is currently using these new tools in the development of the 2017 HSIP List. Phase II is 

anticipated to be complete in December 2017 and at that time, MDT will begin using these tools and methodologies in 

both the development of the HSIP and other agency projects.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SAFETY 

MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM

Non-infrastructure $1198476 $1331640 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 State Highway 

Agency

2017 SFTY 

UTILITY FAST 

PROCESS

Roadway Roadway - other $49937 $55485.5555555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

BELGRADESOUTHRoadway Roadway - other 5.7 Miles $621000 $621000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,014 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

FRENCHTOWN -

E & W

Roadside Barrier - cable 10.2 Miles $1363411 $1363411 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

10,604 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

RAINBOW BEND Roadway Rumble strips -

center

1.5 Miles $92573 $92573 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,539 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

ROCKVALELAUREL (2 

LANES)

Roadway Roadway - other 8.7 Miles $7222557 $7222557 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,611 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 119-INT IMP -

N GRASS 

RANGE

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $158354 $158354 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,245 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 119-JCT S279/S-231Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2725340 $2725340 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,589 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129 -

GUARDRAIL JCT 

324

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.5 Miles $168483 $168483 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

3,715 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129 - SFTY 

IMPR E BONNER

Roadside Roadside grading 1 Miles $616743 $685270 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,609 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129 - SFTY 

IMPR E BONNER

Roadside Roadside grading 1 Miles $44000 $44000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,609 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129-LFT 

TURN LN 

EMIGRANT RA

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $540653 $600725.555555556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,068 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129-LFT 

TURN LN 

EMIGRANT RA

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $64838 $64838 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,068 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129-

ROUNDABOUT 

LAME DEER 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $53248 $53248 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,875 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129-

ROUNDABOUT 

LAME DEER 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1249900 $1249900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,875 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 129-SFTY 

IMPRV BRDGR 

CANYON

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 Locations $190902 $190902 HSIP (23 U.S.C.

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,027 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

ARMINGTON 

SLOPE FLT

Roadside Roadside grading 4.6 Miles $70190 $77988.8888888889 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,390 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

ARMINGTON 

SLOPE FLT

Roadside Roadside grading 4.6 Miles $6459.02 $6459.02 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,390 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

ARMINGTON 

SLOPE FLT

Roadside Roadside grading 4.6 Miles $975840.98 $975840.98 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,390 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

BOZEMAN SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

5 Locations $96374 $96374 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

BOZEMAN 

SIGNAL SFTY

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic 

improvements -

signal-controlled

57 Intersections $746818 $746818 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem

identification and 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 - BUTTE 

ADV SGNL 

FLSHER

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

flashers - modify 

existing

4 Locations $46852 $46852 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

FORSYTH SKID 

TRTMENT

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

1 Locations $375770 $417522.222222222 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

4,757 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

FORSYTH SKID 

TRTMENT

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

1 Locations $122237 $122237 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

4,757 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 -

GREGSON BRDG 

REMOVAL

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $18000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

10,874 80 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 - HLN 

FLTS 

INTERSECTION

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $129967 $129967 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

12,961 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 - SUN 

PRAIRIE TURN 

LANE

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $22500 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,250 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139 - US 212 

SAFETY IMPRV

Roadside Roadside - other 39.2 Miles $1813911 $1813911 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-CENTRAL 

& 56TH 

RNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $230000 $230000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

3,104 60 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-

ROUNDABOUT S 

OF SIDNEY

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,792 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-

ROUNDABOUT S 

OF SIDNEY

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2066822 $2066822 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,792 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-

ROUNDABOUT S 

OF SIDNEY

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,792 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-

ROUNDABOUT S 

OF SIDNEY

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $12556 $12556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,792 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-SIGNAL 

13TH & 

PARKHILL

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $235488 $235488 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,732 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 139-TURN 

LANES NW OF 

POLSON

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,661 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 139-TURN 

LANES NW OF 

POLSON

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $39252 $39252 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,661 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 -

BAXTER/LOVE 

SFTY IMPR

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control -

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $870000 $870000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

3,970 45 County Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 - BUTTE 

INTERSTATE 

SFTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

3 Locations $25761 $25761 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

3,887 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 -

MANHATTAN 

SFTY IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 Locations $10678 $10678 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 - MSLA 

DIST SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

3 Locations $59400 $59400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 

BOZEMAN SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

2 Locations $43745 $43745 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 149 BUTTE 

SFTY IMPRV

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.3 Miles $56270 $56270 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 DUCK LK 

FENCING

Roadside Fencing 1.5 Miles $45000 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

975 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 E OF 

BIGFORK SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier 

5 Miles $32592 $32592 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,978 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 E OF 

SOMERS CLRS

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

7.4 Miles $53911 $53911 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,972 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 HELENA 

SFTY IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

3 Locations $27852 $27852 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 LAKE 

FIVE LT TURN

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $189813 $189813 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,670 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 ROCKY 

CLIFF ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Intersections $105065 $105065 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

19,369 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 149 SFTY 

IMPRV N-24

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $138804 $138804 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,539 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 149 SOMERS 

SFTY IMPRV

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

1 Locations $59400 $59400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 159 GREAT 

FALLS DIST 

CLRS

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

855 Miles $2813233 $2813233 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 

CLEARING SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

4 Miles $22068 $24520 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

6,882 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 

FAIRFIELD 

CURVE IMPRV

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

3 Curves $431712 $479680 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

337 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 FRNTG 

RD WISE LN 

INTX

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Intersections $15797 $15797 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,980 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 

GLENDIVE 

NORTH CLRS

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

323 Miles $38261 $38261 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 169 

GLENDIVE 

SOUTH SFTY

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

205 Miles $42941 $42941 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 GRANITE 

POWELL SFTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

5.4 Miles $21697 $21697 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 I-15 HT 

CABLE RAIL

Roadside Barrier - cable 10 Miles $268548 $268548 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

10,470 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 

KALISPELL SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

3 Miles $24303 $24303 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 

KOOTENAI CR 

RD SFTY

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Intersections $23574 $23574 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,712 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 LOLO E 

MSLA SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

3 Locations $23836 $23836 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 MINERAL 

CNTY SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

5.6 Miles $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SF 169 N11 

MURPHY INTX

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS - other

1 Intersections $18054 $18054 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,508 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 RAVALLI 

CNTY SFTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1.5 Miles $9794 $9794 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Roads 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 S OF 

PABLO SFTY 

IMPRV

Roadside Barrier - removal 0.5 Miles $129088 $129088 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,525 70 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce and 

mitigate 

intersection 

crashes through 

data-driven 

problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 S 

ROCKER HT 

CABLE RAIL

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.3 Miles $110480 $110480 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

4,368 80 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 S288 

CURVES

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

2 Curves $136896.84 $152107.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,475 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 S288 

CURVES

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

2 Curves $529072.56 $587858.4 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,475 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

SF 169 TWIN 

BRIDGES SFTY

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

3 Miles $8178 $8178 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,991 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

WEST LAUREL 

INTCH-WEST 

PHASE 1

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve 

1 Locations $1800000 $1800000 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

15,198 80 State Highway 

Agency

Other Roadway 

Departure

Reduce and 

mitigate roadway 

departure crashes 

through datadriven problem 

identification and 

the use of best 

practices.

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

There are several projects which are listed with one or more lines. This is due to multiple agreements that were obligated during the State's Fiscal Year 2017. These agreements may represent different phases including (PE, CE, Other, IC, 

etc).
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 230 222 192 211 205 229 192 224 192

Serious Injuries 1,341 1,100 995 967 1,129 1,102 965 1,000 1,198

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 2.120 2.010 1.690 1.790 1.740 1.910 1.580 1.840 1.520

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

12.400 10.100 8.900 8.200 9.600 9.200 8.000 8.200 9.530

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

14 16 10 16 9 24 12 15 14

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

84 70 50 58 48 61 57 49 63
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 32 of 58

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 33 of 58

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

29.6 141.6 1.19 5.68

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

44.4 187.4 1.86 7.89

Rural Minor Arterial 27.8 116.8 2.54 10.66

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 34 of 58

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 12.2 54.8 2.36 11.29

Rural Major Collector 33.6 110.6 3.42 11.35

Rural Local Road or Street 28.6 130.2 2.21 10.91

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

6 29.6 1.14 5.36

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

9.2 94.2 0.77 8.05

Urban Minor Arterial 6.4 42.6 1.01 6.87

Urban Minor Collector 0.6 2.6 2.32 8.68

Urban Major Collector 3.6 33.6 0.91 8.49

Urban Local Road or Street 5.8 65.6 0.93 8.74
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 58

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 149.6 677.6 1.73 7.84

County Highway Agency 24.2 132.4 1.69 9.43

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

14.2 139 0.73 7.3

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.2 2.2 2.86 29.05

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 12.2 22.6 6.77 12.96

Bureau of Indian Affairs 1.2 2.4 10.36 15.82

US Forest Service 6.2 33.2 1.85 10.14

National Park Service 0 0 0 0
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 58

0

50

100

150

200

250

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 58

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

State

Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Bureau of

Indian

Affairs

US Forest

Service

National

Park Service

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 58

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

State

Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Bureau of

Indian

Affairs

US Forest

Service

National

Park Service

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

State

Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Bureau of

Indian

Affairs

US Forest

Service

National

Park Service

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 43 of 58

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 192.6 

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

The 2018 Target is based on the 5-year rolling average using historical trends. This 

supports the SHSP (known at the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 

Montana) by working towards the overall Vision Zero Goal and an interim safety goal 

of halving fatalities and serious injures from 1,705 in 2007 to 852 in 2030. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

State

Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

State Park,

Forest, or

Reservation

Agency

Indian Tribe

Nation

Bureau of

Indian

Affairs

US Forest

Service

National

Park Service

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 44 of 58

Number of Serious Injuries 925.2 

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

The 2018 Target is based on the 5-year rolling average using historical trends. This 

supports the SHSP (known at the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 

Montana) by working towards the overall Vision Zero Goal and an interim safety goal 

of halving fatalities and serious injures from 1,705 in 2007 to 852 in 2030. 

Fatality Rate 1.527 

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

The 2018 Target is based on the 5-year rolling average using historical trends. This 

supports the SHSP (known at the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 

Montana) by working towards the overall Vision Zero Goal and an interim safety goal 

of halving fatalities and serious injures from 1,705 in 2007 to 852 in 2030. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.338 

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

The 2018 Target is based on the 5-year rolling average using historical trends. This 

supports the SHSP (known at the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 

Montana) by working towards the overall Vision Zero Goal and an interim safety goal 

of halving fatalities and serious injures from 1,705 in 2007 to 852 in 2030. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 72.5 

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

The 2018 Target is based on the 5-year rolling average using historical trends. This 

supports the SHSP (known at the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 

Montana) by working towards the overall Vision Zero Goal and an interim safety goal 

of halving fatalities and serious injures from 1,705 in 2007 to 852 in 2030. 

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

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

targets. 

MDT Staff coordinated with the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) Members at the Advisory 

Committee Meeting in May 2017. This included representatives from MDT, FHWA, MHP (Montana Highway 

Patrol), MPO's, Tribal Governments, Montana Office of Public Instruction, Montana Department of Public 

Health and Human Services and Non-Motorized Non-Profit Organizations. Members established the new nonmotorized safety performance target as part of that meeting.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 58

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

For the 2016 HSIP List, MDT used the following methodology to determine HRRR projects. These projects 

were based on the route being functionally classified as a rural major collector, rural minor collector or a rural 

local road.

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

31 26 24 16 34 24 32

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

59 87 72 71 82 91 88
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 58

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-Observational before/after studies

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

MDT utilizes observational before/after studies to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular 

safety improvement or groups of improvements. An observational before/after study 

requires crash data and volume data from both before and after the installation of a safety 

improvement.

MDT has elected to evaluate the HSIP based on groups of similar projects on an annual basis. 

At this time, the evaluation process focuses on nominated projects having a construction and 

construction engineering (CN+CE) cost exceeding $100,000. Additional evaluations or site 

specific evaluations are completed on a case-by-case basis. Typically, a minimum of 5-years of 

after data is used for the treatment sites. 

The following steps highlight the process for MDT’s annual evaluation of safety 

improvements. It is not meant to be all encompassing and is meant to be a living process. 

Modifications to the following process will be made as additional data sets and analysis tools 

are available. 

1. Identify completed projects with a construction plus construction engineering (CN+CE) 

cost of greater than $100,000 and which have sufficient crash data following completion of 

the project.

2. Group the projects completed in the identified year by improvement type. The following 

project groups are identified to guide the evaluation:

a. Geometric improvements at a specific location (curve realignment or shoulder widening as 

examples);

b. Slope flattening or elimination of roadside hazards;

c. Signing, striping and delineation including the installation of warning flashers;

d. Installation of guardrail;

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

level evaluations.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 58

This method of program level evaluation is new to MDT with only a few years of actual results. With MDT's 

recent Roadway Departure Study and newly implemented Intersection Safety Study, the program level 

evaluation will continue to be improved upon each year. One challenge of this form of program level 

evaluation is for low volume roads where 10 years of data is needed to determine a crash trend and ultimately a 

project being constructed. In addition, MDT's evaluation is based on 5 years "before" and "after" data which 

may not correspond with the original trend identification due to the regression to the mean. Consequently, the 

naïve before/after study may not produce results that are consistent with the anticipated CMF that was used.

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

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

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

Another method MDT uses to indicate the HSIP Program's Success is the ability to identify and obligate HSIP 

Funds to address safety needs throughout the state on all public roads. MDT's HSIP Funding has grown over 

the last several years which has allowed MDT to identify and fund more significant size safety 

projects. This has included large infrastructure type projects, including several roundabouts on non-MDT 

routes (local road safety).

The HSIP Program's success has also increased the awareness of safety within the agency as a whole. This has 

translated into more collaboration between bureaus as other projects are designed and implemented benefiting 

both the safety program and ultimately the traveling public. 

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure 140.6 553.8 1.15 4.56

Intersections 21.8 221.4 0.18 1.82
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 50 of 58

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

2015 Rates were updated based on MDT Planning's Division updating the 2015 AVMT after the 2016 HSIP 

was submitted.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 51 of 58

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

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

Page 52 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

None

Statewide Multiple Sites -

various road 

functional classes

Alignment Alignment - other 20.00 17.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 10.00 8.00 34.00 28.00 0.94

Statewide Multiple Sites -

various road 

functional classes

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) -

new or updated

193.00 114.00 7.00 1.00 18.00 8.00 61.00 35.00 279.00 158.00 103.56

Great Falls District Rural Local Road

or Street

Intersection traffic 

control

3.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 7.00 3.11

Statewide Multiple Sites -

various road 

functional classes

Roadside Barrier - other 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.24

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

MDT has a process to evaluate safety projects. At this time, the 2017 evaluation has not been completed and therefore it not referenced or included in this report. MDT's 2016 evaluation results are included. These are for a simple before / 

after study using 5 years of before/after data. In addition, small projects with similar scope have been grouped together for analysis.

The challenge of completing a simple before/after study is that the 5-year before period may not be representative of the crashes that initiated the safety improvements or the data may be skewed due to the randomness of crashes on low 

volume roads.

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

No
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 58

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/01/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2015 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

THE SHSP (CHSP) was signed off in May 2015 by MDT Agency Director Michael Tooley.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

5 5

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 88.13 88.13 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

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.

Montana is missing one required MIRE fundamental data element. This is the planned schedule to acquire the MIRE FDE Intersection/Junction Traffic Control Element:

MDT will perform analyses to determine the number and location of the intersections on Non-local paved roads - by 7/31/2017

MDT will develop a plan and guidance documentation to collect the data element - by 8/31/2017

MDT will collect the data element using in-house roadway images, Google Street View and field observation efforts - by 12/31/2019

MDT will qa/qc the collected data, format and load into our MIRE database - by 12/31/2020

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury Yes Suspected Serious Injury - Any injury other 

than fatal which results in one or more of 

the following attributes:

Yes - Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organ resulting 

in significant loss of blood

-Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)

- crush injuries

- Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury 

other than bruises or minor lacerations

- Significant burns (second and third 

degree burns over 10% or more of the 

body)

- Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

- Paralysis

Yes
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 58

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury Yes Determined by officer / No changes in 

crash database

Yes N/A Yes

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

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

In January 2017, MDT met with the Montana FHWA Division Office to assess MDT's HSIP program. Items discussed included MDT's Program Manual, HRRR Special Rule and the EDC4 Initiative: Data Driven Safety Analysis -

Baseline Assessment. One of the outcomes of this assessment was MDT moving forward with selecting a Consultant to develop the Safety Manual for the Agency.
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:

Intr-Jnct Traffic Control Collection Plan.docx
2017 Montana Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

Emphasis area means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, 

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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