Page 1 of 54

MICHIGAN 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 

Photo Source: 

MDOT Photography Unit 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 54

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................18

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................18

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................20

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................36

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................36

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................42

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................44

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................45

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................45

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................49

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................50

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................53

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................54
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 54

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. 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.”
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 54

Executive Summary

The 2020 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the one year 

time period of FY 2019 which commenced on October 1, 2018 and ended on September 30, 2019. This report 

addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 54

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 general structure of the HSIP is to select cost-effective safety improvements, as identified in Michigan's 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), to address locations with correctable fatality (K) and serious injury (A) 

crashes. Projects are selected and identified during the annual Call for Projects process for local and non-local 

roadways. The selected projects are designed and implemented via the Region offices and Local Agency 

Programs oversight. Before and After studies are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular 

countermeasure. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-TSMO (Transportation Systems Management and Operations)

The HSIP Trunkline program is managed out of the MDOT Central Office in the Bureau of Field Services - 

TSMO Division - Traffic and Safety Section - Safety Programs/Pavement Markings. 

The HSIP Local Agency Non-Trunkline Program is managed out of the MDOT Central office in the Bureau of 

Highway Development - Development Services Division - Local Agency Programs (Local Safety). 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Central Office via Statewide Formula via MDOT Regions 

• Other-Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process for Local Agencies 

• Other-Central Office via Funding Set Aside

The Lansing Central Office manages a separate Call for Projects process for both the state owned and locally 

owned roadways. There is also a funding set aside amount directly for state owned roadway pavement 

markings and delineation. 

The Local Agency Call for Projects is a competitive application process between all of the Local Agencies of 

Michigan and cycles on a two-year call for projects. 

The Statewide Trunkline Call for Projects has specific funding targets for each of the 7 MDOT Regions. The 

funding targets are calculated based on lane miles, traffic volumes, and Fatality and Serious Injuries that occur 

within each Region.The State Trunkline Call for Projects cycles on a five-year call for projects platform. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 54

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

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

Engineer located in the Central Office. The HSIP funds were allocated to two separate Call for Projects: $6 M 

for High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) and $9 M for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Typically, only 

the construction phase is eligible for federal aid. Preliminary engineering costs were eligible for federal 

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

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

not eligible for federal safety funds. Projects are federally funded at 80 or 90 percent up to an amount not to 

exceed $600,000 of Federal funding, with a 20 or 10 percent Local Agency match, respectively. 

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

ensure inclusion of their project in the area’s Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Those agencies that are 

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

is not necessary. MDOT Local Agency Programs (LAP) coordinates with MDOT Planning to ensure these 

projects are included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). 

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

Local agencies were invited by a May 4, 2017 memorandum to submit proposed projects for consideration as 

part of an annual Call for Projects (CFP). All local agencies (counties, cities, and villages) are able to apply for 

the funds. Townships and tribal organizations are also eligible to receive the safety funds but must work with 

their respective county for submittal of the application. The emphasis of the local FY 2019 CFP was to address 

those locations with correctable fatality and injury crashes to support the department’s efforts of reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries striving for Toward Zero Deaths. Per the CFP, the Local Agency was to provide a 

Time of Return (TOR) analysis showing how the proposed improvement would address fatalities and all 

injuries. In the TOR, all crash types and severity levels correctable by the proposed improvement can be 

included. A maximum of five years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2019 

projects, 2012 to 2016 (or the current availability) crash data was used. 

Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. Project types may be either systemic or spot 

locations and may include replacement, installation or elimination of guardrail, removal of fixed objects from 

clear zones, traffic and pedestrian signal optimization, installation and upgrades of traffic signals, access 

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

railing replacement or retrofit, roadway intersection improvements specifically to improve safety, mid-block 

pedestrian crossings, improvements to school zones, shoulder and centerline rumble strips, and improved 

permanent signing and pavement markings, or any other safety related work. 

For the FY 2019 CFP, a greater emphasis was placed on the identification of correctable fatalities and serious 

injuries, both in the selection and the prioritization of safety projects. In FY 2019, a small portion of the local 

safety funds were allocated to eight subprograms (compared to five subprograms in 2018), with the following 

three additions: Systemic Lane Departure projects ($3 M), Projects identified in Regional Traffic Safety Plans 

($3 M) and Safety Edge ($500 K). Three subprograms received increased allocations compared to FY 2018; 

Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips ($500 K), Non-motorized Facility/Pedestrian Improvements ($200 K), 

Guardrail Upgrades and Clear Zone Improvements ($1 M). Allocations for High Friction Surface Treatment 

($100 K), and Road Safety Audits ($50 K) remained the same as 2018. Each selected project could count 

towards multiple subprograms. Local agencies were informed of the listed subprograms and encouraged to 

submit related projects. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 54

• Maintenance 

• Operations 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

• Other-Local Agency Programs 

• Other-TSMO 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

Safety Engineers located in the Transportation Service Center (TSC) offices. Employees within the Safety 

Programs Unit distribute the High Crash List and Pavement Friction Analysis to the Region and TSC staff for 

their use in project selection. Road Safety Audits and 3R/4R Safety Reviews are conducted with various 

internal partners located within the Central, Region, and TSC offices. In addition, the Safety Programs Unit 

supports the Regions and TSC's with special data requests in the development of their safety program 

including various types of GIS mapping. 

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

Internal training is also provided to new Traffic and Safety staff including the TOR form, HSM spreadsheet, 

Roadsoft, and general safety information related to the call for projects and MDOT standards and guidance. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University 

• FHWA 

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-County Road Association of Michigan 

• Other-Office of Highway Safety Planning 

• Other-Michigan's Local Technical Assistance Progam 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

MDOT coordinates with various Colleges and Universities to provide research opportunities on existing and up 

and coming safety countermeasures. MDOT coordinates with FHWA on existing and proposed federal 

legislation and standards. MDOT also coordinates with the County Road Association, Regional Planning 

Organizations, and Local Government Agencies to help communicate safety initiatives and safety 

countermeasures. Overall, MDOT is vigilant about coordination with external partners specifically to promote 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiatives as a member of the Governors Traffic Safety Advisory Council (GTSAC). 

MDOT assists the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) and the GTSAC in planning Engineering 

sessions for the Annual Michigan Traffic Safety Summit. MDOT provides scholarship opportunities to Local 

Agencies to attend the Traffic Safety Summit to help educate them on TZD Initiatives and to help reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries on every roadway in Michigan. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Workshop_Agenda_for_Web_V4_3.2.20_682453_7.pdf 

Michan LTAP conducted a mini-roundabout symposium in coordination with FHWA for the local agencies of 

Michigan. Michigan DOT also provided an in-house workshop for Mini-Roundabouts as well as Intersection 

Control Evaluation (ICE). 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 54

http://www.ctt.mtu.edu/sites/ctt/files/flyers/2019miniroundabout-symposium.pdf

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

elaborate. 

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

Traffic and Safety (Central Office). For FY 2019, $21.5 M in safety funding was available, of which $15.6 M 

was allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as funding targets. Additional template funding was added after the 

original call for projects letter. The allocations were based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries, 

lane miles and Vehicle Miles Traveled in each Region. The goal is that all Regions receive a minimum of 5 

percent of the Safety Target.

Beyond the allocated $15.6 M, an additional $4.5 M of the safety funds was reserved by the Traffic and Safety 

area to apply to projects in any Region at their discretion. The Regions were permitted to submit candidate 

projects with total costs exceeding their funding targets; the central office review team then selected the 

projects to be funded in each Region, taking into account priorities expressed by the Regional staffs, and use 

their discretionary funds to apply to worthy projects that exceeded a particular Region’s funding target. All 

project phases; preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right of way and construction are eligible for 

safety funding.

In addition to the $20.1 M of project funding described above, in which project selection was approved by 

central office staff, each Region was given $200,000 for low-cost safety improvements to be chosen at the 

discretion of the Region staff. The Regions use this pot of money for a variety of minor roadside safety 

improvements which can be performed in a timely manner by state forces or contract agencies. Individual 

Safety Work Authorizations (SWA) are the most cost effective method of funding these types of improvements 

and can be initiated quickly throughout the fiscal year in response to safety needs. Federal funds are used for 

those improvements meeting funding criteria.

Once the FY 2019 program was developed, it was reviewed and approved by the Project Screening 

Committee (PSC). The PSC consists of Region and Central Office Program Managers and Planning staff who 

help develop the MDOT’s Five Year Plan for approval by the Transportation Commission. The PSC ensures 

coordination between Regions on various corridors and between the programs. 

In FY 2019, the use of HSIP funding continued in the administration of the pavement marking program. Under 

23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(c), HSIP funds may be obligated for any project to maintain minimum levels of 

retroreflectivity of traffic signs and pavement markings, without regard to whether that project is included in an 

applicable State SHSP. Prior to FY 2013 Surface Transportation Safety funding was used in the placement of 

pavement markings in the Annual Pavement Marking Program.

Local Safety HSIP administration is explained above in Question #6.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

A HSIP Manual relating to the Local Agency HSIP Program describing the planning, project selection, 

implementation, and evaluation processes was published in August of 2019. The intent is to update this 

manual periodically as methodology pertaining to the local safety program changes.

MDOT Safety Programs created a guidance that was finalized in July 2020 for trunkline related programs. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 54

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Other-Pavement Markings 

• Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects 

• Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

• Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural Roads 

• Other-Delineation 

Program: Other-Pavement Markings 

Date of Program Methodology:9/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Lane miles • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Retroreflectivity of pavement marking

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-funding set aside per each Region

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
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 54

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects

Date of Program Methodology:9/15/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Focus on fatal and 

serious injury crashes along 

with fixes based on crash types 

and patterns

• Volume

• Lane miles

• Median width

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

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).
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 54

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:3

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

Date of Program Methodology:5/8/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

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. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 54

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:3

Other-Funding set asides for specific countermeasures:4

Program: Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural Roads 

Date of Program Methodology:3/22/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 54

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:3

Program: Other-Delineation

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Lane departure crashes • Volume • Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-funding set aside 

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).
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 54

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 54

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Clear Zone Improvements 

• High friction surface treatment 

• Horizontal curve signs 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Other-funding set-asides for Local Agencies 

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

• Rumble Strips 

• Safety Edge 

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation 

• Upgrade Guard Rails 

• Wrong way driving treatments

Systemic projects selected through the Local Safety Call for Projects (CFP) process are awarded a higher 

federal funding percentage (90 percent federal with 10 percent local match) as compared to non-systemic 

projects which have a base funding percentage of 80 percent federal with a 20 percent local match. It should 

be noted that all selected projects that address a fatal or serious (Type A) injury crash are funded at 90 percent 

federal participation. Additionally, the local safety CFP has set asides for High Friction Surface Treatment, 

Rumble Strips, Clear Zone improvements, and Guardrail upgrade projects that are systemic in nature along 

with a set aside for systemic lane departure projects. Of the Federal HSIP funds obligated on the local system 

in fiscal year 2019, approximately 21 percent of funds went towards systemic projects. 

The Trunkline Call for Projects (CFP) allowed for up to 25 percent of systemic funded projects. Along with the 

Annual CFP, MDOT elects to construct longitudinal and special pavement markings as part of the HSIP 

program. Overall, in FY 2019, 65 percent of the total HSIP Trunkline Program funds (Safety, Pavement 

Markings, and Delineation) was used for systemic type projects. 32 percent of Trunkline Safety CFP project 

funds were systemic type fixes. See attached Low-cost Safety Improvement Projects that is used to select 

systemic type projects. 

Overall, 54 percent of HSIP project funds selected were considered to be systemic type fixes (Trunkline Safety, 

Pavement markings, Delineation, and Local Safety). 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis 

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

• Engineering Study 

• Road Safety Assessment 

• SHSP/Local road safety plan 

• Other-High Crash List 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 54

• Other-Transparency Report 

• Other-Fatality and Serious Injury Region-wide Maps 

• Other-3R/4R Safety Reviews 

• Other-Pavement Friction Analysis 

• Other-Customer Concerns 

• Other-Local Safety Initiative 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Currently, MDOT does not consider connected vehicles with ITS technologies as part of the HSIP program. 

Connected vehicles and ITS technologies are funded via a separate funding source out of the MDOT TSMO 

Division. The ITS program promotes advanced technologies, electronic and telecommunication to improve 

safety and travel time on the multi-modal transportation system. Michigan's Connected Vehicles program is 

intended as a complementary program to efforts in California, Minnesota and Florida, along with international 

efforts in Ontario, Canada and Wales, United Kingdom, aimed at providing an incubator for testing of a variety 

of on board and road side elements and applications.

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

Yes 

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

Michigan DOT utilizes Part B of the HSM through continued development and use of AASHTOWare Safety 

Analyst for the trunkline roadways. The locations that are determined from Safety Analyst are then provided to 

Region and Transportation Service Center offices. As they evaluate the locations on the list, Michigan’s own 

HSM spreadsheet is utilized to develop a substantive perspective. The quantitative performance of alternatives 

allowed in the spreadsheet have come from what will soon been three separate research efforts to better 

understand safety performance in Michigan. Regionally, it was found that there are differences resulting in the 

latest version of our HSM spreadsheet to account for this in the analysis. Road Safety Audits have been 

performed both informally and formally that utilize the Michigan HSM spreadsheet based on suggested 

improvements. Training on the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) was completed in 2016 and 

2018. Since then, a build of the software has been provided throughout MDOT and is available for use external 

to the agency. The latest version of the software is being evaluated to incorporate the research outputs for 

non-freeway urban and rural site types. In Safety Analyst, the emphasis areas of Bicycle, Pedestrian, Run-offRoad, Alcohol, Commercial Vehicle, Work Zone and light condition have been built in to provide additional 

functionality. Safety Analyst was also used as one of the deciding factors in the determination of the locations 

for increasing speed limits. 

The Trunkline Safety Call for Projects requires that a HSM analysis be completed for all qualifying nonfreeway, non-systemic projects. The Local Safety Call for Projects allows the HSM to be submitted for 

additional project support. An internal MDOT HSM training was conducted in June of 2019 including an 

updated analysis spreadsheet. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 54

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

elaborate. 

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

seven MDOT Regions from the Safety Template Program Manager. The FY 2019 Safety Call request was 

made to the Regions on September 16, 2013. In response to the CFP, the Regions identify locations where 

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

signalization, median protection, etc.) could be made. These locations are to be identified through the current 

Transparency (5%) Report, Fatality and Serious Injury Regionwide Maps, High Crash List, 3R/4R Safety 

Reviews, customer concerns, and Pavement Friction Analyses. Upon location identification an engineering 

study is conducted by the Region to determine the appropriate safety improvement. The emphasis of the 

Safety Call was to address those locations with correctable fatality and serious injury crashes to support the 

department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries and support the vision of Toward Zero Deaths 

(TZD). 

All safety projects and proposed candidates must address a focus area of the Michigan Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP). Submitted concepts must meet a maximum Time-of-Return (TOR) to qualify for safety 

funding. The TOR is a cost benefit analysis of proposed safety improvement which considers all crash types 

and severity levels that are correctable by the proposed safety improvement. A minimum of the latest three 

years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2019 project, in which 2010 to 2012 (or 

most current data available) crash data was used. The following TOR criteria was established: 

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

• Stand alone safety improvement for location on the current Transparency (5%) or High Crash Report 

– TOR of 10 years or less. 

• Safety improvement in conjunction with another Construction project (Bridge, R&R, etc.) - TOR of 9 

years or less. 

Each Region’s submittal was reviewed by the Central office review team to ensure all criteria was met. The 

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

review team, taking into account priorities expressed by the Regions, used the TOR values as a means to 

develop project rankings (lowest to highest TOR value) within each Region. Due to increased funding for 2018 

to 2023, the discretionary allocation for FY 2019 was $4.5 M. The TOR values for projects beyond funding 

targets were used to allocate $4.5 M of discretionary funds statewide. 

For FY 2019, funding was included in programmed preliminary engineering for outer year safety projects to 

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

$750,000 in programmed construction costs. Each Region was required to conduct at least one RSA for a FY 

2019 improvement projects. The RSA should be done prior to 30 percent completion of the plans. The purpose 

of the RSA is to ensure that the appropriate safety fixes are incorporated into the overall design based on 

crash patterns within the project limits. 

Continuing in FY 2019 each Region was required to allocate up to a certain percent of their funding target for 

low cost safety improvements. This amount is in addition to the Safety Work Authorizations (SWA funding). 

The focus is to be on system wide safety improvements done by work authorization or through the letting 

process, each Region received $200,000 for FY 2019. A TOR justification is not required if the proposed 

improvement is selected from the list of approved and proven safety system wide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for 

Low Cost Safety Improvement Projects-see attachment). For FY 2018 through 2020 this percentage was 

increased to 25 percent. For FY 2021 to FY 2025 the percentage submitted shall be a minimum of 25 percent 

up to a maximum of 50 percent over a five-year rolling average period. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 54

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

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

performed on them. A comparison of future conditions with and without the proposed improvement shall be 

provided. Starting for FY 2020 and continuing for FY 2021 to FY 2025, all submitted concepts must address 

two or more fatal and/or serious injury crashes and align with their Region Toward Zero Deaths plan.

See Question #6 for the HSIP methodology for Local HSIP/HRRR Safety.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 54

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

The State Fiscal year ran from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $58,510,122 $55,683,132 95.17%

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 $7,493,298 $9,729,161 129.84%

Totals $66,003,420 $65,412,293 99.1%

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

safety projects?

$17,584,286

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

$17,509,035

The local safety program is allocated approximately $15.9 M annually but programs projects over and above 

our allocation to ensure the majority of local HSIP funding is utilized. The total amount programmed for fiscal 

year 2019 was $20,854,835. The local safety program shares obligational authority with the local urban (nonsafety) program and projects are obligated on a first come first serve basis which can result in more or less 

HSIP funds being obligated for any given fiscal year (FY).

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

$307,040
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 54

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

$305,958

Projects included work zone enforcement, incident management kits, data analysis, before and after studies, 

and road safety audits.

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

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

$0

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

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

$0

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

the future.

Overall, the time frame to obligate a specific project is longer due to MPO required approvals. During the end 

of the fiscal year when there is bid savings from earlier projects coming under budget, some Regions cannot 

use said money for a new project due to the lengthy approval process of the MPO. 

MDOT promotes the Toward Zero Deaths campaign to the citizens of Michigan, however not being able to use 

HSIP funds for educational and promotional materials has made this social media campaign challenging, as 

we have to seek other funding sources within the department, which are also constrained.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

During the reporting period, FY 2019, 0.33 percent of the programmed funds and 0.34 percent of the obligated 

funds of the HSIP State Trunkline system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as Road Safety 

Audits and Work Zone Enforcement. 

On the Local Agency side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. In FY 2019, 0.86 percent 

of the obligated funds for the Local system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as Road 

Safety Audits and a Before and After study. Overall, 24.6 percent of the total programmed and 26.0 percent of 

the total obligated federal HSIP/HRRR funds were directed to local safety projects.

Overall, 11.3 percent of programmed funds used were State and Local, while 14.9 percent of obligated funds 

used were State and Local. 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 54

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/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-69, I-75, US-23 

Bay Region 

Davison TSC 

Delineator 

Installation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

32 Miles $586529 $586529 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay Region Mount 

Pleasant TSC 

wide Delineation 

upgrades

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

50 Miles $204850 $204850 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro Regionwide 

enhanced 

delineation on 

guardrails

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

111 Miles $489883 $489883 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Gaylord TSC M32 

from M66 to 

Otsego ECL, M66 

from US131 to 

US31, and M88 

from US131 to 

US31 Guardrail 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

52 Miles $258441 $258441 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest 

Regionwide I-94, 

US-31, and I-69 

corridor 

Delineation 

upgrades 

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

125 Miles $419479 $419479 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior 

Regionwide 

installation of 

roadside 

delineators

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

26 Miles $378000 $378000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay Region 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4948 Miles $2850000 $2850000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 2476 Locations $670000 $670000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Bay Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1404 Miles $20243 $20243 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4334 Miles $2790000 $2790000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1921 Locations $685000 $685000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 983 Miles $15566 $15566 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2547 Miles $2735000 $2735000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 4050 Locations $1245000 $1245000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 826 Miles $30104 $30104 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4715 Miles $2070000 $2070000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

North Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1046 Locations $530000 $530000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1035 Miles $11278 $11278 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2986 Miles $1920000 $1920000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1457 Locations $525000 $525000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 728 Miles $10352 $10352 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4371 Miles $2061500 $2061500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 885 Locations $495000 $495000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1050 Miles $12416 $12416 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

University Region 

Application of 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4004 Miles $2685000 $2685000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University Region 

Application of 

special pavement 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1260 Locations $460000 $460000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University Region 

Pavement 

marking retro 

reflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 885 Miles $13785 $13785 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Statewide PE for 

the FY 2020 

Marking and 

Delineation 

Program

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 7 Regions $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

WB M-25 From 

West of Saginaw 

Street westerly to 

the Bascule 

bridge and from 

Walnut Street 

westerly to west of 

Henry Street High 

Friction Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.25 Miles $405865 $408535 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-127BR Bilkare 

Rd to Stockwell 

Rd Addition of a 

center left turn 

lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.75 Miles $1544000 $1544000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-61 Rodgers 

Avenue to Clarwin 

Avenue Guardrail 

approach terminal 

replacement

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

10 Miles $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-127 At the 

Bagley Road c ulde-sac Bagley Rd 

and eliminate 

ramps

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

3 Access 

points

$805206 $805206 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

17,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

M-37 at Sager 

Road at Sager 

Road Tree 

clearing

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

0.42 Miles $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-21 At Carl Drive 

Extension of left 

turn lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - extend existing 

left-turn lane

0.13 Miles $513242 $513242 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-196 WB to US131 NB Ramp 

Bridge Deck 

Patching & Apply 

High Friction 

Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.35 Miles $332000 $332000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate13,100 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31 BR north to 

crossovers of M120 and US-31 

BR north to 

crossover south of 

M-120 Widen 

paved shoulder

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.7 Miles $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther23,700 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-120 MidMichigan Railroad 

east to Getty 

Street Addition of 

Center Left Turn 

Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1.2 Miles $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,400 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-131 at 14 Mile, 

M-20 at US-131 

NB, US-131 SB at 

14 Mile, and M-20 

(Perry Ave.) Install 

Guardrail at 

bridge piers

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.2 Miles $82349 $82349 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-196BL at 112th 

Ave Construct 

indirect left turns

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.25 Miles $885000 $885000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31 south of 

Van Wagoner 

Road and north of 

Sherman Blvd 

Enhanced linear 

delineation on 

concrete barrier 

wall

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

1.13 Miles $47580 $47580 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

63,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

M-104 Spring 

Lake east village 

limit east to I-96 

enhanced Signing 

and Work Zone 

Enforcement

Noninfrastructure Enforcement 1 Locations $25000 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-696 Service 

Drive near M-1 

Intersection nonmotorized and 

Signing 

improvements 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.5 Miles $1200000 $1200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther53,500 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-96 from 5 Mile to 

I-696, M-5 from I96 to Drake - multi 

locations 

Guardrail 

delineation 

upgrades 

Roadside Barrier- metal 8.7 Miles $469516 $469516 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Multiple locations 

throughout the 

Metro Region 

Curve speed 

warning, 

pavement 

markings, 

enhanced 

delineation

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

11.8 Miles $2661294 $2661294 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-24 (Telegraph 

Rd) at Plymouth 

Modify "Jerseyturn" into 

Michigan-left

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

2 Access 

points

$1366448 $1366448 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther50,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

WB M-14 near 

Sheldon High 

Friction Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.68 Miles $399427 $399427 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

108,30

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-85 between 

Schaefer and 

Outer Drive 

Pedestrian Traffic 

Signal Installation 

amd additional 

signing and 

pavementmarking 

for pedestrians 

upgrades 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

2 Locations $356000 $356000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,700 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Gaylord TSC 

upgrading and 

installing new 

curve warning 

non-freeway sign 

replacement

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

33 Miles $215135 $215135 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31 from West 

Silver Lake Road 

easterly to East 

Silver Lake Road 

Widen roadway to 

provide a center 

left turn lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.93 Miles $3097000 $3097000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther23,800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-113 from the M37 Intersection 

East to 225' west 

of Clark Street 

Shoulder 

Reconstruct and 

widening 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

5.6 Miles $901431 $901431 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-311 - M-60 to B 

Drive S fixed 

object removal 

and culvert 

upgrades 

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

8.9 Miles $729500 $729500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-311 B Drive S 

to I-94 BL 

(Michigan 

Avenue) fixed 

object removal

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

4.5 Miles $403500 $403500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Regionwide 7 

Hitch mounted 

changeable 

message signs to 

be used on MDOT 

maintenance 

vehicles in the SW 

Region

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 7 Locations $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-94 east 

collector/distributo

r to the I-69 north 

loop ramp to I-94 

Install curve 

warning system

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

0.25 Miles $25000 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,300 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

M-43 Van Buren 

and Kalamazoo 

Co., M-51, US-12 

Berrien Co., US131 St. Joe Co., 

M-96 Calhoun Co. 

dilemma zone at 9 

signalized 

intersections

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

9 Locations $645775 $645775 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Various routes 

with active work 

zones in the SW 

Region Law 

enforcement in 

work zones in the 

SW Region.

Noninfrastructure Enforcement 1 Locations $90000 $90000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Reduce F's 

and A's 

For use on routes 

in the SW Region 

Provide incident 

management kits 

to first 

responders.

Noninfrastructure Training and workforce 

development

27 Locations $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Work Zones Reduce F's 

and A's 

Various locations 

along I-94 WB 

from 0.15 miles 

east of Hartford 

(Exit 46) easterly 

to County Road 

657 Install Trees 

for living snow 

fence 

Roadside Roadside - other 17.8 Miles $289958 $289958 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate45,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Various locations 

along I-94EB and 

I-94WB corridor 

from MM43 to 

MM66 Tree 

clearing fixed 

object removal

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

24 Miles $778763 $778763 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate45,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-2 in Mackinac 

Co, I-75BR in 

Mackinac Co, M553 in Marquette 

Co Replace 

Guardrail Endings

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

5.8 Miles $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-41 east of CR 

492 to west of 

Brickyard Road 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

3 Intersection

s

$2650000 $2650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther26,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Reconstruct WB 

Lanes to Extend 

Boulevard and 

construct 2 

roundabouts

Regionwide 

University Region 

upgrades to 

horizontal curves 

install signs, 

pavement 

markings, 

guardrail, 

guardrail and 

rumbles on 

horizontal curves. 

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

1.3 Miles $536251 $536251 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-52 & M-43 

Install Offset Right 

turn lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

0.15 Miles $413925 $413925 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

OLD-127 Homer 

St./US127 Service 

Dr 3 to 2 lane 

reduction on 

Homer Street, 

Water Main 

Installation (City of 

Lansing)

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.5 Miles $305437 $1308545 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,900 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-496 EB from the 

Red Cedar to 

Mount Hope High 

friction surface 

treatment 

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.6 Miles $474524 $474524 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate70,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-69 BL from Lake 

Lansing Rd to 

Marsh Rd Median 

Crossover 

Construction of 

Michigan Lefts

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

3 Intersection

s

$740000 $740000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Statewide Safety 

Analyst licensing 

fee

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Liscense $72000 $72000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-24 at South 

Otter 

Creek/Yargerville 

intersection 

Realign S Otter 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset 

cross streets

1 Intersection

s

$816671 $816671 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Crk Rd 

intersection

EB I-94 at 

BL94/Jackson Rd 

entrance ramp 

Dynamic curve 

warning system

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

1 Locations $129745 $129745 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate6,900 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Ped 

Improvements at 

M-17 at Pearl St., 

M-17 at N. 

Washington St., 

M-17 at N. Adams 

St., M-17 and 

Perrin St., M-17 

and College Pl., 

M-17 and Normal 

St.

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 6 Locations $5000 $5000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce F's 

and A's 

202856 128th 

Avenue

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

2.19 Miles $600000 $698292 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,024 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202875 Herron 

Road

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

1.08 Miles $468000 $511353.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 350 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202876 Grove 

Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 1.36 Miles $288000 $373602.15 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 850 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203497 13 Mile 

Road - Convis 

Township, 29 Mile 

Road, 13 Mile 

Road - Fredonia 

Township, Condit 

Road

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

12.73 Miles $214761.7

4

$218824.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 1,400 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202882 East 

Avenue, Oak 

Grove Road

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

6.5 Miles $95444.75 $106049.72 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

800 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203175 Grand 

Blanc road at 

Morrish Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$600000 $867652.22 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,248 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

203483 

Countywide 

Lollipops on Stop 

Signs

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled600 Intersection

s

$39230.1 $43589 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,000 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202857 8th Street Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1.22 Miles $600000 $1074451.3

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,700 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203484 West 

Plum Valley Road

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

1.19 Miles $600000 $661300.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

175 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203485 Shaner 

Avenue 

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.25 Miles $256500 $331235.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

360 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202665 Brickyard 

Road at US-41

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$127824.6 $142027.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

32,650 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203486 Tree 

Removal

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

16.1 Miles $447308.1 $489411 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 7,981 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203487 Jennings 

Road

Roadway Superelevation / cross slope 2.57 Miles $600000 $660899.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,800 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203474 Wadhams 

Road at Fred 

Moore Highway

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$457591.6

8

$648538.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,600 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203488 Fixed 

object removal

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

13.4 Miles $459000 $480844.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,084 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203388 Ridge 

Road at Hack 

Road

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.13 Miles $247474.7

1

$280571.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 7,424 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

200261 Lake 

Pleasant Road

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

3.01 Miles $188100 $199187 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

1,198 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

200277 Swan 

Creek Road at 

South River Road

Roadway Superelevation / cross slope 1 Intersection

s

$490500 $740076.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,050 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207254 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$25180 $50360 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,297 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202891 Barlow 

Road at Trask 

Lake Road at 

Main Street

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset 

cross streets

1 Intersection

s

$196000 $260204.7 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,200 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207845 H-58 Roadway Superelevation / cross slope 2.63 Miles $600000 $653536.64 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202889 Flashing 

beacons at 3 

intersections

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

3 Intersection

s

$26203.52 $29115.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,400 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202547 Federal 

Forest Hwy 13

Roadside Barrier - removal 4 Locations $65598.4 $81998 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 590 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202892 Guardrail Roadside Barrier- metal 18 Locations $357572.7 $397303 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 3,650 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202893 East 

Pierson Road

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.61 Miles $39826.8 $44252 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,732 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202897 East Main 

Street

Speed 

management

Radar speed signs 2 Locations $14739.39 $16377.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,972 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Speed 

related

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203176 W. Dodge 

Road at N. 

Saginaw Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

1 Intersection

s

$22474.24 $24971.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 2,575 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203177 Torrey 

Road

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.4 Miles $196200 $250940.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 6,274 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

203273 Garfield 

Road at 

Potter/Hoch Road

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Intersection

s

$3900 $19500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 9,000 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203274 Airport 

Park Road

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.12 Miles $132000 $152132 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 906 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203271 Guardrail Roadside Barrier- metal 9 Locations $243000 $270837.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 2,900 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

200865 D Avenue Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

2.4 Miles $497880 $1158409 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,858 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203292 

Countdown 

pedestrian signals

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

38 Intersection

s

$333000 $349880 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 15,000 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203294 East Paris 

Avenue at Sparks 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$233857.8 $274251 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 23,014 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203295 Fuller 

Avenue RSA

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Study $14960 $18700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,700 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203296 Burton 

Street RSA

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Study $14960 $18700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther19,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203331 Division 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

4 Intersection

s

$398489.4 $442154 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,488 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203396 Franklin 

Street RSA

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Study $14960 $18700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 14,600 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203408 Leonard 

Street at Alpine 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$136728 $170910 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,474 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

203415 Guardrail Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Miles $235350 $231291 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 420 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203265 Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - center 52 Miles $306000 $364613.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,200 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203267 Signal 

Backplates

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

72 Intersection

s

$333000 $349262.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 30,000 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203268 

Backplates and 

box spans

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

8 Intersection

s

$328500 $416606.72 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 40,000 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203417 12 Mile 

Road at Utica 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$250682 $323595 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther19,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202666 CR 492 at 

US-41/M-28

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$127971.1

2

$142190.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 21,020 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203419 

Intersection 

flashing beacons

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

3 Intersection

s

$59008.85 $65565.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203272 Guardrail Roadside Barrier- metal 7 Locations $175500 $201278 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 100 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202854 Seminole 

Road

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new crosswalk 1 Locations $29300.31 $36625.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,321 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203458 Beck 

Road at Pontiac 

Trail

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$197941.6 $312646 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther32,918 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203461 Haggerty 

Road at 14 Mile 

Road

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$226823.2 $341590.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther34,250 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

203264 Adams 

Road at Gunn 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$600000 $2305999 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,260 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

202855 W 

Washington 

Avenue at W Main 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$600000 $1389211 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,590 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203457 

Washington 

Street

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.34 Miles $600000 $1193358.3

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,200 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207974 Huron 

Boulevard at 

Michigan Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$199680.2

4

$221866.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,277 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203479 RSA Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Study $14960 $18700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 725 55 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203481 Youngs 

Prairie Road

Roadway Superelevation / cross slope 0.3 Miles $80063.74 $110310.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,047 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203463 

Eisenhower at 

Plaza

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Locations $31562.17 $35069.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther25,800 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203464 Jackson 

Avenue

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.27 Miles $142307.2 $169184.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,440 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203465 State 

Street at Packard 

Street at Hill 

Street RSA

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Study $14960 $18700 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 19,000 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203466 Textile 

Road at 

Woodland Drive

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$473370.3 $627457 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,770 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203469 Harper 

Avenue (2)

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

3.32 Miles $600000 $653614.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 9,100 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 54

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

203467 Harper 

Avenue (1)

Roadway Roadway - other 3.14 Miles $600000 $653616.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,200 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

203471 Kercheval 

Avenue at Moross 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$149181.6 $194601.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,500 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

205916 Before 

and After Study

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Study $51300 $57000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 1 1 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

130885 Court 

Street and Averill 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$91277.2 $114096.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 10,500 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

130891 Davison 

Road and Averill 

Ave

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$93694.92 $117118.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 9,500 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

130902 Hemphill 

Road and 

Saginaw Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$135470.4 $169338 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 12,900 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

130959 Wise 

Road at Flat River 

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 0.43 Miles $310326 $346266.45 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,860 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207449 

Preliminary 

Engineering 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.4 Miles $21318 $42636 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 7,208 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207451 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.8 Miles $33215 $66430 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 9,902 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries

207421 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.5 Miles $12500 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,900 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

Fatalities 

and Serious 

Injuries
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 54

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 889 940 947 901 967 1,065 1,031 974 985

Serious Injuries 5,706 5,676 5,283 4,909 4,865 5,634 6,084 5,586 5,629

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.938 0.998 0.996 0.925 0.989 1.074 1.013 0.951 0.963

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.019 6.025 5.555 5.040 4.974 5.679 5.976 5.455 5.502

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

166 155 178 174 205 204 181 167 177

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

580 533 568 517 556 536 617 573 628
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 54

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 54

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 54

FARS data is used for the 2011 thru 2019 fatality data. All other data included in the report uses Michigan's 

Statewide Crash database for reporting (Emphasis Areas, Road Classification, Road Ownership, etc) 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

FARS data is used to calculate the 2021 performance targets and 2011 thru 2019 Fatality data. All other data 

included in the report uses Michigan's Statewide Crash database for reporting (Emphasis Areas, Road 

Classification, Road Ownership, etc) 

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

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

20.4 105.2 0.37 1.91

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

10.2 53.6 0.38 2.04

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

50 213.2 1.18 5.04

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 54

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 Arterial 90.6 441.4 1.33 6.46

Rural Minor Collector 13.8 72 1.52 8

Rural Major Collector 140.4 634.4 1.71 7.73

Rural Local Road or 

Street

74.8 426.4 3.18 18.19

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

74.8 398.4 0.42 2.25

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

29.8 177.8 0.47 2.78

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

216.4 1,233.6 1.23 7

Urban Minor Arterial 164.6 1,035.8 1.04 6.56

Urban Minor Collector 1.4 4.4 1.38 4.65

Urban Major Collector 51.8 300.6 1.62 5.93

Urban Local Road or 

Street

56.8 401.2 0.77 5.43
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 54

Year 2019

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

Non-Trunkline 

(County, City, Local 

Owned Roadways)

576.6 3,196.6 1.22 6.76

Trunkline (State 

Owned Roadways)

426.2 2,348.4 0.8 4.39

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Trunkline (State 

Owned Roadways)

Non-Trunkline 

(County, City, Local 

Owned Roadways)
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 54

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

In review of the 5-Year Rolling Average Statewide, state trunkline and local roadways, fatalities have seen an 

increase of 8.6 percent over the 5 year span. State trunkline fatalities had an overall increase of 6.7 percent 

while local roadway fatalities had an overall increase of 10.2 percent. 

Serious injuries statewide have seen an increase of 5.1 percent over the 5 year rolling average. State trunkline 

serious injuries had an overall increase of 7.4 percent while local roadway serious injuries had an overall 

increase of 3.6 percent. 

In regard to rates, the fatality and serious injury rates are lower on state trunkline than on local roadways. 

Overall, the fatality rate increased 3.5 percent while the serious injury rate decreased 0.04 percent. The state 

trunkline saw a 0.16 percent decrease in the fatality rate and a 0.67 percent serious injury rate increase. The 

local roadways saw a 6.6 percent fatality rate increase and a 0.12 percent serious injury rate decrease. 

For both statewide and state trunkline the fatality rate has been at or below 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled for 2011-2015 to 2015-2019. The local roadway fatality rate was at or below 1.22 during the 

entire analysis time period, while the state trunkine fatality rate was at or below 0.80 for the same time period.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:968.6

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

To determine a forecasted value for the five-year rolling average for the first four measures, the decision was 

made to use the change model created by UMTRI used for establishing previous targets. UMTRI predicts 886 

fatalities in CY 2020, and 967 in 2021. The change model predicts change in fatalities from the previous year 

based on several predictors. This log-change regression model is tied closely to whatever happened recently, 

so it cannot diverge very far from the current time unless we predict many years out into the future. In the 

future, the change model predicts a steady (slow) decrease in fatalities. The dataset is a set of differences from 

one year to the next within the state, expressed as a percentage of the previous year. Thus, the predictors can 

influence exposure and/or risk. The count model, however, directly predicts counts so it could diverge from 

observed by a lot if the patterns change in the real world. Based on known factors the count model shows a 

steady increase in fatalities through 2025. As this is not what is expected the change model was selected in 

developing the targets. This supports the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and guide 

investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public 

roadways.

Number of Serious Injuries:5533.6

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

The model predicts 4,960 serious injuries in CY 2020, and 5,409 in 2021. While serious injuries have fluctuated 

over the past several years, the linear relationship of the ratio of serious injuries and fatalities (A/K) going back 

to 2003 is still evident. However, this trend suggests a greater reduction in serious injuries than being 

observed. Therefore, a linear model using the last eight year of data was used which projects a flattening 

pattern. This supports the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and guide investment decisions to 

achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roadways.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 54

Fatality Rate:0.982

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2019, 2020 and 2021. VMT estimates for CY 2020 are reduced due 

to COVID-19. Using the fatal injury values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality 

rates are 1.040 for CY 2020, and 0.945 for CY 2021.This supports the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key 

safety needs and guide investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on public roadways.

Serious Injury Rate:5.609

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2019, 2020 and 2021. VMT estimates for CY 2020 are reduced due 

to COVID-19. Using the fatal injury values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality 

rates are 1.040 for CY 2020, and 0.945 for CY 2021. The annual serious injury rates of 5.822 for CY 2020, and 

5.287 for CY 2021.This supports the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and guide investment 

decisions to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roadways.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:771.2

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

Results from the UMTRI model as described (the fatality and serious injury relationship) were also used to 

generate non-motorized forecasted annual values of 714 for CY 2020, and 799 for CY 2021.This supports the 

SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and guide investment decisions to achieve significant 

reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roadways.

The annual forecasted values for CY 2020 and CY 2021 along with the actual values from CY 2017 to 2019 to 

determine the 2021 Targets (five-year rolling average) are shown in the table. In addition, actual values dating 

back to CY 2011 are included as part of the determination of the 2019 baseline condition.

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

safety performance targets. 

The Michigan DOT, the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), and the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) collaborated to establish the safety performance targets for 

Michigan. This collaboration included meetings with the analysis team along with input from MPO's and FHWA. 

The OSHP is a division under the Michigan State Police. The Director of OHSP serves as the chair to the 

Governor's Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) in Michigan.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

N/A

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 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.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 1023.2 1004.4

Number of Serious Injuries 5406.8 5559.6
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 54

Fatality Rate 1.020 0.998

Serious Injury Rate 5.410 5.518

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

759.8 768.8

Based on the Targets vs. actual, Michigan will preliminary meet 2 out of 5 performance targets for FY 2019.

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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

160 126 133 172 155 159 159

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

413 434 393 506 558 509 574

Data has been updated with 2019 crash data information based on the State of Michigan Crash database.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 54

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Other-Decrease of both fatal and serious injuries on a five-year rolling average 

MDOT acknowledges the increasing trend of fatalities and serious injuries that are occurring on our roadway 

network. MDOT is focusing on projects that affect the roadway networks in large areas including pavement 

markings, delineation, and other systemic treatments like rumble strips and fixed object removal. 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

MDOT plans on conducting a Trunkline before and after study evaluation for years 2012, 2013, and 2014 in the 

next fiscal year. Any future before and after study will utilize the data-driven approach to safety decisions 

focusing on the Towards Zero Deaths initiative. 

A non-trunkline evaluation will also be conducted in the next fiscal year for FY 2014. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• Increased focus on local road safety 

• Other-Before and After Studies 

• Other-Additional Systemic Treatments based on crash data 

N/A 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

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 Cross median, 

fixed object, side 

swipe, head-on, 

run off road

434.2 1,975.8 0.43 1.96

Intersections Intersections 295.4 2,081.6 0.3 2.06

Older Drivers All 220 1,012.4 0.22 1
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 54

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)

Motorcyclists All 136 651.4 0.13 0.65

Work Zones All 18.2 73 0.02 0.07

Pedestrians and 

Bicylsits

All 187.4 582 0.19 0.58

Commercial Vehicles All 103.6 336.4 0.1 0.33

Impaired Drivers All 275.4 1,784.2 0.27 1.77

Younger Drivers All 424.2 1,218.2 0.42 1.21
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 54

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 54

Project Effectiveness 

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

N/A 

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

In 2019 MDOT implemented a new signing standard SIGN-145 for 2 way and all way stop controls. 

https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=30b16e2f-7295-4b3e-8ef3-0aa643b61977&fileName=SIGN-145-A.pdf 

MDOT hosted a mini-roundabout training in 2019 with FHWA for MDOT and Local agencies of Michigan. 

In FY 2018 and 2019 installed sinusoidal mumble strips as a pilot project. Analysis of the functionality of the effectiveness of the installation will be conducted during FY 2019 and 2020. Rumble strips are proving to be a cost-effective 

countermeasure to lane-departure crashes on Michigan’s state highways. A final analysis will be completed in FY 2020.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 54

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/07/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2019 To: 2022

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

 2022

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/SHSP_2019-2022_22_web_no_draft_678858_7.pdf

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 15

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 54

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

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

80 95

Access Control (22) 

[23]

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

95 10

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 80 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 95

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 95

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 95

AADT Year (80) [82]

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 54

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

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

98 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

98 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 81.94 70.83 50.00 49.38 81.45 100.00 66.67 35.00 40.00 40.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

The table has been updated to reflect the most current completion percentages. 

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. 

MDOT is still continuing to collect the MIRE FDE data using the Roadsoft program updated by Michigan Technological University through 2022 and beyond.
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 54

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

MDOT Safety Programs Manual July 2020.pdf

HSIP Manual Trunkline September 2020.pdf

Local Agency HSIP Manual_August 2019.pdf

FY 2019 Highway Call for Projects.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

FY 2013 Before-After Study_Local Safety.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 54

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.