Page 1 of 42

NORTH DAKOTA
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 42

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......................................................................................................................................... 11

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 11

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 13

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 15

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 15

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 28

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 29

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 31

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 31

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 36

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 37
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 42

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 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 42

Executive Summary

The NDDOT is programming about 2/3 of the HSIP funds towards low-cost systemic type projects over the next 

4 years. During the past year NDDOT has developed systemic projects to address intersection and horizontal 

curve crashes on both the state system and local road system. In rural areas, low cost treatments typically 

include: enhanced signing/striping, destination lights, removal of overhead flashing beacons, and 

chevrons/delineators on horizontal curves. At urban (signalized) intersections, low-cost treatments typically 

include: confirmation lights, pedestrian countdown heads, leading pedestrian intervals, retroreflective 

backplates, and flashing yellow arrow signal heads.
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 42

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 NDDOT solicits state and local agencies to submit safety project applications each year. Potential projects 

are identified through the traditional "reactive" approach that address high crash locations, fatal crash 

locations or areas where road safety reviews took place. Projects are also developed using a "systemic" 

approach that apply low-cost treatments over a large area. The NDDOT central office reviews applications and 

selects and prioritizes projects based on the state’s SHSP emphasis areas: lane departure, unbelted vehicle 

occupants, alcohol-related, excessive speed/aggressive driving, intersection, and "involving driver under 21".

Most HSIP projects primarily address the lane departure or intersection emphasis areas. After projects are 

programmed, they get designed and implemented with the same process as regular federally funded 

transportation projects. The NDDOT does not have a formal evaluation procedure for safety projects once 

complete, however some past projects have been evaluated with simple before-after crash comparisons.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

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

The Office of Transportation Programs at NDDOT has HSIP staff within the "Programming" 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.

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 42

The NDDOT addresses safety on local roads through the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP). Local public 

agencies can also submit applications for non-LRSP safety projects each year during the solicitation period. 

Selection of local and tribal road projects use the same methodology as State roads. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Districts/Regions

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-Safety Division, Local Government

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Design

The Design Division is included in the distribution of the high crash listings. All road safety reviews require at 

least one member of the Design Division. Their participation and review of at-risk locations helps in the 

development of potential project countermeasures.

Planning

The Planning Division provides data for the development of the HSIP. Roadway features are collected and 

maintained in the Planning Division include: traffic volume, truck volumes, traffic projections, roadway 

features, roadway viewer (for state highways) and mapping. The Planning Division is also included in the 

distribution of the high crash listings.

Safety Highway Safety Office (SHSO)

The SHSO is the lead entity for the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and involves law 

enforcement and other partners in the process. In North Dakota, the behavioral strategies in the SHSP are 

largely funded through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds with funding 

going to various traffic safety partners including law enforcement agencies statewide for overtime enforcement 

of traffic safety laws. The SHSP process drives HSIP project priorities. Infrastructure strategies in the North 

Dakota SHSP are largely funded through HSIP and deployed through the State's Local Road Safety Program 

(LRSP) and State Road Safety Program (SRSP). These programs identify proven, low-cost road safety 

strategies and prioritize the road safety strategies for implementation at identified at-risk locations on the local 

and state road systems.

Local Government

Members of the Local Government Division provide project development through city, county and tribal 

agencies. The local government assists in the solicitation of safety projects. They also participate in road safety 

reviews.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 42

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

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-and other traffic safety advocates/partners

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

All the entities are involved at SHSP at some level (Executive Leadership Team, SHSP Steering Committee, SHSP 

Implementation Team or general SHSP stakeholder).

Regional Planning Organizations: North Dakota has 3 MPO's that must approve any HSIP applications that are 

submitted by their respective cities. The MPO's were also included in the team that developed the ND Local Road 

Safety Program (LRSP).

Local Government Agency, Tribal Agency: The cities, counties, and tribal agencies are solicited each year for potential 

safety projects. They are encouraged to submit projects directly from the LRSP or at high crash locations. 

Law Enforcement Agency: Law enforcement and HSIP personnel are extensively involved in North Dakota's SHSP 

process. The HSIP program director serves on the SHSP Steering Committee and as chairperson for two SHSP 

implementation teams (Lane Departure and Intersection implementation Teams). Law enforcement serve at all levels 

of the SHSP including the SHSP Executive Leadership Team, the SHSP Steering Committee and SHSP Implementation 

Teams.

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. 

Schedule for HSIP requests:

• Fall - send out HSIP solicitation letter and high crash location lists/maps, HSIP application forms (SFN 59959) are 

due by the end of the year

• Winter - NDDOT analysis of HSIP requests and Draft HSIP project listing

• Spring - verify the construction year for previously approved projects

• Summer - finalize HSIP project listing, send responses out on approvals (or non-approvals) for the HSIP 

applications

• August 31st - Final HSIP project list due to FHWA, HSIP online reporting due
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 42

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.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms)

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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 Traffic Horizontal curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Other-Systemic

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 42

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

We rank or prioritize based on available funding.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 10

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Install/Improve Lighting

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
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 42

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Stakeholder input

Other-National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and other evidence-based practices

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?

No

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

NDDOT is currently working on integrating the HSM into its HSIP process.

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 42

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $9,117,385 $7,788,893 85.43%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $9,117,385 $7,788,893 85.43%

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

All amounts shown are Federal. Programmed from STIP Export of 2017 on 6/23/17 including one amendment 

(Burlington). Section 164 penalty funds ended in 2016 for ND. Obligated amount is from FMIS of 6/23/16. 

Obligated amount of projects not yet bid are from 2017 construction year spreadsheet as of 6/22/17. Did not 

assume State and Local funds were "match" dollars for the federal funds.

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

$3,508,000

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

$2,750,000
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 42

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?

$270,000

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

$270,000

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

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.

None

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

No
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 42

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

GF Various 

Intersections -

Pedestrian Heads

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at intersection

18 Locations $60000 $67000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Red River Bridge Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

1 Locations $765000 $1921000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Burke County 

Projects

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

0 Signs $408000 $453000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Intersection of ND 

6 and 19th St SW

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $511000 $568000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

I-94 Interchange 

Lighting

Lighting Site lighting - interchange 2 Interchanges $300000 $333000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

ND 1804 & 

Washington, ND 

1804 & 15th St 

NW, US 83 & 

201st Ave NE

Lighting Site lighting - intersection 3 Intersections $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Statewide 

Pavement 

Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

0 Miles $707000 $6284000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

Districtwide 

Retroreflectivity

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

0 Locations $237000 $264000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Older Drivers

Various State 

Highways in 

Mountrail Cnty

Lighting Site lighting - intersection 31 Intersections $582000 $647000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

US 2 Turn Lanes 

East of Devils 

Lake

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 Intersections $391000 $435000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Cass County 

School Zone 

Signing

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

3 Locations $57000 $87000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

US 52 & ND 36 in 

Pingree

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $560000 $622000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 281 and 43rd 

St SE (Ypsilanti)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $499000 $554000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

West Fargo - 9th 

St E & 13th Ave

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $1818000 $5477000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

ND 24 - Family 

Dollar Store Turn 

Lanes

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $450000 $450000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

ND 6, 24 & 1806 

on SRST

Lighting Site lighting - intersection 10 Intersections $107000 $107000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 42

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

GF Columbia Rd 

and 17th Ave S

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

3 Approaches $537000 $597000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Spirit Lake 

projects from 

LRSP

Lighting Site lighting - intersection 4 Intersections $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Systemic Intersections

Various BIA 

Roads in Spirit 

Lake Reservation

Roadside Roadside grading 0.19 Miles $278000 $278000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Statewide Curve 

Evaluation Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

0 Curves $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Statewide crash 

report evaluation

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 0 Numbers $225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data

Highway Safety 

Improvements

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 0 Numbers $113000 $125000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data

SHSP Planning 

and 

Implementation 

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 0 Numbers $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data

Small Scale 

Improvements

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 0 Numbers $100000 $111000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data

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

Page 15 of 42

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 104 140 105 148 170 148 135 131 113

Serious Injuries 297 332 380 462 575 517 518 540 433

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.330 1.720 1.270 1.620 1.680 1.470 1.290 1.300 1.160

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

3.900 4.180 4.580 5.040 5.700 5.120 4.690 5.360 4.446

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

8 5 9 10 10 3 12 8 10

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

22 25 27 39 25 30 32 31 21
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 17 of 42

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 18 of 42

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

9 31 0.55 1.88

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

44.2 118.6 1.71 4.57

Rural Minor Arterial 21.2 47.2 2.43 5.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 19 of 42

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

Rural Major Collector 24.4 72.2 7.72 22.78

Rural Local Road or Street 22.2 57.8 1.23 3.11

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

3.2 6.6 0.71 1.43

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

6.6 62.6 0.81 7.64

Urban Minor Arterial 3 39.6 0.51 6.7

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 1 18.8 0.38 7.24

Urban Local Road or Street 3.8 27.2 0.82 5.94
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 42

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 88.2 279.2 1.01 3.18

County Highway Agency 31.6 109.6 1.26 4.21

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

10 90.4 1.06 10.5

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

6 2.2 0 0

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
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 22 of 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 23 of 42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 24 of 42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Rural

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Interstate

Urban

Principal

Arterial -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

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 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 26 of 42

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 42

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or

Reservation Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 42

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 138.0 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input 

Number of Serious Injuries 516.0 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or

Reservation Agency

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 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 42

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

Review of historical data and expert group input 

Fatality Rate 1.366 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input 

Serious Injury Rate 5.088 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 34.8 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input 

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

The long-term goal of the North Dakota SHSP is to move toward zero deaths. Targets were established with 

consideration of this long term goal but also considering SMART objectives. The targets were considered 

specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-oriented.

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

targets. 

The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) resides in the NDDOT. The SHSO (i.e., the NDDOT Safety 

Division) and other NDDOT Divisions including Local Government, Programming and Planning/Asset 

Management review performance measure data and define the method to set the targets. Proposed targets are 

then shared by the NDDOT at a regular meeting between NDDOT and the MPOs. Safety performance targets 

will be shared with SHSP stakeholders at regional workshops scheduled for 2017-2018. Feedback obtained 

from those workshops will be used to inform subsequent target setting strategies.

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
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 42

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

No

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

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

12 5 19 15 8 10 17

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

10 27 27 22 23 36 45

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 42

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

level evaluations.

Both fatal injuries and serious injuries have decreased from 2015 to 2016. The rates have also decreased. The 

NDDOT sees this as an encouraging trend. Individual project evaluations are being conducted comparing HSIP 

projects that were built during the 2013 construction season. This year was chosen since 3 years of crash data is 

available for both before and after periods. The individual project evaluations will be reported to FHWA next 

year.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

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

Each year more projects are being implemented that are a result of systemic analysis. The increase in these 

projects is encouraging because more and more local entities and other stakeholders are realizing the benefits of 

low-cost countermeasures applied over a large area. The NDDOT sees this "buy-in" as an important aspect of 

the overall safety program.

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
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 42

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

Lane Departure 66 246 0.65 2.44

Intersections 29.4 126.6 0.29 1.25
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 42

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

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 42

No

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

Page 36 of 42

Project Effectiveness

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

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

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

No
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 42

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/02/2013

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 To: 2018

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

 2018

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

North Dakota anticipates completing its next SHSP update by September 1, 2018.

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) 0 0 0 0 0 0

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)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descritor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 42

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

Median Type (54) 0 0

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)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 42

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 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

83.33 83.33 0.00 0.00 27.27 27.27 88.89 88.89 80.00 80.00

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.

All MIRE FDE elements not collected through established HPMS requirements will be considered and evaluated through the Department's Data Governance program development.

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 2=Suspected Serious Injury/Incapacitating Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual 2. Suspected Serious Injury/Incapacitating Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than fatal which results in one or 

more of the following:

Yes a. Severe laceration resulting in exposure 

of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood.

b. Broken or distorted extremity (arm or 

leg)

c. Crush injuries

d. Suspected skull, chest or abdominal 

injury other than bruises or minor 

lacerations

e. Significant burns (second or third degree 

burns over 10 percent or more of the body)

f. Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

g. Paralysis

Yes

Crash Database Occ_Injury_Class Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Occ_Injury_Class Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 42

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?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2020

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

NDDOT is currently updating its SHSP which may result in a new HSIP Implementation Plan. Once these documents are adopted, an HSIP program assessment will be completed (estimated year 2020).
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 42

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 42

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.