Michigan

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: MI
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 1

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................... 7

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................... 7

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 10

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 17

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 17

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 32

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................33

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 35

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 39

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 40

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 46

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 48
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The 2016 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will

be for the one year time period of FY 2015 which commenced on October 1, 2014 and

ended on September 30, 2015. This report addresses safety improvements funded through

MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office 

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program.

For the local roadway network, HSIP funds ($15.1 M) are administered by the Local Agency 

Programs Safety Engineer located in the Central Office. Typically, only the construction phase 

is eligible for federal aid. Preliminary engineering costs were eligible for federal participation if 

it was for a project identified on the Transparency (5%) Report, by the Local Safety Initiative, in 

a Road Safety Audit (RSA) or in a traffic signal optimization project. Otherwise, preliminary 

engineering was not eligible for federal safety funds. Projects are federally funded at 80 or 90 

percent up to an amount not to exceed $600 K Federal, with a 20 or 10 percent local match, 

respectively.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

All Local Agencies within Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) areas must coordinate 

with their MPO to ensure inclusion of their project in the area’s TIP. Those agencies that are 

part of a rural task force are to notify their members that they applied for these funds. Rural task 

force approval is not necessary. Local Agency Programs (LAP) coordinates with MDOT 

Planning to ensure these projects are included in the STIP.

The planning and selection of projects for the local roadway system is very similar to that of the 

state trunkline. Local agencies were invited by a July 16, 2013 memorandum to submit proposed 

projects for consideration as part of an annual call-for projects (CFP).

The emphasis of the local FY 2015 CFP was to address those locations with correctable fatality 

and injury crashes to support the department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious 

injuries. Per the CFP, the local agency was to provide a Time of Return (TOR) analysis showing 

how the proposed improvement would address fatalities and injuries. In the TOR, all crash types 

and severity levels correctable by the proposed improvement can be included. A maximum of 

five years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2015 projects, 2008 

to 2012 (or the current availability) crash data was used.

Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. Project types may include 

replacement, installation or elimination of guardrail, removal of fixed objects from clear zones, 

traffic and pedestrian signal optimization, installation and upgrades, access 

management,horizontal and vertical curve modifications, sight distance and drainage 

improvements, bridge railing replacement or retrofit, roadway intersection improvements to 

improve safety, mid-block pedestrian crossings, improvements to school zones, shoulder and 

centerline rumble strips, and improved permanent signing and pavement markings.

For the FY 2015 CFP, a greater emphasis is placed on the identification of correctable fatalities 

and serious injuries, both in the selection and prioritization of safety projects. In addition, in FY 

2015, a small portion of the local safety funds were allocated to five subprograms: Centerline 

and Shoulder Rumble Strips ($200 K), Guardrail Upgrades and Clear Zone Improvements ($1.5 

M), Traffic Signal Optimization – all red phasing ($150 K), Road Safety Audits ($50 K) and 

Non-motorized Facility/Pedestrian Improvements ($100 K). Local agencies were informed that 

this money is reserved for the listed strategic improvements, and encouraged to submit 

conforming projects.

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

MDOT's Safety Programs Unit provides support and coordination to internal partners within the 

Department. Each of the seven Regions is comprised of a Traffic Safety and Operations Engineer as well 

as Traffic and Safety Engineers located in the Transportation Service Center (TSC) offices. Employees 

within the Safety Programs Unit distribute the High Crash List, Transparency (5%) Report, and Pavement 

Friction Analysis to the Region and TSC staff for their use in project selection.Road Safety Audits and 

3R/4R Safety Reviews are conducted with various internal partners located with the Central, Region, and 

TSC offices. In addition, the Safety Programs Unit supports the Regions and TSC's with special data 

requests in the development of their safety program.

HSIP funding partnering is also coordinated between the Traffic and Safety Unit and Local Agency 

Programs.

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Local Government Association

Other-County Road Association of Michigan 

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period.

Other-No changes since the last reporting period 

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate.

For the State Trunkline Program, safety funds are administered by the Safety Template

Program Manager in Traffic and Safety (Central Office). For FY 2015, $19M in

safety funding was available, of which $15.6M was allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as

funding targets. The allocations were based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries,

lane miles and Vehicle Miles Traveled in each Region. The goal is that all Regions receive a 

minimum of 5 percent of the Safety Target.

Beyond the allocated $15.6 M, an additional $2M of the safety funds was reserved by the 

Traffic and Safety area to apply to projects in any Region at their discretion. The Regions

were permitted to submit candidate projects with total costs exceeding their funding targets;

the central office review team then selected the projects to be funded in each Region, taking 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

into account priorities expressed by the Regional staffs, and use their discretionary funds to

apply to worthy projects that exceeded a particular Region’s funding target. All project

phases; preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right of way and construction are 

eligible for safety funding.

In addition to the $17.6 M of project funding described above, in which project selection was

by central office staff, each Region was given $200K for low-cost safety improvement to be

chosen at the discretion of the Region staff. The Regions use this pot of money for a variety

of minor roadside safety improvements which can be performed in a timely manner by state 

forces or contract agencies. Individual Safety Work Authorizations (SWA) are the most cost 

effective method of funding these types of improvements and can be initiated quickly 

throughout the fiscal year in response to safety needs. Federal funds are used for those

improvements meeting funding criteria.

Once the FY 2015 program was developed, it was reviewed and approved by the Project 

Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC consists of Region and central office program

managers and Planning staff who help develop the MDOT’s Five Year Plan for approval by 

the Transportation Commission. The PSC ensures coordination between Regions on various 

corridors and between the programs.

In FY 2015, the use of HSIP funding continued in the administration of the pavement marking 

program. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(c), HSIP funds may be obligated for any project to 

maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity of traffic signs and pavement markings, without 

regard to whether that project is included in an applicable State SHSP. Prior to FY 2013

Surface Transportation Safety funding was used in the placement of pavement markings 

in the Annual Pavement Marking Program.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Other-Countermeasures to 

achieve Toward Zero Deaths

Program: Other-Countermeasures to achieve Toward Zero Deaths

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2001

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Functional classification

Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

Yes

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

25%

Highway safety improvement program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-High Crash List

Other-Transparency Report 

Other-Fatality and Serious Injury Region-wide Maps 

Other-3R/4R Safety Reviews 

Other-Pavement Friction Analysis 

Other-Customer Concerns 

Other-Local Safety Initiative 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Other-No changes since the last reporting period 

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

The annual process for submitting safety projects starts with a Call for Projects (CFP) issued to the seven 

MDOT Regions from the Safety Template Program Manager.The FY 2015 Safety Call request was made 

to the Regions on December 13, 2010. In response to the CFP, the Regions identify locations where 

safety improvements (i.e. add a center left turn lane, right turn lane, geometric improvements to 

accommodate signalization, median protection, etc.) could be made. These locations are to be identified 

through the current Transparency Report, Fatality and Serious Injury Regionwide Maps, High Crash List, 

3R/4R Safety Reviews, customer concerns, and Pavement Friction Analyses. Upon location identification 

an engineering study is conducted by the Region to determine the appropriate safety improvement.

The emphasis of the Safety Call was to address those locations with correctable fatality and serious 

injury crashes to support the department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries and support 

the vision of Toward Zero Deaths (TZD). All safety projects and proposed candidates must address a 

focus area of the Michigan Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Submitted concepts must meet a 

maximum Time-of-Return (TOR) to qualify for safety funding. The TOR is a cost benefit analysis of 

proposed safety improvement which considers all crash types and severity levels that are correctable 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

by the proposed improvement. A minimum of the latest three years of available crash data is to be used 

in the TOR analysis. For FY 2015 project, in which 2008 to 2010 (or most current data available)crash 

data was used, three TOR criteriawere established:

• Stand alone safety improvement - TOR of 7 years or less

• Stand alone safety improvement for location on the current Transparency Report – TOR of 10 years 

or less.

• Safety improvement in conjunction with a Construction project - TOR of 10 years or less.

Each Region’s submittal was reviewed by the Central office review teamto ensure all criteria were met. 

The Regions were permitted to submit candidate projects with total costs exceeding their funding 

targets. The review team, taking into account priorities expressed by the Regions, used the TOR values 

as a means to develop project rankings (lowest to highest TOR value) within each Region and the TOR 

values for projects beyond funding targets to allocate the $2 M funds statewide.

For FY 2015, funding was included in programmed preliminary engineering for outer year safety 

projects to conduct a road safety audit (RSA). For guidance, a RSA should be conducted for all proposals 

exceeding $750,000 in programmed construction costs. Each Region was required to conduct at least 

one RSA for a FY 2014 or FY 2015 improvement projects.The RSA should be done prior to 30 percent 

completion of the plans.The purpose of the audit is to ensure the appropriate safety fixes are 

incorporated into the overall design based on crash patterns within the project limits.

Continuing in FY 2015each Region was required to allocate up to a certain percent of their funding 

target for low cost safety improvements. This amount is in addition to the Safety Work Authorizations 

(SWA funding). The focus is to be on systemwide safety improvements done by work authorization or 

through the letting process. A TOR justification is not be required if the proposed improvement is 

selected from the list of approved and proven safety systemwide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost 

Safety Improvement Projects-see attachment). For FY 2014 through FY 2017, the percentage is 10 

percent. For FY 2018 through 2020 this percentage was increased to 25 percent. New for FY 2020 is the 

allocation of $1 million toward additional low cost safety improvements for regions meeting or 

exceeding their target amount in project proposals. To accommodate this change, the $2 million of 

discretionary funding as describedabove has been reduced from $2 million to $1 million. For FY 2021 

and FY 2022 the percentage submitted shall be a minimum of 25 percent up to a maximum of 50 

percent.

In an effort to incorporate the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) into MDOT’s business process all safety 

projects submitted for FY 2019 to present, except for freeway improvements, shall have the HSM 

predictive analysis performed on them. A comparison of future conditions with and without the 

proposed improvement shall be provided. Starting for FY 2020 and continuing for FY 2021 and 2022, all 

submitted concepts must address two or more fatal and/or serious injury crashes.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

State Fiscal Year

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

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

$14,608,601.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$13,209,505.00

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

$1,016,831.00

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

$696,738.00

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $56,216,814.00 98 % $52,759,948.00 99 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$403,274.00 1 % $398,694.00 1 %

State and Local Funds $613,557.00 1 % $298,044.00 1 %

Totals $57,233,645.00 100% $53,456,686.00 100%
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future.

None to discuss.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

During the reporting period 1.81 percent of the programmed and 1.32 percent of the obligated

funds for the state trunkline system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as 

road safety audits, SHSP activities, outreach, educational efforts, and data collection. On the 

local side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. Overall, 26 percent of

the programmed and 25 percent of the obligated funds were directed to local safety projects.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Category

Functional 

Classification

AADT Speed Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

See 

attached 

project list

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

Old 

Indiantown 

Road

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or elevation 

change

0.38 

Miles

79920 99900 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Wyatt Road 

@ Grove 

Road

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

0.51 

Miles

346400 433000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Bellaire 

Road

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

0.9 

Miles

312000 390000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

184 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Garfield 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

0.25 

Miles

386650 407000 HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Minor 

4551 50 County 

Highway 

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

n 148) Arterial Agency and As

CR 426 and 

CR 412

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5.7 

Miles

113520 141900 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

950 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pavement 

markings

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Mitchell 

Road @ 

Division 

Road

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal timing 

- left-turn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected/permissive)

1 

Numbe

rs

96000 120000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

6785 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Stanley 

Road @ 

Linden 

Road

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection 

warning sign-mounted

1 

Numbe

rs

24000 30000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

4207 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Hill Road @ 

Elms Road

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

504000 560000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

4516 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Seymour 

Road 

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

0.61 

Miles

36332 45415 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

3855 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Curve 

Signing 

Countywid

e

Alignment Horizontal 

curve realignment

0 Miles 75200 94000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Countywid

e

2000 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Keefer 

Highway

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

1.81 

Miles

531000 590000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

1213 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Grand River 

Avenue

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

3.03 

Miles

284000 355000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

4249 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Guardrail 

Upgrades 

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 

Numbe

150408 188010 HSIP 

(Sectio

Rural 

Major 

1372 55 County 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

@ 5 

locations

rs n 148) Collector Agency and As

East Main 

Street

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

2.12 

Miles

600000 670000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

5979 25 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

8th Street 

@ U 

Avenue

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

170400 213000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

2149 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Fish Lake 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

5.18 

Miles

584386.

8

615144 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

3500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Washburn 

Road @ 

Columbiavil

le Road

Alignment Vertical 

alignment or elevation 

change

1 

Numbe

rs

283732.

55

333803 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

3000 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Oregon 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips -

center

0.74 

Miles

457401.

6

571752 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

2890 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Bronson 

Lake Road

Roadside Barrier- metal 2.14 

Miles

144029.

6

180037 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

2800 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Bowers 

Road @ 

Myers 

Road

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

238748 298435 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

7100 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Smith Road 

@ Lewis 

Avenue

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

82170 83000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1026 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

South Otter 

Creek at 3 

RR Tracks

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.09 

Miles

44000 55000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

2196 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Federal 

Road @ 

Almy Road

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

283232 354040 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5816 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Various 

Roads

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Sign sheeting -

upgrade or replacement

123 

Numbe

rs

55890 62100 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Various 

Roads

3500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Signage Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Federal 

Road

Roadside Barrier- metal 4.63 

Miles

146568 183210 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

6200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Grand River 

Avenue @ 

Beck Road

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

432160 540200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1464

0

50 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Giddings 

Road @ 

Walton 

Road

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

213667.

2

267084 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

8900 35 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Adams 

Road @ 

Walton 

Blvd

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 

Numbe

rs

244895.

2

306119 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4411

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Maple 

Road @ 

Wyndham 

Blvd/Apple 

Blossom 

Trail

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

328000 410000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2198

2

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Dickerson 

Road

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel lanes

0.9 

Miles

364525.

2

405028 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

4082 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

16th Street Intersection geometry 0.22 450000 550000 HSIP Urban 1647 35 City of Intersecti Reduc
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

and 

Waverly 

Road

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn laneMiles (Sectio

n 148)

Minor 

Arterial

3 Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

ons e Fs 

and As

Keno Road Roadside Barrier - other 0.72 

Miles

26994.6 29994 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

848 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Snow 

fence

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Marine City 

Highway

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.83 

Miles

69743.2 87179 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

6827 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Ormes 

Road @ 

Bray Road

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 

Numbe

rs

70550.4 88188 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

3030 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Ann Arbor 

- Saline 

Road

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Install new crosswalk

2 

Numbe

rs

69500 62550 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2500

0

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Huron 

River Drive

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.85 

Miles

439510.

5

488345 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1450

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Hewitt 

Road

Roadway Roadway 

narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

1.17 

Miles

553046.

4

614496 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1700

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Whittaker 

Road @ 

Merritt 

Road

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control - all-way 

stop to roundabout

0.38 

Miles

600000 121037

7

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

9700 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Schaefer 

Highway

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

4 Miles 495000 550000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1360

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Joy Road Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

4.8 

Miles

559800 622000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1340

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

McGraw 

Street

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

1.7 

Miles

450000 500000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1030

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

McNichols 

Road

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unsp

ecified

3.2 

Miles

495000 550000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1290

0

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Grosse 

Pointe Blvd 

@ St Paul 

School/Gro

sse Pointe 

Academy

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modify signal mounting 

(spanwire to mast arm)

0.02 

Miles

90087.2 112609 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Major 

Collector

7000 30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

16 Road Roadside Barrier- metal 8.86 

Miles

540000 600000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1650 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

16th Street Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.27 

Miles

165150 183500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

225 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

16th Street 

@ 120th 

Avenue

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

1 

Numbe

rs

263745 293050 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector

320 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Kipp Road Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modify signal mounting 

3 

Numbe

rs

184160 230200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1076

3

45 City of 

Municip

al 

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

(spanwire to mast arm) Highway 

Agency

Leonard 

Street

Intersection traffic control 

Modify traffic signal -

modify signal mounting 

(spanwire to mast arm)

1 

Numbe

rs

80000 100000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2238

7

30 City of 

Municip

al 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Sprinkle 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

1.04 

Miles

652359.

51

658949 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2584

9

55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

Nadeau 

Road

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.85 

Miles

274500 305000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

7958 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Reduc

e Fs 

and As

CR 388 @ 

CR 687

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane

1 

Numbe

rs

468307.

13

473037

.5

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

5374 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Reduc

e Fs 

and As
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 953 923 917 918 923

Number of serious injuries 6492 9121 5833 5511 5288

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 6.56 6.33 6.1 5.73 5.5

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

18
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

19
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2015

Function Classification Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

22 144 0.44 2.91

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

9 49 0.4 2.13

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

45 215 1.13 5.35

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

89 418 1.39 6.54

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

15 68 1.56 7.12

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

133 621 1.73 8.08

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

86 441 3.67 18.73

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

77 367 0.46 2.2
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

26 150 0.44 2.47

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

191 1166 1.11 6.81

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

142 981 0.93 6.4

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

1

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

41 282 0.87 5.91

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

46 358 0.64 5.06
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

22
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

23
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

TRUNKLINE (STATE OWNED ROADWAYS) 400 2186 0.79 4.34

NON-TRUNKLINE (COUNTY, CITY, LOCAL 

OWNED ROADWAYS)

523 3085 1.14 6.74
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate.

In review of the 5-Year Rolling Average for statewide, state trunkline and local roadways both

fatalities and serious injuries have decreased at minimum 3% percent from 2007-

2011 to 2011-2015. The greatest reductions were for serious injuries have decreased 

19% percent over the 5 year rolling average. In regard to rates while the fatality and serious

injury rates are lower on state trunkline the percent decrease over the analysis time period is

consistent between the two roadway networks. For both statewide and state trunkline the

fatality rate has been below 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled since 2007-

2011. The local roadways fatality rate has been below 1.15 during the entire analysis time

period.

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 1.06 1.04 0.98 0.97 0.95

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

3.616 3.422 3.236 3.018 2.898

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

4.684 4.462 4.822 4.594 4.45

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

Using the 5-Year Rolling Average of fatalities and serious injuries for drivers and pedestrians

65 years of age and older and the number of people 65 Years of age and older (Per 1,000 Total

Population), as provided by FHWA, the rate has decreased from 4.82 for 2008-2012 to 4.45 for

20010-2014. With this decrease the special rule does not apply. See attachment for 

calculations.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Decrease of fatal and serious injuries on a 5-year rolling average 

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

None

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

No significant changes have occurred since the last reporting period.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 439 2033 0.46 2.12

Intersections 235 1784 0.24 1.86

Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists

176 551 0.18 0.57
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Groups of similar project types
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP Multiple improvements may be applied to a single section of roadway

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP Multiple systemic improvements may be applied to a single section of roadway
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

MDOT’s implementation of the Systemic Approach to Safety has impacted the 

citizens throughout Michigan by helping improving the safety on the state trunkline network. 

By continuing this efforts through construction projects this proactive approach to safety will 

assist in the State of Michigan’s efforts of saving lives and minimizing injuries moving toward 

the ultimate goal of Zero Deaths.

As reported in previous HSIP Reports the department undertook two system wide initiatives in

FY 2008: freeway median barrier and non-freeway rumble strips. Both initiatives address lane

departure, which is part of one of the 12 focus areas in the SHSP. Lane departure related

crashes accounted for at least 455 fatalities statewide in 2015 (47 percent of all fatalities). A 

primary objective for this focus area is to identify cost effective strategies that help reduce

unintentional lane departures, as well as alert the driver should a lane departure occur. The

secondary objective is to assist the driver in returning to the travel lane safely and minimize 

departure consequences by creating roadside clear zones.

Rumble strips are a proven and cost-effective countermeasure to lane departure crashes brought

on by driver drowsiness, distraction, and/or inattention. Since the late 1990s, MDOT has

been systematically installing rumble strips on freeway shoulders. In 2007, MDOT pursued

expanding rumble strips onto the rural, non-freeway system, as part of a three-year funding

effort. MDOT’s innovation was to make this a network-wide implementation. Rumble strip

milling was incorporated in the annual pavement marking program and coordinated with

MDOT’s pavement engineers. To implement this effort, $3 M a year of additional funding

was added to the pavement marking program for 2008 through 2010. The result is 

approximately 5,400 miles of centerline rumbles and 2,700 lane miles of shoulder rumbles.

To determine the overall effectiveness of the effort Wayne State University completed the

‘Evaluation of Non-Freeway Rumble Strip-Phase II’ for the department. The goal was to

determine a cost/benefit ratio, estimated crash reduction factors, public acceptance and an 

implementation guide for local agencies. The safety performance analysis indicated

statistically significant reductions in the range of 50 percent in all types of target crashes after

centerline rumble strips were installed. Researchers identified 2,488 target crashes in the

three years before installation of centerline rumble strips and 1,306 in the three years after 

installation. They noted a 43 percent to 55 percent reduction in head-on, sideswipe opposite

and single-vehicle run-off-the-road crashes. Overall fatal and injury crashes were cut in half,

with a 51 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 47 percent reduction in injury crashes.

The economic analysis produced equally significant results. Researchers estimated a cost

benefit of nearly $80 million over three years as a result of the crash reductions from centerline

rumble strip installation. They estimated that centerline rumble strips on two-lane rural

highways will produce benefit- to-cost ratios between 58:1 and 18:1, depending on how the

cost is spread out over time. Researchers performed a sensitivity analysis that produced a

range of benefit-cost ratio data for state and local agency use. The online road user survey

drew responses from 380 drivers, ranging in age from under 20 to over 60. Of these
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

respondents, 79 percent strongly agreed or agreed that centerline rumble strips are an 

effective safety measure, and the majority would recommend installing rumble strips on

additional state roadways.

Rumble strips are proving to be a cost-effective countermeasure to lane-departure crashes on

Michigan’s state highways. MDOT is reaching out to local agencies to increase their

understanding of the benefits of rumble strips and to encourage interest in installing them on

county, city and township roads either systemwide or at specific sites. To support this effort,

MDOT has developed concise, user-friendly design and installation guidelines for use by local

agencies.

Freeway median barriers minimize departure consequences. MDOT staff evaluated the state

trunkline to project how many lives might be saved in Michigan through the installation

of median barrier on candidate roadways. The crash analysis examined all freeway corridors 

without median protection which experienced four or more crossover type crashes during 2002

through 2006. Using a 90 percent reduction factor to estimate the benefit of median

protection a total of 340 miles was identified. These corridors, with medians widths not 

requiring protection per MDOT’s standards, experienced 66 fatalities and 257 serious injuries.

Cable median barrier projects were done in conjunction with road/bridge projects when 

possible, or as corridor projects. To implement this effort, $14 M a year of additional funding

was added to the safety template for 2008 through 2010. Since this initial funding effort cable

barrier projects have been supported in the annual Safety Call for Projects. 

The goal of ‘Study of High Tension Cable Barrier on Michigan Roadways’ research project 

was to determine the effectiveness of MDOT’s high tension cable barrier installations in

reducing the frequency of cross-median crashes and resultant injuries and fatalities. The

results of the research show that cable median barriers have been highly effective at reducing

crossover crashes in Michigan. After the barriers were installed, crossover crash rates on those 

highway segments fell by 87 percent, and the barriers successfully contained 97 percent of

the vehicles that hit them. Cable barriers have improved overall safety at the locations

where they have been installed. The most serious crash types—fatal and severe injury 

crashes—decreased by 33 percent after cable median barriers were installed, according to 

rigorous statistical analysis. Since their installation, cable barriers are estimated to have saved

20 lives and prevented over 100 serious injuries in Michigan. As expected, low-severity

crashes increased following the cable barrier installation; crashes involving only property 

damage or minor injuries increased by 155 percent. Researchers’ analysis showed that placing

the cable barrier farther from the roadway (toward the center of the median) would result in

fewer low-severity crashes, but this can be impractical because of soil conditions, slope 

grade, drainage characteristics, or increased installation and maintenance costs.

Overall, cable median barriers were slightly more prone to penetration by a vehicle than thriebeam guardrail or concrete barrier, but they were the most effective in preventing

redirection back into the travel lanes. Other findings include:
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

• Motorcycles: Cable barriers did not significantly impact motorcycle crash trends.

• Winter roadway conditions: Crash frequency increased in times of adverse

weather and road conditions, but the cable barriers continued to contain vehicles as 

intended.

• Rollovers: Median rollover crash rates decreased by 50 percent after cable 

barriers were installed.

Before-and-after studies conducted by Opus International Consultants, Inc. identified 

reductions in injury crashes for all classes of roundabout conversions. The 

analysis estimated injury crash reductions that range from a low of 20 percent for 

signalized intersections converted to three-lane roundabouts to a high of 70 percent for 

signalized intersections converted to one- and two-lane roundabouts. One or two-way 

stop controlled intersections converted to roundabouts displayed a 40 percent 

reduction in injury crashes while all-way stop controlled intersections converted to a 

roundabout had a 36 percent reduction. While researchers identified an overall increase 

in crashes for most types of roundabout conversions, the reduction in injury crashes 

provides a net crash cost benefit for most conversion types. Researchers calculated 

a return on investment of less than two years for all three types of roundabouts, 

attributing this relatively quick return to the large reduction in crashes and the benefits 

associated with reductions in user delay. The total estimated benefit due to the 

reduction in crash severity and user delay is expected to range from $600,000 to 

$2,200,000 per year. Today there are 27 roundabouts on state trunkline therefore the 

annual total benefit expected is $30.2 million.

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) found that in Michigan, 6 inch wide edge line 

markings produced reductions for all crash types, including a 24.6 percent reduction in 

fatal and injury crashes, a 39.5 percent reduction for crashes at night and a 33.2 percent 

reduction in wet crashes at night on rural two-lane trunklines. TTI’s review showed a 

benefit-cost ratio for wide edge lines to be $33 to $55 for each $1 spent. With 

an estimated increased cost of $840,000 per year the safety benefit is $27.8 to $46.2 

million per year. In addition, the research showed a reduction of total crashes of 

approximately 19 to 27 percent and single vehicle wet crashes by 66 to 74 percent.

MDOT has fully embraced implementation of TZD as a safety program in and of itself and has

developed several related action plans. MDOTs North Region analyzed recently implemented

safety projects and compared that to crash trends for the region. In an effort to more closely align

the problem with the goal, they developed a Region TZD Implementation Plan that heavily

emphasizes strategies focused on reducing lane departure and stop-controlled intersection fatal

and serious injury crashes. Each of the 7 Regions are now developing TZD implementation 

plans. The Traffic & Safety Section created and is actively tracking a TZD Strategic Plan for the

purpose of increasing “awareness of MDOT’s TZD efforts within the State of Michigan by 1)

identifying effective strategies to distribute the TZD logo and create logo recognition, and 2) 
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

gaining TZD partnerships. This Strategic Plan is designed to capture a widespread 

audience including: MDOT Employees and State agencies/employees, Local Agencies (County, 

City, Village, Township, etc.), private organizations, and the general public.”

Communication is a key aspect of implementing TZD and in addition to the action plans,

MDOT has developed a number of tools and resources. A sample of the TZD-focused

resources include a website, rest area posters, internal and external newsletter articles, crash

statistics postcard, safety fact sheet with actionable items for pedestrians, bicyclists,

motorcyclists and drivers and a safety programs brochure. MDOT also communicates the yearto-date fatalities across a number of different media including a weekly email listserv, messaging

on our digital messaging signs and social media outlets. This effort has let to numerous related 

news stories by media outlets across the state.
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ Cost 

Ratio)

None to 

include
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

MI 2015 Trunkline Project List.pdf

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Application of Special Rules

65+ Special Rule Calulations.pdf

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance 

Targets.pdf
2016 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, 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.