Page 1 of 43

MINNESOTA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 43

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................25

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................31

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................32

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................33

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................33

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................33

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................38

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................39
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 43

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 43

Executive Summary

Minnesota has a consistent history of reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries through the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program. The program is structured to (1) encourage widespread deployment of safety 

countermeasures, (2) engage local and state agencies, and (3) emphasize effective treatments through 

countermeasure evaluation.

While Minnesota funds sustained high crash locations, the program emphasizes systemic projects. These 

systemic projects identify locations based on factors associated with fatal and serious injury crashes to treat 

locations with higher risk before these severe crash occurs.

Furthermore, fatal and serious injury crashes are widely distributed across public roads. Thus, Minnesota HSIP 

has emphasized low-cost, high-benefit safety countermeasures that can be deployed over many miles or sites.

Minnesota HSIP funding is divided between state and local agencies based on distribution of fatal and serious 

injury crashes. The Office of Traffic Engineering (OTE) at MnDOT solicits for applications annually to approve 

high quality safety projects. Furthermore, OTE and State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) provide local 

traffic safety resources including systemic planning documents. These County Road Safety Plans identify high 

risk locations and provide project recommendations to streamline the local HSIP project development process. 

Currently, MnDOT is in the process of updating these safety plans with new data and projects beyond lowhanging fruit.

In recent years, Minnesota has demonstrated a commitment to proven, effective countermeasures by 

reemphasizing evaluation of projects. A statewide structure for project tracking, evaluation contracts, and 

report repository is in development to support these efforts.

Collaboration between internal and external, state and local partners has been key to current successes. Over 

the last 15 years, the Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) program has been instrumental in coordinating 

engagement with partners and facilitating relationships. These regional partnerships help connect stakeholders 

to state agencies without derailing local grassroots safety organizing.

Minnesota has experienced consistent decreases in traffic fatalities and serious injuries since 2003. After a 

revision to the state crash reporting system in 2016, Minnesota experienced a 77 percent increase in serious 

injuries reported. As the years have passed, we have seen reductions of 7 to 8 percent annually; while the new 

levels are higher, Minnesota now sees continued successes in serious injury reduction.

Recently the consistent reductions in fatalities have been less than previous years. While decreasing, this may 

suggest a plateau. Minnesota will continue to emphasize these successful elements of HSIP while looking for 

new opportunity to bend the curve.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 43

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 Minnesota HSIP program is split between Local and State projects. MnDOT Office of Traffic Engineering 

(OTE)--formerly Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology (OTST)--solicits projects from local governing units for 

the next four years; a parallel solicitation for State projects is issued to the districts. These solicitations aim to 

fully program safety projects in the next two years, but projects three to four years out are awarded to ensure 

planning. A parallel process is conducted within the Minneapolis-St Paul Metro that is coordinated through the 

MPO. Funding is distributed between Local and State based on fatal and serious injury crashes; distribution 

between each district or Area Transportation Partnership is based on the location of these fatal and serious 

injury crashes.

OTE approves all State and Local HSIP projects before they are entered in the STIP: the award memo 

received is the basis for being allowed to enter the STIP.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

HSIP staff provide engineering support within the Office of Traffic Engineering within the Operations Division of 

MnDOT.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• Formula via Districts/Regions

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

MnDOT distributes funds to local roads through the Greater Minnesota Combined Solicitation. OTE with 

representatives from State-Aid and MnDOT District Traffic Engineers, prioritize the local HSIP projects for each 

Area Transportation Partnership (ATP). Districts are given the opportunity to comment on the prioritization of 

projects. 

The allocation of HSIP funds is based on the distribution of fatal and A-injury crashes. Funds are distributed as 

follows: 
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 43

Step 1: Funds are split based on % of K and A crashes in each District.

Step 2: Funds are split again based on % of K and A crashes occurring on State vs. local system.

MnDOT has worked to develop a County Road Safety Plan for all 87 counties within the state based on 

systemic risk assessment. These plans are given priority in the selection process. Stand-alone safety projects 

rather than countermeasures within larger projects are given priority.

A subset of counties has opted to join OTE in updating the County Road Safety Plan: this process has 

continued through 2018.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

MnDOT's Office of Traffic Engineering (OTE) works closely with the State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) 

office as well as district traffic engineers in the distribution of HSIP funds. 

A representative from the state aid office sits on the both the steering and selection committees for HSIP. The 

offices work together to educate local agencies and district personnel on the HSIP program. Once projects are 

selected the state aid office coordinates with the local agencies and provides support as necessary. 

The HSIP project selection committee asks for input from the district traffic engineers during the selection and 

award processes. District traffic engineers provide vital background information on proposed projects as well 

as adding the local perspective. Additionally, local partners are asked to provide some documentation that the 

district traffic engineer is aware of and supportive of their prospective project if it impacts MnDOT roadways.

MnDOT also holds quarterly TEO (Traffic Engineering Organization) Safety Subcommittee meetings, at which 

additional HSIP coordination occurs.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

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

• Other-City Engineer Safety Committee

• Other-County Engineer Safety Committee

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Districts and Counties collaborate extensively to develop and implement safety plans as funded by HSIP; a 

subset of Minnesota's 87 counties have opted in to updating these plans. MPOs are involved in reviewing 

HSIP solicitations within their respective boundaries before awards are published.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 43

Minnesota's Toward Zero Deaths program is the primary way local partners can integrate and become 

involved in Statewide safety programming. TZD regional coordinators build coalitions through outreach and 

workshops helping to direct action among local partners.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

See attachment "HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf"

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HSIP (no subprograms)

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Lane miles 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 43

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:5

Available funding:5

Cost Effectiveness:5

Other-Treatment Effectiveness:5

Other-Site Selection: planning or spot location:5

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 55

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

• Cable Median Barriers

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Safety Edge

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

Connected vehicle and ITS projects are considered for HSIP funding in Minnesota. Funds for these initiatives 

are available from multiple sources, so while the projects are competitive in HSIP solicitation, investments and 

investigations in Minnesota have been funded outside of HSIP. MnDOT has created a standalone Connected 

Autonomous Vehicle (CAV-X) office to advance connected and automated vehicle and other advanced ITS 

technologies in Minnesota; a minimal amount of Section 164 funds will help support safety investigations in 
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 43

these areas. www.mndot.gov/automated/index.html

Moving forward, the Minnesota CAV-X office will be funded separate from HSIP with state money set aside by 

the Legislature. ITS projects will continue to be competitive in HSIP solicitation rather than program support.

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

No

Minnesota does not use the more advanced, predictive methods in the HSM.

Central Office performs a limited form of Highway Safety Manual analysis at the request of District Traffic 

Engineering staff. Reactive projects use a simplified form of HSM methods. Spot location projects are 

evaluated based on prior crash history weighted by the appropriate crash modification factor for the crash type 

and countermeasure proposed; the resulting benefit-cost ratio is used to prioritize which of these reactive 

projects receive funding. While training on the HSM predictive analysis continues, widespread use for proactive 

projects has not been adopted: Minnesota has developed risk factors for proactive projects rather than a 

prediction of total crashes.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 43

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $42,720,475 $10,906,202 25.53%

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)

$6,833,072 $6,832,072 99.99%

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 $49,553,547 $17,738,274 35.8%

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

safety projects?

50%

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

3%

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

2%

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

0%

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
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 43

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$35,455,243

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

the future. 

A program review was completed in May 2016 to better understand factors relating to a lower than average 

obligation rate in Minnesota. Historically, HSIP apportionment amounts have varied considerably from year-toyear, but there appeared to be miscommunications regarding the target programming levels as they remained 

constant. While the vast majority of projects are selected and let as programmed, a larger than anticipated 

number of projects were not delivered. Estimated costs both for local projects and on the state system were 

consistently higher than bids.

MnDOT is discussing strategies for more efficient reporting of programming amounts as well as communication 

between offices at the Department. Regular updates by programming office on programmed and let projects to 

help OTST reallocate HSIP funds back to HSIP projects. Further investigation has revealed differing 

accounting practices between MnDOT and Federal obligation reports. Minnesota has made a consistent 

practice of using the oldest funds available first: as a result, obligation rates appear lower than actual safety 

programming. MnDOT is continuing to work to improve obligation rate numbers while maintaining a robust 

safety program.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 43

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

YELLOW 

MEDICINE 

COUNTY WIDE: 

INSTALL 6" SOLID 

LINE PAINT EDGE 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

26.4 Miles $7724 $8582 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

AITKIN 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" 

CENTERLINE 

EPOXY STRIPING 

& 6" GROUND-IN 

WET REFLECTIVE 

EDGELINE 

STRIPING ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

AITKIN COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

34 Miles $124200 $138000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

AITKIN 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

AITKIN COUNTY

Lighting Intersection lighting 8 Intersection

s

$102400 $113778 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

COTTONWOOD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

CONTINUOUS 

SINUSOIDAL 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

WITH GROUND-IN 

WET REFLECTIVE 

STRIPING ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

COTTONWOOD 

CO.

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

46.2 Miles $245888.29 $273209.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

COTTONWOOD 

CSAH 1: FROM TH 

30 TO BROWN 

CO. LN- MILL & 

OVLY, 

EDGELINES, 

PAVED 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

4 Miles $151062.08 $513894.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

SHOULDERS, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

SAFETY EDGE & 

GROUND-IN WET

REFLECTIVE 

STRIPING

CSAH 10 & CSAH 

59: AT US 61 IN 

WABASHAINTERSECTION 

RELALIGNMENT 

(EXTENDING 

CSAH 10 ACROSS 

US 61 TO 

CONNECT WITH 

CSAH 59)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

1 Intersection

s

$596415.53 $722683.92 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

CSAH 10: FROM 

US 59 IN KITTSON 

COUNTY TO 

ROSEAU COUNTY 

LN- BIT OVERLAY, 

2' PAVED 

SHOULDERS, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

SAFETY WEDGE 

& 6" EDGELINE 

PVMT MARKINGS

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 12.7 Miles $222616.4 $247351.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

CSAH 13: FROM 

600' W OF CR 40 

TO 500' N OF 

CSAH 33 IN ELK 

RIVERCONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUTS 

AT CSAH 33 & CR 

40, LIGHTING, 

ADA & TRAIL AT 

ROUNDABOUTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

2 Intersection

s

$900000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CSAH 16: TH 32 

TO US 59 IN THIEF 

RIVER FALLSRUMBLE STRIPS 

& ON CSAH 8: 

CSAH 17 TO TH 59 

- SHOULDER 

PAVING, SAFETY 

EDGE,RUMBLE 

STRIPS & PVMT 

MARKINGS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.4 Miles $80100 $89000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

CSAH 17: AT 

CSAH 18 IN HAM 

LAKE/COLUMBUS

- CONSTRUCT 

NEW SIGNAL, 

CONVERT 

BYBASS LANE TO 

LEFT TURN LANE 

ON CSAH 17

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$760648.41 $845164.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CSAH 18 

(BROADWAY 

AVE): FROM CR 

19 TO CSAH 62 IN 

COLUMBUSCONSTRUCT 

RIGHT TURN 

LANES, BYPASS 

LANES, 

SHOULDER 

WIDENING & 

OVERLAY

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

acceleration/deceleration lane

2.4 Miles $990000 $1443044.2

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CSAH 38: FROM S 

COUNTY LN TO 

CSAH 31- 

SHOULDER 

PAVE, RUMBLE 

STRIPS, SAFETY 

EDGE, PVMT 

MARKINGS, BIT 

OVLY & ON CSAH 

36, TH 200 TO N 

COUNTY LN, BIT 

OVLY

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6 Miles $152910 $2073900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

CSAH 39: HART 

BLVD IN 

MONTICELLO TO 

653' W OF ODEAN 

AVE IN OTSEGOTURN LNS, 

STRIPING FOR 

CONTINUOUS 

CENTER LEFT 

TURN LN (TWLTL) 

& INTERSECT. 

WIDENING

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1 Intersection

s

$1305000 $4400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

CSAH 4: FROM 

585TH ST. TO CR 

86 IN WABASHA 

COUNTY- BIT 

RECLAMATION, 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

8.5 Miles $300000 $333333 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

SHOULDER 

PAVING, 

EDGELINE 

STRIPING, 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

& SAFETY EDGE

CSAH 44 (SILVER 

LAKE RD): 200' S 

OF ERIN CT. TO 

400' N OF 

GREGORY DR. IN 

NEW BRIGHTONCONST REFUGE 

MEDIAN, 

PEDESTRIAN 

RAMPS & 

RAILROAD 

GATES (CONT.)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian refuge 

areas

1 Crosswalks $325112 $390135 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

CSAH 46 (BAGLEY 

AVE): AT TH 19 

(JUST W OF I-35) 

IN RICE COUNTY - 

INTERSECTION 

REALIGNMENT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset cross 

streets

1 Intersection

s

$596520 $1500821.9

4

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

CSAH 9: FROM US 

2 TO CSAH 26- 

BITUMINOUS 

RECLAMATION, 2' 

PAVED 

SHOULDER WITH 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

SAFETY WEDGE 

& PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6.9 Miles $213117.41 $236797.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

D-1 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 

SHOULDER 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

ALONG US 2 & MN 

61

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

48.5 Miles $126000 $140000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

D-1 ST LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" 

EPOXY 

EDGELINE 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

28.6 Miles $65172.08 $72413.42 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

STRIPES AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT ST 

LOUIS COUNTY

D-2 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT D2- INSTALL 6" 

WIDE EDGELINE 

& CENTERLINE 

STRIPING

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

434.6 Miles $284180.79 $323318.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

D-4 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSALL 6" 

EDGELINE 

STRIPING AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT D4

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1175 Miles $1006589.2

5

$1118432.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

DISTRICTWIDE: 

ON TH 73 AT TH 1 

NEAR COOK & ON 

TH 18 AT TH 65 

NEAR MCGRATHRURAL 

INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT 

WARNING 

SYSTEMS 

(RICWS) & 

LIGHTING

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

2 Intersection

s

$177934.5 $197705 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

HENNEPIN CSAH 

15: AT CSAH 19 IN 

ORONO: 

RECONSTRUCT 

INTERSECTION, 

TURN LANES & 

REPLACE SIGNAL

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$896013 $1867913 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

I-35E: (ELLA) 

FROM 1.2 MI N OF 

CR 81 (ASH ST/CR 

J) IN LINO LAKES 

TO I-35E/I-35W 

SPLIT IN 

COLUMBUSRoadside Barrier - cable 5 Miles $867744.29 $964160.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

INSTALL HIGH 

TENSION CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

I-90 (WB) FROM 

0.18 MI W OF 

CSAH 12 TO 1.25 

MI W OF MN/WI 

STATE LN & I-90 

(EB) FROM 0.31 MI 

W OF CSAH 12 TO 

0.75 MI E OF 

CSAH 12 & ON US 

61 (Cont.)

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.9 Miles $626887 $626887 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

I-94 & I-394:EB 

EXIT RAMPS 

ONTO 2ND AVE N 

IN MPLS-INSTALL 

& MONITOR 

WRONG WAY 

VEHICLE 

DETECTION & 

ALTERTING 

SYSTEM,INCLS 

PLAN 

DEVELOP,DESIG

N & TESTING

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

2 Ramps $184000 $184000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

ISANTI 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" 

GROUND IN WETREFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS ON 

ISANTI CSAH'S 6, 

7, 13, & 15

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

20.9 Miles $111558.49 $123953.88 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

ISANTI CSAH 5: 

AT THE 

INTERSECTION 

OF MN 47- RURAL 

INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT 

WARNING 

SYSTEM (RICWS) 

AND LIGHTING

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$129600 $144000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

KANDIYOHI 

COUNTWIDE: ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

53.7 Miles $192661.48 $214068.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

THROUGHOUT 

KANDIYOHI 

COUNTYGROUND-IN 6" 

SOLID LINE PAINT

McLEOD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT 

McLEOD COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

78.6 Miles $50022.96 $55581.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

MEEKER 

COUNTYWIDE: 

CHEVRON SIGN 

INSTALLATION AT 

VARIOUS 

CURVES 

THROUGHOUT 

MEEKER COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

38 Curves $28681.2 $31868 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

METROWIDE: 

APPLY HIGH 

FRICTION 

SURFACE 

TREATMENT ON I35W NB FROM 

900' TO 3397' N OF 

McANDREWS 

RD& I-35W FROM 

TH36 TO CR B2 & 

I-94WB RAMP 

ONTO I-394WB

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3 Interchange

s

$716586.03 $796206.7 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

MN 6: FROM 0.7 

MI N OF 

OLANDER RD TO 

0.2 MI S OF CSAH 

1 IN EMILY & 

FROM 0.2 MI N OF 

CSAH 1 TO JUST 

N OF CSAH 58 - 

MILL & OVLY 

(cont)

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 14.1 Miles $217194.89 $241327.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

MORRISON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

GROUND IN WETRoadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

70.6 Miles $317254.52 $352505.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

MORRISON 

COUNTY

MORRISON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

GROUND-IN 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

AND COUNTY 

ROADS

THROUGHOUT 

MORRISON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

153 Intersection

s

$81185.4 $90206 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

OTTER TAIL 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL LATEX 

EDGELINES ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

& CR'S 

THROUGHOUT 

OTTER TAIL 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

279.2 Miles $175896 $195440 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

REDWOOD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

ON CSAH'S 15, 5, 

8, 10 & 16; 

INSTALL 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS, 6" 

SOLID LINE MULTI 

COMPONENT 

GROUND-IN (WR)

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

106 Miles $476000 $528889 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

RENVILLE 

COUNTYWIDE: 

EDGELINES, 

CENTER LINES & 

SOLID LINE MULTI 

COMPONENT 

(GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE) 

MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

RENVILLE CO

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

339.3 Miles $179959.73 $257588.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

SCOTT CSAH 8 & 

CSAH 27: AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

ALONG CSAH 8 & 

AT THE 

INTERSECTION 

OF CSAH 27 AND 

FLAG TRLCONSTRUCT 

TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

8 Intersection

s

$1603800 $1782000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AT 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT 

ST. LOUIS 

COUNTY

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - refresh 

existing pavement markings

127 Intersection

s

$166703.4 $185226 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

SIGNAL SYSTEM 

REVISIONS & 

EMERGENCY 

VEHICLE 

PREEMPTION 

SYSTEMS (EVP) 

AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT 

THE DULUTH 

METRO AREA

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

emergency vehicle preemption

59 Intersection

s

$600000 $600000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

STATEWIDE: SFY 

2020 TZD 

REGIONAL 

COORDINATORS, 

SALARIES & 

EXPENSES FROM 

7/1/2019 - 

6/30/2020

Noninfrastructure Outreach 7 Regions $775000 $775000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Noninfrastructur

e

Traffic 

Safety 

Culture and 

Awareness

STEARNS CO: 

VARIOUS 

INTERSECTIONS 

ALONG CSAH 75 

(ST JOSEPH TO 

ST CLOUD)& MN 

15 (ST CLOUD TO 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

13 Intersection

s

$49500 $55000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

SARTELL)- 

INSTALL 

ENFORCEMENT 

(SIGNAL 

CONFIRMATION) 

LIGHTS

STEARNS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL & 

IMPROVE 

LIGHTING 

SYSTEMS AT 

INTERSECTIONS 

ON VARIOUS 

CSAH'S & CR'S 

THROUGHOUT 

STEARNS 

COUNTY

Lighting Intersection lighting 19 Intersection

s

$291600 $324000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

STEARNS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" SOLID 

LINE MILTI-COMP 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS 

STEARNS 

COUNTY ROADS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

36.3 Miles $359042.43 $398936.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

TH 23: FROM 

2075' W OF CSAH 

7 TO 975' E OF 

CSAH 7 IN 

MARSHALL - 

CONSTRUCT JTURN 

(INTERSECTION 

MODIFICATION), 

LIGHTING AND 

ADA

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$1935113.3

6

$2151125.9

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

TH 28: FROM 0.5 

MI E OF TH 29 IN

STARBUCK TO 

270' W OF 6TH ST 

NW IN 

GLENWOODRECLAMATION & 

SHOULDER 

WIDENING

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

7.6 Miles $1025964.7

2

$1139960.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

TH 60: 0.2 MI W OF 

CSAH 24 TO 0.1 MI 

E OF CSAH 24- 

CONSTRUCT J 

TURNS, ADA & 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$3443862.4

3

$3444862.4

3

Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

TH 60: CR 112 IN 

LAKE CRYSTAL 

TO S JCT US 169 & 

ON US 169, FROM 

S JCT TH 60 TO 

BLUE EARTH RVR 

(E OF CSAH 69)- 

CONST HIGH 

TENSION CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.5 Miles $1080000 $1200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

TH 62: JUST EAST 

& WEST OF CSAH 

17 (FRANCE AVE) 

IN EDINA- REHAB 

BR 7263, WIDEN 

RAMPS, CONST 

PARALLEL ACCEL 

LN AT EB ENT 

RAMP FROM 

FRANCE AVE 

(CONT.)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Interchange

s

$1085418.1

9

$1803200.8

7

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

TH 65: AT TH 107- 

CONST 

INTERSECTION 

SAFETY IMP. 

(REDUCED 

CONFLICT INT.), 

SIGNAL SYS, 

LIGHTING & ON 

TH 65(SB), 0.34 MI 

N OF LINCOLN 

DR, REPLC CULV

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$2017922.6

7

$2275426.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

TH 95: FROM 

70TH ST S TO TH 

61 IN COTTAGE 

GROVECONSTRUCT 

RIGHT TURN 

LANES, WIDEN 

SHOULDERS, 

MILL & OVLY, AND 

SIGNAL

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

4.8 Miles $1200000 $1200000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

TODD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

MULTICOMPONENT 

EDGE LINES ON 

VARIOUS CR'S & 

CSAH'S 

THROUGHOUT 

TODD COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

38.5 Miles $206255.05 $229172.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

US 212: AT CSAH 

41 BENTON TWP

AND AT CSAH 36 

IN DAHLGREN 

TWP - 

CONSTRUCT 

REDUCED 

CONFLICT 

INTERSECTIONS, 

ADA, LIGHTING & 

DRAINAGE

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$1699200 $1949000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

US 53: AT JCT OF 

CSAH 7 IN ST. 

LOUIS COUNTYCONSTRUCT JTURN, MILL & 

OVLY, AND 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$350000 $800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

US 61: NB LN 

FROM TH 42 TO 

1.7 MI NW OF TH 

60, CONTINUE NB 

& SB LN'S TO 0.4 

MI N OF STAEHLI 

PARK RD (315TH 

ST) EXCLUDES W 

ELM ST IN LAKE 

CITY (CONT)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

3 Intersection

s

$2001286.9

2

$2223652.1

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

US 63: FROM 1.06 

MI N OF I-90 TO 

570' S OF US 52 IN 

ROCHESTERINSTALL HIGH 

TENSION CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.3 Miles $777322.17 $777322.17 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

US 71: 750' S OF 

CSAH 15/CSAH 53 

TO 8TH ST E IN 

PARK RAPIDSBIT 

REPLACEMENT & 

RECONSTRUCT 

CSAH 15/CSAH 53 

INTERSECTION 

INCLS 

RNDABOUT, 

LIGHTING & ADA

Intersection

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1015295.8

6

$1266995.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

US 8: FROM 925' E 

OF I-35 IN 

FOREST LAKE TO 

MN/WI STATE 

LINE- INSTALL 6" 

WETREFLECTIVE

STRIPING

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

22.1 Miles $486000 $540000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

WABASHA 

COUNTWIDE: ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S 

& CR'S 

THROUGHOUT 

WABASHA COSHOULDER 

PAVING, RUMBLE 

STRIPS & SAFETY 

EDGE

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

64 Curves $1323221.7

2

$1470246.3

6

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

WRIGHT 

COUNTYWIDE: 

ALONG CSAH'S 

34, 35 & 37 -

CENTERLINE 

MILLED 

SINUSOIDAL 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

& CENTERLINE 

STRIPING

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

29.4 Miles $95634 $106260 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 43

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 411 368 395 387 361 411 392 358 381

Serious Injuries 1,191 1,159 1,268 1,216 1,044 1,127 1,992 1,849 1,660

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.724 0.649 0.693 0.679 0.633 0.695 0.666 0.626 0.631

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.097 2.044 2.225 2.133 1.832 1.907 3.382 3.233 2.748

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

45 45 47 41 22 51 67 48 52

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

132 153 155 146 126 158 291 279 221
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 43

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 27 of 43

0.56

0.58

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 28 of 43

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2015

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

12.4 28.4

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

64.4 116.4

Rural Minor Arterial 64.6 124.2

Rural Minor Collector 21.6 52.6

Rural Major Collector 63 149.6

Rural Local Road or 

Street

31.4 84.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 29 of 43

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)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

15 51.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

6 20.4

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

23.4 84.8

Urban Minor Arterial 49.6 253.6

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 12.4 83.4

Urban Local Road or 

Street

15.6 98
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 43

Year 2018

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

186.8 449.6 0.55 1.32

County Highway 

Agency

127.4 582.2 0.89 4.07

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

19.2 66.8 1.68 5.85

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

39.8 396.8 0.42 4.16

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

The databases at MnDOT are not structured in a way to quickly and reliably query crashes by functional 

classification. Roadway ownership is a derived field in the crash report and can be reported reliably.

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

Minnesota released a new crash report in 2016. While the definition of a serious injury did not change, the text 

displayed to the officer added "Suspected," i.e. "Suspected Serious Injury (A)". With the revised phrasing, we 

have seen A injuries reported at higher numbers than previously seen (2,299 serious injuries reported in 2016 

versus an average of 955 over the last five years). Part of this may be due to the new definition but part also 

concerns training of officers: Minnesota plans to review training material for crash data collection. As of 2018, 

the number of serious injuries has begun to level off to a new normal with the definition.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 43

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:375.4

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

Projections of current annual percent reduction over the last THREE years (i.e. since the 

implementation of the new state crash reporting system) were used, 1.4% reduction annually.

Number of Serious Injuries:1714.2

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

Projections of current annual percent reduction over the last THREE years (i.e. since the 

implementation of the new state crash reporting system) were used, 7.5% reduction annually.

Fatality Rate:0.626

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

Projections of current annual percent reduction over the last THREE years (i.e. since the 

implementation of the new state crash reporting system) were used, 1.4% reduction annually, with an 

assumed conservative increase in VMT of 0.5% annually.

Serious Injury Rate:2.854

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

Projections of current annual percent reduction over the last THREE years (i.e. since the 

implementation of the new state crash reporting system) were used, 7.5% reduction annually, with an 

assumed conservative increase in VMT of 0.5% annually.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:317.0

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

Based on halting the current increasing trends in non-motorist fatalities and serious injuries (i.e. 0% 

reductions annually); as a state, Minnesota is not comfortable setting a safety goal that INCREASES.

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

safety performance targets. 

Minnesota DOT and DPS coordinate to develop three scenarios with a recommendation for the safety 

performance targets. Discussion regarding how attainable or aggressive these targets should be were 

conducted with the MPO directors as well as MnDOT Senior Leadership Committee.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 43

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Based on 2018 data, Minnesota has achieved performance targets for 3 of the 5 measures for 2018; it is 

anticipated that Minnesota has made significant progress (i.e. lower than the 2012-2016 baseline) in number of 

fatalities and fatality rate.

The 2018 performance targets were the second iteration of safety targets by Minnesota. As the process is 

better streamlined, we recognize process improvements to ensure the targets set reflect the direction of 

Minnesota safety programming. 

Calculated Values (2014-2018 Average)

• Fatalities = 380.6 

• Fatality Rate = 0.644 

• Serious Injuries = 1,534.4 

• Serious Injury Rate = 2.590 

• Non-motorized Fatalities + Serious Injuries = 263.0 

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

60 59 63 53 82 68 60

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

83 93 89 105 170 164 158
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 43

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

The Minnesota SHSP has a defined scorecard to measure fatal and serious injury crashes for each focus area. 

While overall fatal and serious injury crashes are declining, further investigation is necessary into (1) potential 

plateauing of fatalities, and (2) inconsistencies in reporting serious injuries after instrumentation change at the 

beginning of 2016. MnDOT publishes these trends in an annual pocket-sized Trivia Card for stakeholder and 

public use.

http://www.mndot.gov/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Other-Under consideration

Leading indicators for HSIP performance have been under consideration by MnDOT leadership. At this time no 

further indicators have been adopted.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Single Vehicle 

Run Off Road + 

Head On 

Crashes

187.2 645.8

Intersections Crashes at 

intersections and 

interchanges

148 746.8

Pedestrians Crashes with at 

least one 

40.8 169.6
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 43

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)

pedestrian 

involved

Bicyclists Crashes with at 

least one 

bicyclist involved

7 56

Older Drivers Crashes with at 

least one driver 

invovled age 65+

92.6 265.2

Motorcyclists Crashes with at 

least one 

motorcycle 

involved

55.8 246.4

Work Zones Crashes 

occurring within 

a work zone

9.4 32.4
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 43

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting 

period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness 

evaluation. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 43

CounterMeasures: Rural Intersection Conflict Warning 

System 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: 

Number of Installations: 66 

Number of Installations: 66 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

Results: 

Both a before and after study and a 

comparative study were completed to 

assess the effectiveness that RICWS 

systems have on rural roadway safety. 

The before and after study yielded no 

indication that the crash rate at RICWS 

sites significantly increased or decreased 

after the implementation of the system. 

Since both RICWS and control sites 

produced similar results, the change in 

crash recording is neither washing out nor 

enhancing the apparent performance of 

RICWS. In addition, the comparison test 

also produced no indication that a 

difference in crash rate exists between 

RICWS and control sites. While this study 

did not produce the expected results, the 

two tests did not indicate that the 

installation of RICWS significantly 

increased crash rates at rural 

intersections. 

File Name: 2019-ricws-report.pdf
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 43

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

None at this 

time.

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

Beginning in 2019, Minnesota has invested more resources in programmatic evaluations. This has provided a consistent stream of evaluations both internally and using external evaluators to inform future policy decisions.
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 43

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/01/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2014 To: 2019

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

 2020

Minnesota will not meet the December 2019 deadline: we are working in coordination with the FHWA Division Office to approve the final document in early 2020. A final draft of the updated Minnesota SHSP will be completed in 

December 2019; however, it is anticipated that final approval may extend into January 2020.

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 90

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 80

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 90

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 90

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 90

Median Type (54) 100 100
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 43

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

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 90

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

85 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

85 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

85 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

85 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

85 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

85 100

AADT Year (80) 85 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

85 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

95 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 43

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

95 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

70 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 100.00 85.00 100.00 96.36 100.00 100.00 97.78 100.00 90.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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. 

MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management (OTSM) collects and maintains MIRE fundamental element data and quality. Minnesota has highly reliable data elements on state highways in compliance with MIRE; on the local 

systems, work is on going to update default "legacy values" with more accurate data. A source accuracy field denotes these default values at this time to cull data which has not been verified through another method. Currently local 

roadway data comes to OTSM in various formats where it is translated by linear referencing system (LRS) editors into the required formatting. OTSM estimates that all characteristics are updated at least annually.

All route data and MIRE elements maintained by MnDOT OTSM are published weekly to the State of Minnesota GeoCommons website for consumption by partners and the general public. At this time, there are no direct links maintained 

by regional or local partners to interface with the state roadway information system.

Non-local Paved Roads are defined here as trunk highways: in Minnesota, all of these roads are owned by the State. MnDOT has maintained an inventory of intersections and interchanges with trunk highways. OTSM will continue to 

maintain reasonable estimates and make avenues available for local agencies to enter and maintain additional fields.

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

No

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

2020
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 43

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

2019-ricws-report.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 43

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

Highway safety improvement project: means strategies, activities and projects on a public road 

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure projects: are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of noninfrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, 

improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement 

activities.

Older driver special rule: applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

Performance measure: means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to 

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

Roadway Functional Classification: means the process by which streets and highways are 

grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on 

safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

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

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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