Page 1 of 56

MICHIGAN
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 56

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 17

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 17

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

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 27

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 27

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 40

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 42

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 44

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 44

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 50
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 56

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 56

Executive Summary

The 2017 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the one year 

time period of FY 2016 which commenced on October 1, 2015 and ended on September 30, 2016. This report 

addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 56

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? 

 Design

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

The HSIP program is managed out of the MDOT Central Office in the Bureau of Highway Development --

>Design Division --> Design Programs Section--> Safety Programs, Pavement Markings and 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

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

Page 6 of 56

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

owned roadways. There is also a set aside amount directly for pavement markings.

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

Michigan, while the Statewide Trunkline Call for Projects has certain funding targets for each of the 7 Regions, 

calculated based on lane miles, volumes, and Fatality and Serious injuries.

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. 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 June 12, 2014 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 2016 CFP 

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

reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Per the CFP, the Local Agency was to provide a Time of Return (TOR) 

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

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

available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2016 projects, 2009 to 2013 (or the current 

availability) crash data was used.

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

or elimination of guardrail, removal of fixed objects from clear zones, traffic and pedestrian signal optimization, 

installation and upgrades, access management, horizontal and vertical curve modifications, sight distance and 

drainage improvements, bridge railing replacement or retrofit, roadway intersection improvements to improve 
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 56

safety, mid-block pedestrian crossings, improvements to school zones, shoulder and centerline rumble strips, and 

improved permanent signing and pavement markings.

For the FY 2016 CFP, a greater emphasis is placed on the identification of correctable fatalities and serious 

injuries, both in the selection and prioritization of safety projects. In addition, in FY 2016, a small portion of 

the local safety funds were allocated to five subprograms: Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips ($200 K), 

Guardrail Upgrades and Clear Zone Improvements ($1.5 M), High Friction Surface Treatment ($100 K), Road 

Safety Audits ($50 K) and Non-motorized Facility/Pedestrian Improvements ($100 K). Local agencies were 

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

conforming projects.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Other-Local Agency Programs 

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

N/A

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, Transparency (5%) Report, and Pavement Friction Analysis to the 

Region and TSC staff for their use in project selection. Road Safety Audits and 3R/4R Safety Reviews are 

conducted with various internal partners located with the Central, Region, and TSC offices. In addition, the 

Safety Programs Unit supports the Regions and TSC's with special data requests in the development of their 

safety program.

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-County Road Association of Michigan 

Other-Office of Highway Safety Planning
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 56

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

N/A

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.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

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

Traffic and Safety (Central Office). For FY 2016, $19M in safety funding was available, of which 

$15.6M was allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as funding targets. The allocations were based on the 

percentage of fatalities and serious injuries, lane miles and Vehicle Miles Traveled in each Region. The goal 

is that all Regions receive a minimum of 5 percent of the Safety Target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

safety funding.

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

staff, each Region was given $200K for low-cost safety improvement to be chosen at the discretion of the

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

can be performed in a timely manner by state forces or contract agencies. Individual Safety Work

Authorizations (SWA) are the most cost effective method of funding these types of improvements and can be

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

improvements meeting funding criteria.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 56

Once the FY 2016 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 2016, the use of HSIP funding continued in the administration of the pavement marking program. Under

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

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

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

of pavement markings in the Annual Pavement Marking Program.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

Michigan currently does not have an up to date HSIP manual. Attached you will find the FY 2016 Call for 

Projects Letter for both the Trunkline and non-Trunkline roadways that outlines our Call for Projects process 

and submittal requirements.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Other-Pavement Markings 

Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects

Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

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

N/A

Program: Other-Pavement Markings 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 56

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

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?

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

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).

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

N/A

Program: Other-Highway Safety Call for 

Projects 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/15/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 56

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

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? [Check all that apply]

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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?

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 3

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

See the attached FY 2016 Highway Safety Call for Projects letter that outlines the project selection process and 

requirements.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 56

Program: Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/12/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 56

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 : 3

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 10

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments

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

Continuing in the Call for FY 2016 was the opportunity for each Region to allocate up to 10 percent of their 

funding target for low cost systemic safety improvements. The focus was on system wide safety improvements 

done by work authorization or through the letting process. A Time of Return justification was not required if the 

proposed improvement is selected from the list of approved safety system wide fixes (see attached).

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other-High Crash List

Other-Transparency Report 

Other-Fatality and Serious Injury Region-wide Maps 
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 56

Other-3R/4R Safety Reviews 

Other-Pavement Friction Analysis 

Other-Customer Concerns 

Other-Local Safety Initiative 

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

N/A

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

technologies is funded via a separate funding source out of the MDOT ITS Programs Office. 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. Since then, a build of the software has been provided throughout MDOT and is available for use. 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-off-Road, 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.

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

period?

No
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 56

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

Yes

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

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

MDOT Regions from the Safety Template Program Manager. The FY 2016 Safety Call request was made to the 

Regions on September 15, 2011. In response to the CFP, the Regions identify locations where safety 

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

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

Transparency Report, Fatality and Serious Injury Regionwide Maps, High Crash List, 3R/4R Safety Reviews, 

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

conducted by the Region to determine the appropriate safety improvement. The emphasis of the Safety Call was 

to address those locations with correctable fatality and serious injury crashes to support the department’s efforts 

of reducing fatalities and serious injuries and support the vision of Toward Zero Deaths (TZD). Emphasis was 

directed toward implementation of countermeasures to deter wrong way movements onto freeways. If the TOR 

criteria could not be met as outlined below for the WWM countermeasures, the Regions were allowed to use the 

10 percent allocation for systemic treatments.

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 improvement. A minimum of the latest three years of 

available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2016 project, in which 2009 to 2011 (or most 

current data available) crash data was used, the following three TOR criteria were established:

Stand alone safety improvement - TOR of 7 years or less

Stand alone safety improvement for location on the current Transparency Report - TOR of 10 years or less.

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

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

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

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

develop project rankings (lowest to highest TOR value) within each Region and the TOR values for projects 

beyond funding targets to allocate the $2 M funds statewide. For FY 2016, 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 2016 improvement projects. The RSA should 

be done prior to 30 percent completion of the plans.The purpose of the audit is to ensure the appropriate safety 

fixes are incorporated into the overall design based on crash patterns within the project limits. Continuing in FY 

2016 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 systemwide safety improvements done by work authorization or through the letting process. A TOR 

justification is not required if the proposed improvement is selected from the list of approved and proven safety 

systemwide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost Safety Improvement Projects-see attachment). For FY 

2014 through FY 2017, the percentage is 10 percent. For FY 2018 through 2020 this percentage was increased 

to 25 percent. New for FY 2020 is the allocation of $1 million toward additional low cost safety improvements 

for regions meeting or exceeding their target amount in project proposals. To accommodate this change, the $2 
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 56

million of discretionary funding as described above has been reduced from $2 million to $1 million. For FY 

2021, FY 2022, and FY 2023 the percentage submitted shall be a minimum of 25 percent up to a maximum of 

50 percent.

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

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

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

provided. Starting for FY 2020 and continuing for FY 2021, FY 2022, and FY 2023 all submitted concepts must 

address two or more fatal and/or serious injury crashes.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 56

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $50,486,815 $48,970,167 97%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$837,425 $763,756 91.2%

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)

$3,197,690 $3,191,531 99.81%

State and Local Funds $3,516,332 $2,728,313 77.59%

Totals $58,038,262 $55,653,767 95.89%

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

N/A

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

$15,535,004

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

$14,954,373

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

N/A

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

Page 18 of 56

$1,379,127

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

$1,379,127

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

N/A

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

N/A

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

None to discuss.

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

Yes

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 2 percent of the programmed and 2 percent of the obligated funds for the State 

trunkline system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as Road Safety Audits, SHSP activities, 

community safety outreach, educational efforts, and data collection.

On the Local Agency side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. Overall, 36 percent of the

total programmed and 36 percent of the total obligated funds were directed to local safety projects.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 56

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Nicholson Hill Road 

and Spruce Road

Roadside Barrier- metal 0.3 Miles $144000 $167324.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

850 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Ely Road at Fewins 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

1 Intersections $17188.86 $21486.07 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Various routes Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

25.6 Miles $490500 $524784 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Jenne Street Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.25 Miles $403916 $697102 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,713 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Linden Road Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

8 Intersections $333080 $516489 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

19,320 45 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Miller Road Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

9 Intersections $351500 $480052 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,637 45 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Grand Blanc Road Roadway Install / remove / modify 

passing zone

0.6 Miles $364300 $465266.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,658 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Neff Road at Frances 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

1 Intersections $18957.51 $21063.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

2,145 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Elms Road and 

Jennings Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

2 Intersections $42759.38 $53449.23 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,121 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Fenton Road, Linden 

Road, Thompson 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

advance intersection warning 

sign-mounted

3 Intersections $55356.83 $69196.04 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,541 45 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Fenton Road at 

Hemphill Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $58028.39 $72535.49 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

38,049 35 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Bard Road at Kerswill 

Road

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $342645.18 $428306.48 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,300 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

State Road Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

5.52 Miles $2250 $4500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,067 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Keefer Highway Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

4 Miles $460800 $548555.72 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,770 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Drake Road Railroad grade 

crossings

Widen crossing for additional 

lane

1 Locations $20424.29 $25530.36 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,898 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

South Westnedge 

Road at Romence 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $279000 $325467.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,900 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Stadium Drive Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1 Miles $600000 $748541.4 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,648 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

44th Street at Breton 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

additional signal heads

1 Intersections $86743.2 $111429 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

28,000 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

44th Street at 

Kalamazoo Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $120000 $166459.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

30,100 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Fulton Street at 

Market Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $119360 $196012.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

19,819 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

52nd Street at 

Eastern Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $232965 $250862 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,202 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Shaffer Avenue at 

32nd Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $193852 $239355 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,451 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Cedar Springs 

Avenue at Egner 

Street

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.14 Miles $168098.4 $186776 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,460 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Division Avenue Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

0.98 Miles $600000 $931261.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,672 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Millville Road Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.67 Miles $576966.4 $877337.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,728 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Otter Lake Road at

North Lake Road

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $483500 $637482.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

2,132 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Chilson Road at 

Coon Lake Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $496000 $781000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Second and Third 

Street Connector

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $496000 $678050.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,000 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

3 curves: SylvaniaPetersburg, 

Deerfield,Swan

Creek

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3 Curves $297000 $312005.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,160 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Seventh Street Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.5 Miles $240000 $311512 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,250 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Curves on Primaries -

Countywide

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

44 Locations $61490.3 $68322.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Kendaville Road Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

1 Curves $187572 $220910.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,030 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Signs at Local Paved 

Intersections NW Half 

of County

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

392 Signs $59724 $67726.24 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Henry Street Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.4 Miles $78888.64 $140910 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,722 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Greenwich Road Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - install new 

at non-intersection location

0.5 Miles $96800 $96800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

580 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Maple Road at 

Haggerty Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $176000 $226475 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

19,727 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Miller Road at 

Galbraith Road

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $52800 $68504 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Meridian Line Road Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.31 Miles $319200 $400255.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

St Helen Road North Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

2.84 Miles $264724.2 $298613.36 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,305 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

North Street Roadside Drainage improvements 0.1 Miles $229000 $229000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Local Road 

or Street

900 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Angevine Road Roadside Barrier - other 0.3 Miles $155600 $215985.61 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

713 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

15 various primary 

and local roads 

countywide

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

40.64 Miles $541800 $581795 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Geddes Road Roadside Barrier - other 0.18 Miles $73780 $92225 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,800 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

West Stadium 

Boulevard

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs -

add/modify flashers

3 Locations $27360 $46925.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,600 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Countywide Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

backplates with retroreflective 

borders

67 Intersections $0 $0 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and

As

Guardrail upgrades Roadside Barrier- metal 9 Locations $184507.2 $267766.04 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

2,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Willis Road Roadway Roadway - other 0.45 Miles $0 $0 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,580 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Conant Street Roadway Roadway - other 2.96 Miles $478880 $498877 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,036 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Linwood Street Roadway Roadway - other 3.66 Miles $600000 $701375 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,080 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Livernois Avenue Roadway Roadway - other 2.34 Miles $468000 $488380 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,316 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Livernois Avenue and 

Dragoon Street

Roadway Roadway - other 2.48 Miles $513000 $532306 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

23,770 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Safety Program 

Report, Before and 

After Study

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 131 Locations $44999.53 $49999.48 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data Reduce Fs and 

As

I-75/US-127/M-32 

Countywide Install 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Numbers $0 $364520 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Statewide Develop 

Local Road Safety 

Plans Statewide.

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 14 Locations $550000 $550000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Statewide RSA 

Training

Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

2 Locations $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Statewide Safety 

Summit Local Agency 

Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

13 Numbers $25000 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Workforce 

Developement

Statewide SHRP 2 

Speed Study Phase 2

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $0 $600000 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Statewide Develop 

Data-Driven Safety 

Analysis Guidance

Non-infrastructure Training and workforce 

development

1 Numbers $0 $47000 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Bay 

Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $7785 $7785 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Bay 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5187 Miles $2826827.19 $2826827.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Bay 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings -

Special Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2040 Locations $609658.91 $609658.91 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Grand 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4812 Miles $3066657.41 $3066657.41 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Grand 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings -

Special Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1097 Locations $449566.35 $449566.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Grand 

Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $10999 $10999 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Metro 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2682 Miles $2638480.02 $2638480.02 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Metro 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings -

Special Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2945 Locations $942588.74 $942588.74 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Metro 

Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Locations $7491 $7491 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide North 

Region Permanent 

Pavement Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5132 Miles $1975196.29 $1975196.29 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide North 

Region Permanent 

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1090 Locations $348258.08 $348258.08 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Pavement Markings -

Special Markings

Region Wide North 

Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $15742 $15742 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Southwest Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

3239 Miles $1933505.82 $1933505.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Southwest Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings - Special 

Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1812 Locations $289291.22 $289291.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Southwest Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Locations $13492 $13492 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Superior Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4895 Miles $1876385.69 $1876385.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Superior Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Locations $14257 $14257 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Superior Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings - Special 

Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1067 Locations $502690.25 $502690.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Regionwide 

University Region 

Retroreflectivity 

Measurements, 

Spring Condition

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $7361 $7361 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

University Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4276 Miles $2439262.69 $2439262.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

University Region 

Permanent Pavement 

Markings - Special 

Markings

Intersection traffic 

control

Pavement markings -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2322 Locations $698034.72 $698034.72 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

I-75 at Bristol Road 

Install Roundabout

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $1666059.2 $1666059.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

M-24 at Dockham 

Road Install Center 

Left Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $747015.99 $747015.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

12,016 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

M-46 at River Road 

Traffic Signal 

Modernization

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $0 $376559.24 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,551 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

M-21 at Hudson 

Street Install Right 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $299978.37 $299978.37 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,260 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

M-46 East of US-131 

NB off-ramp to east 

of Edgar Road Install 

Center Left Turn 

Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.96 Miles $1957252.2 $1957252.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,394 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce Fs and 

As

Shoreline Drive at 

Terrace, 3rd, 4th, and 

7th. Upgrade 

Pedestrian Signals

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

4 Intersections $19000 $19000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,083 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

M-82 at Stewart 

Avenue Install Right 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $41000 $41000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

10,780 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Grand 

Region TZD 

Systemic 

Improvements

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $0 $190847.23 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

M-24 at Harmon 

Road Traffic Signal 

Modernization/Extend 

Left Turn Lane

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $1104688.28 $1104688.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

54,208 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce Fs and 

As

I-75 at Gardenia 

Install High Friction 

Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1 Intersections $242563.81 $242563.81 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

170,730 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Metro 

Region Install 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $0 $129139.23 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

I-75 NB I-75 

approaching 

Ambassador Bridge 

Installation of Wrong 

Way and Flashing 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Approaches $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

102,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

M-68 from Viehl 

Road to Upper Black 

River Install Center 

Left Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.74 Miles $2313636 $2313636 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,138 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

M-113 at Clark Road 

Install Right Turn 

Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $0 $232941.37 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,381 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

M-66 M-72 to 

Missaukee Co. Line 

Improve Shoulders

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 14.04 Miles $0 $125480.76 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,158 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

M-32 at Manier Road 

Install High Friction 

Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1 Intersections $84872.03 $84872.03 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,193 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

I-75/US-127 Gaylord 

TSC TZD Systemic 

Improvements

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $85909.69 $85909.69 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

M-115 at 13th Street 

Traffic Signal 

Modernization

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

1 Lanes $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,972 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

US-12 at Old M-205 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $0 $2840690 Other Federalaid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,071 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

M-60 Cass County 

Install Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $110936.23 $110936.23 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Four 

Locations along I-94 

and US-131 Install 

High Friction Surface

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

4 Ramps $0 $763333.13 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

I-196 Berrien and 

Van Buren Counties 

Emergency Route 

Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

19.14 Miles $89810.76 $89810.76 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

I-94 EB from MM 

43.0 to MM 45.3 Tree 

Removal and 

Intersection Sight 

Improvements

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

2.54 Miles $0 $206621.32 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

US-41 at US-41/M28 Install 

Roundabout

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $2905865.85 $2905865.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,037 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

Superior Region TZD 

Systemic 

Improvements

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $0 $371743.52 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

US-2 / M-28 

Superior Region 

Install Mile Marker 

Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Locations $95500 $95500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

I-94 Jackson County 

Install Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $0 $103448.23 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

University Region 

TZD Systemic 

Improvements 

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1 Locations $0 $99750 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide 

University Region 

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

1 Locations $0 $26681 State and Local 

Funds

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 56

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Remove Roadside 

Obstacles

M-52 at Werkner 

Install Roundabout

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersections $1438590.97 $1438590.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,970 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

I-94 BL west of 

Ingalls Street Install 

Pedestrian Midblock 

Crossing Signing

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 1 Crosswalks $0 $2500 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,438 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

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

Page 27 of 56

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 980 873 937 889 936 951 876 963 1,064

Serious Injuries 6,725 6,520 5,980 5,706 5,676 5,283 4,909 4,865 5,634

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.970 0.910 0.960 0.940 0.990 1.000 0.900 0.980 1.090

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.660 6.800 6.120 6.020 6.020 5.550 5.040 4.970 5.760

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

140 145 163 166 157 179 170 208 206

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

647 652 586 580 533 568 517 556 536
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 29 of 56

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 30 of 56

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

2016 VMT was not available at the time of this report, so 2015 data was used in 2016 rates.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

N/A

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

21 128 0.41 2.55

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

10 55 0.4 2.28

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

47 199 1.18 4.98

Rural Minor Arterial 92 425 1.4 6.51

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

780

800

820

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 31 of 56

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 15 70 1.53 7.08

Rural Major Collector 135 616 1.72 7.83

Rural Local Road or Street 84 430 3.45 17.67

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

79 381 0.47 2.27

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

28 163 0.45 2.69

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

198 1,162 1.16 6.81

Urban Minor Arterial 154 970 1.01 6.34

Urban Minor Collector 0 1 0.54 3.86

Urban Major Collector 45 275 0.95 5.8

Urban Local Road or Street 50 361 0.69 5.02
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 56

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of 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

Non-Trunkline (County, 

City, Local Owned 

Roadways)

551 3,055 1.2 6.68

Trunkline (State owned 

Roadways)

406 2,201 0.8 4.34
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 56

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 56

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 56

0

5

10

15

20

25

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 56

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State owned Roadways)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 56

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State owned Roadways)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 56

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State owned Roadways)

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 56

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

2016 VMT was not available at the time of this report, so 2015 data was used in 2016 rates.

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

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

an increase of 4% over the rolling average. State trunkline fatalities had an overall increase of 3% while local 

roadway fatalities had an overall increase of 4%.

Serious injuries statewide have seen a decrease of 16% over the 5 year rolling average. State trunkline serious 

injuries had an overall decrease of 11% while local roadway serious injuries had an overall decrease of 20%.

In regards to rates while the fatality and serious injury rates are lower on state trunkline the percent decrease 

over the analysis time period is consistent between the two roadway networks. For both statewide and state 

trunkline the fatality rate has been below 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled since 2008-2012. 

The local roadways fatality rate has been below 1.20 during the entire analysis time period.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State owned Roadways)

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 56

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1003.2 

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

In determining the fatal five year rolling average target values were proposed for 

calendar year (CY) 2017 and 2018 using models developed by the Michigan 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI). MDOT’s model evaluated the impact of Oil and Dow 

Jones Industrial (DJI) futures on fatalities while UMTRI, through the research on the 

Identification of Factors Contributing to the Decline of Traffic Fatalities in the United 

States (NCHRP 17-67), found a strong correlation with VMY, GDP per capita, median 

annual income, and the unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year old’s. The result is a 

prediction of 1,058 and 1,030 fatalities in 2017 and 2018 respectfully. 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 

roads. 

Number of Serious Injuries 5136.4 

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

In the UMTRI analysis a strong linear relationship of the ratio of serious injuries and 

fatalities (A/K) was found. In response to the above noted MDOT model not being as 

strong with the economic indicators for serious injuries, UMTRI’s A/K relationship 

was used to predict 5,243 and 5,031 serious injuries in 2017 and 2018 respectfully. 

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 roads. 

Fatality Rate 1.02 

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

The VMT value for 2016 has been estimated along with VMT values predicted for 

2017 and 2018. Using the fatality yearly values, as noted above, along with the 

VMT’s, the annual respective rates have been calculated and used to determine the 

2017 and 2018 values, respectively. 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 roads. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.23 

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

The VMT value for 2016 has been estimated along with VMT values predicted for 
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 56

2017 and 2018. Using the serious injury yearly values, as noted above, along with the 

VMT’s, the annual respective rates have been calculated and used to determine the 

2017 and 2018 values, respectively. 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 roads. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 743.6 

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

The relationship of non motorized fatalities and serious injuries with the economic 

indicators was not as strong as hoped. MDOT’s best estimates were lower than what 

has been previously experienced through the end of April with values up by 45 

percent. Therefore, the A/K relationship, as noted above, was used resulting in a 

prediction of 782 and 752 non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries in 2017 and 

2018 respectfully. 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 roads. 

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

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

network. Please see the attached summary document regarding the Safety Performance Measures.

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

targets. 

MDOT, OHSP, and 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.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

N/A

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Page 43 of 56

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

125 137 125 138 160 126 133

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

462 444 381 418 413 434 393

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

N/A

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 56

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

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

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

level evaluations.

Attached please see the Local Agency Programs Before and After study summary that was recently conducted.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

Other-Before and After Studies

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

N/A

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 446 1,972 0.46 2.05
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 56

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Intersections 259 1,849 0.27 1.92

Pedestrians and Bicyclists 184 542 0.19 0.56
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 56

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 47 of 56

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

N/A

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Lane Departure Intersections Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 48 of 56

No

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

N/A
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 56

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A

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

N/A

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

Yes

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

MDOT’s implementation of the Systemic Approach to Safety has impacted the citizens throughout Michigan by helping improving the safety on the state trunkline network. By continuing this efforts through construction projects this 

proactive approach to safety will assist in the State of Michigan’s efforts of saving lives and minimizing injuries moving toward the ultimate goal of Zero Deaths.

As reported in previous HSIP Reports the department undertook two system wide initiatives in FY 2008: freeway median barrier and non-freeway rumble strips. Both initiatives address lane departure, which is part of one of the 12 focus 

areas in the SHSP. Lane departure related crashes accounted for at least 455 fatalities statewide in 2015 (47 percent of all fatalities). A primary objective for this focus area is to identify cost effective strategies that help reduce unintentional 

lane departures, as well as alert the driver should a lane departure occur. The secondary objective is to assist the driver in returning to the travel lane safely and minimize departure consequences by creating roadside clear zones.

Rumble strips are proving to be a cost-effective countermeasure to lane-departure crashes on Michigan’s state highways. MDOT is reaching out to local agencies to increase their understanding of the benefits of rumble strips and to 

encourage interest in installing them on county, city and township roads either systemwide or at specific sites. To support this effort, MDOT has developed concise, user-friendly design and installation guidelines for use by local agencies.

MDOT has fully embraced implementation of TZD as a safety program in and of itself and has developed several related action plans. Each of the 7 Regions have developed TZD implementation plans focusing on the highest concentration 

of crash types including, lane departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicylce. The Traffic & Safety Section created and is actively tracking a TZD Strategic Plan for the purpose of increasing “awareness of MDOT’s TZD efforts within the 

State of Michigan by 1) identifying effective strategies to distribute the TZD logo and create logo recognition, and 2) gaining TZD partnerships. This Strategic Plan is designed to capture a widespread audience including: MDOT Employees 

and State agencies/employees, Local Agencies (County, City, Village, Township, etc.), private organizations, and the general public.”

Communication is a key aspect of implementing TZD and in addition to the Region TZD plans, MDOT has developed a number of tools and resources. A sample of the TZD-focused resources include a website, rest area posters, internal 

and external newsletter articles, crash statistics postcard, safety fact sheet with actionable items for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and drivers and a safety programs brochure. MDOT also communicates the year-to-date fatalities 

across a number of different media including a weekly email listserv, messaging on our digital messaging signs and social media outlets. This effort has let to numerous related news stories by media outlets across the state. 

www.michigan.gov/ZeroDeaths
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 56

Compliance Assessment

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

 03/15/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2018

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

 2018

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

Here is the link to Michigan's current SHSP.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/SHSP_2013_08_web_412992_7.pdf

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 56

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 80 95

Access Control (22) 0 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

95 10

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0 80 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 95 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 56

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 98 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 98 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

76.39 70.83 50.00 49.38 90.55 100.00 66.67 33.33 40.00 40.00

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

N/A

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.

During 2017, MDOT will lead two separate efforts to identify MIRE FDE data gaps, identify method and process for collecting missing data, and ensured the data is stored in a format that makes it accessible to all data users. The two 

efforts are:

a) Data availability - MDOT has budgeted $20 K in the SPR program to provide outreach and surveys to Local Transportation Agencies to assess the data collection resources available to those agencies. The purpose is to determine what 

MIRE FDE information might have already been collected by Local Agencies, and in what format.

b) Data handling - MDOT is proceeding now to ensure that missing MIRE FDE, when they do become available in the future, can be input into newly-created fields in the existing software used by MDOT and Local Agencies in Michigan. 

Through a $90 K traffic records grant from OHSP, MDOT has hired Michigan Technological University to upgrade the existing ROADSOFT software to accept these missing data elements.

The collection requirements for the 36 fundamental data elements are categorized by road functional classification, and then again by local vs state jurisdiction, resulting in 89 required data entries. MDOT staff believe they currently have 

access to these data elements as follows:

For State-owned roads:

• Minor arterial and higher classification

o Road segments: 100% data access for 15 of the 18 required FDEs, with partial access to the other three FDEs.

o Intersections: 100% data access to 6 of the 7 required FDEs, with 95% access to the remaining FDE.

o Interchange/ramp: 100% data access to 9 of the 11 required FDEs, with 98% access to the remaining two FDEs.

• Local paved roads - 100% access to all 9 required FDEs

• Unpaved roads - 100% access to all 5 required FDEs
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 56

For locally-owned roads:

• Minor arterial and higher classification -

o Road segments: 100% data access for 10 of the 18 required FDEs, with partial access to the other eight FDEs.

o Intersections: 100% data access to 6 of the 7 required FDEs, with no access to the remaining FDE.

• Local paved roads - 100% access to 6 of the 9 required FDEs, with no access to the remaining 3 FDEs

• Unpaved roads - 100% access to all 5 required FDEs, with the provision that MDOT first has to establish

As expected, MDOT currently has access to more information on MDOT owned roadways than on locally owned roadways. However, a $20 K survey will be conducted in 2017 by MDOT. MDOT will be surveying cities and counties on 

what additional data they currently have that they could share with MDOT regarding some of these required FDEs. However, funding is a potential issue in the collection effort. Although MDOT has not yet estimated what it will cost them 

to collect, handle and store the required FDEs, it should be noted that FHWA estimated a potential cost of $15 M for Michigan to achieve compliance. MDOT has not yet included any costs in their future budget projections, other than the 

$20K noted above for the survey.

Although MDOT has not yet estimated costs to comply with this MIRE FDE requirement, current staff is actively discussing the requirement, and exploring various concepts of how the data might be accessed. MDOT staff have identified 

at least three ways that some or all of the various data elements might be collected: data supplied by Local Agencies, estimation tools, and one-time field collection efforts. In addition, MDOT is in the initial discussion stages of how and 

where the MIRE FDEs will be stored to ensure they are accessible to all data users. In summary, MDOT is taking this requirement seriously, and is doing everything reasonable at this time to put itself on a path to compliance. Please see the 

attached Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Draft Action Plan that will help implement many of the above MIRE FDE requirements.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury No Suspected Serious Injury is any injury, 

other than fatal, that prevents the injured 

person from walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities which he or she 

was capable of performing prior to the 

motor vehicle traffic crash. 

No See attached definition sheet from the 

Michigan UD-10 manual. 

No

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury No Suspected Serious Injury is any injury, 

other than fatal, that prevents the injured 

person from walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities which he or she 

was capable of performing prior to the 

motor vehicle traffic crash. 

No See attached definition sheet from the 

Michigan UD-10 manual.

No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The current State of Michigan definition of serious injury is substantially compliant with the new MMUTCC attributes - Michigan attributes are very similar to MMUCC attributes. However, the Michigan State Police does have a process to 

re-define serious injury for 100% compliance, and that process is expected to be completed by January 1, 2019. No change will be required in the state’s crash report form (UD-10).

Attached please find the suspected serious injury definition and attributes from the Michigan UD-10 instructions manual.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 56

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

N/A

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

Yes

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

Please see attached report.
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 56

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

LAP Safety Call for Project FY 2016.pdf

FY 2016 Trunkline Safety CFP Section.pdf

Low Cost Eligibility Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

2018 Safety Performance Management Measures report.pdf

Evaluation:

Local Safety FY_2011__2012_Before-After_Study_572203_7.pdf

Compliance Assessment:

HSIP Program Review Final Report MAR142017.pdf

TRCC Stragetic Plan Attachment Safety draft 2017 - 2021.pdf

UD-10 Manual Serious Injury Definition.pdf
2017 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 56

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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