Minnesota

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: MN
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

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

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................... 9

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 19

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 19

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 34

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................35

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 37

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

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

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 43

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 46
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

Minnesota distributes HSIP funds based on the percentage of serious injuries and fatalities. This 

approach uses the Strategic Highway Safety Plan as a basis. Road Safety Plans for Minnesota districts 

and counties have further directed the focus of safety funds to lower-cost, systemic strategies. An 

update to the 8 Minnesota district plans was finished in this year. Currently, MnDOT is in collaboration 

with interested counties to update County Road Safety Plans—systemic plans for county roadways.

Definition of Terms:

MnDOT: Minnesota Department of Transportation

Greater Minnesota: Minnesota is split into 8 MnDOT districts. District 5 is the Metro District. All 

other districts when referred to as a collective, are called Greater Minnesota.

OTST: MnDOT's Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology. MnDOT's Central Office Safety Unit 

resides within OTST.

SALT: MnDOT's Office of State Aid for Local Transportation. This is the MnDOT office that works 

most directly with local agencies.

ATP: Area Transportation Partnership. Boundaries are synonymous with MnDOT district 

investment boundaries. The partnerships have, as their members metropolitan and nonmetropolitan stakeholders and can include Metropolitan planning organizations, Regional 

Development Commissions, cities, counties, townships, transit providers, tribal governments, 

other interests and MnDOT.

SFY: State Fiscal Year

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

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

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

latest solicitations, conducted in March 2015, distributed over $17M over four years (2016-2019) of 

local projects for HSIP Funds. OTST, with representatives from State-Aid, prioritizes the local HSIP 

projects for each ATP. Districts are given the opportunity to comment on the prioritization of projects. 

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

distributed as follows: 

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

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

The resulting “HSIP Goals” and local/state split of this fund are shown in the table attached to the 

Program Administration section. The file shows 2009-2011 crash data was used to distribute funds for 

SFY 2017 and beyond. 

The 2014 Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the main guidance for project selection and 

evaluation. The goal for this solicitation is that 70% of Greater Minnesota projects and 30% of Metro 

projects be systemic. Systemic projects make up 72% of all the projects awarded for Minnesota in 

2014. Historically, a subset of that program, local projects in Greater Minnesota, is comprised of 

approximately 95% systemic projects since 2007.

Additionally, Minnesota has funded a County Safety Plan for each of its 87 counties and 8 districts. These 

plans have been completed and are being implemented. They provide each county and district with a 

prioritized list of low-cost, systemic projects. The District safety plans were recently revised; a 

collaborative effort to update the County Safety Plans has begun with plans anticipated by 2018.

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

Other-MnDOT District Traffic Engineers
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Other-MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety & Technology

Other-MnDOT State Aid

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

MnDOT's office of Traffic, Safety and Technology (OTST) works closely with the State Aid for Local 

Transportation (SALT) office as well as district traffic engineers in the distribution of HSIP funds. 

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

HSIP. The offices work together to educate local agencies and district personnel on the HSIP program. 

Once projects are selected the state aid office coordinates with the local agencies and provides support 

as necessary. 

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

selection and award processes. District traffic engineers provide vital background information on 

proposed projects as well as adding the local perspective. Additionally, local partners are asked to 

provide some documentation that the district traffic engineer is aware of and supportive of their 

prospective project if it impacts MnDOT roadways.

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

which additional HSIP coordination occurs.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-City Engineer Safety Committee

Other-County Engineer Safety Committee

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

the last reporting period.

Other-Beginning with FY 2017, projects will be programmed in a more centralized project selection 

process as described in question 9.

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

would like to elaborate.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Beginning with projects programmed in SFY 2017, Minnesota has changed the way it 

administers state projects. Decisions are made at the central office level rather than 

the district level. Prior to SFY 2017 projects, only the local HSIP projects were 

selected by Central Office. District projects were approved by the district personnel 

in the past, but will now go through Central Office in a more formalized process.

The first solicitation, occurring in March 2015 was the first solicitation to utilize the 

new process. A current solicitation using this process due November 2016. This 

solicitation is looking to program both local and district projects through SFY 2020.

The local and district projects follow the same deadlines to allow for better project 

coordination between the two groups.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Other-MnDOT funds these 

countermeasures through HSIP.

Program: Other-MnDOT funds these countermeasures through HSIP.

Date of Program Methodology: 10/1/2007

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Median width

Horizontal curvature

Roadside features

Other-Road surface: In one 

particular county, gravel roads 

make up almost half of the 

system but fewer than 15 

percent of all severe crashes 

occur on these roads.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Severe Crash Rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Road Safety Plan 1

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

72%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Other-County and District Safety Plans

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

last reporting period.

Other-District Road Safety Plans completed.

Other-County Road Safety Plans Phase 2 are currently under revision.

Other-update Crash Records System

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

would like to elaborate. 

HSIP funds are distributed in three distinct solicitations: 

Met Council HSIP (Metro District and local projects)

Greater Minnesota Local HSIP (All State Aid eligible agencies in Greater Minnesota)

Greater Minnesota MnDOT District HSIP (All Greater Minnesota Districts)

All three solicitations utilize risk based analysis (Road Safety Plans) to select projects. The Greater 

Minnesota MnDOT District HSIP solicitation was revised starting with projects programmed in SFY 2017 

and beyond to more closely resemble the Greater Minnesota Local HSIP solicitation. This includes 

approval from Central Office Traffic and additional checks and balances to ensure proper funding 

categories are assigned to each project.

Lower cost, systemic treatments (lighting, signage, rumble strips and enhanced edgelines) are the focus 

of the Greater Minnesota projects. Any entity that is eligible for State Aid funds can apply directly to the 

Greater Minnesota Local HSIP solicitation. Cities and Tribal Governments that are not State Aid eligible 

must apply for HSIP funds through their county.

In the Metro District, systemic projects are funded as well as projects that address a spot location safety 

concern. Metro District projects and local metro projects compete side by side for the Metro HSIP funds 

in the Met Council solicitation.

Critical crash rates have been formally added to the Greater Minnesota District and Local solicitations as 

a tool for evaluating spot improvement projects.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

$18,829,233.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$1,950,914.00

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

$3,275,000.00

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

$2,655,000.00

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $28,674,907.00 76 % $7,792,511.00 53 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$8,915,000.00 24 % $7,024,402.00 47 %

Totals $37,589,907.00 100% $14,816,913.00 100%
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

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

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

An FHWA investigation into institutional issues in Minnesota and the low obligation rate highlighted 

potential areas of improvement. As a result, a new goal of 80% obligation rate has been established; 

MnDOT is committed to meeting or exceeding this goal.

Minnesota's HSIP program has consisted mainly of stand-alone safety projects. Each district is also 

required to spend an additional 2x HSIP on safety add-ons to other projects in their program. Some 

higher cost projects, such as roundabout, while eligible for HSIP funds, have normally been funded 

through other programs.

Regular engagement with locals is necessary to meet local obligations. In 2017, MnDOT is beginning a 

phase 2 update to the County Road Safety Plans with enhanced county buy-in and collaboration. While 

not all counties are participating in the update, a majority are interested in the project.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

N/A
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Catego

ry

Functional 

Classificati

on

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

0406-

62

Access management Access 

management - other

1 

Numbe

rs

20250

0

225000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

880C164CDB

I-16

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

25000

0

250000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Data

880C164CM

A-16

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

20000

0

200000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Data

880C164CRS

P-16

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

15 

Numbe

rs

90000

0

900000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Planning

880C164TSC

-16

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

1 

Numbe

rs

55000

0

550000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Safety 

Culture
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

8816-

2520

Non-infrastructure 

Outreach

5.5 

Numbe

rs

48500

0

485000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Safety 

Culture

8816-

2556

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

75000

0

750000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Noninfrastruct

ure

Data

8816-

2552

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

30000 30000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 Acceleratio

n Lane 

Utilization 

Rate Study

Data

1806-

74AC

Advanced technology and 

ITS Dynamic message signs

5 

Numbe

rs

26398 26398 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

7102-

132AC

Advanced technology and 

ITS Dynamic message signs

5 

Numbe

rs

90227 90227 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

3405-

42

Interchange design 

Interchange design - other

1 

Numbe

rs

44000

0

488889 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

019-

608-

001

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

80640

0

112000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

019-

611-

011; 

179-

020-

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane

1.4 

Miles

76950

0

855000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

040

1002-

100

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

acceleration lane

3 

Numbe

rs

15480

00

172000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

7321-

51S

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane

3.1 

Miles

71500

0

794444 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

018-

070-

011

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

2 

Numbe

rs

16200

0

180000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

086-

070-

010

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

45000

0

900000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

0905-

54

Intersection traffic control 

Intersection signing -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified

2 

Numbe

rs

27000

0

300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

150-

070-

001AC

Intersection traffic control 

Modify control -

modifications to 

roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

63000

0

700000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

004-

070-

013

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

28 

Numbe

rs

25200

0

280000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

057-

070-

005

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

3 

Numbe

rs

16200 18000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

8606-

61; 

086-

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 

Numbe

rs

80500

0

805000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

603-

021

Section 

164

8607-

59

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

2 

Numbe

rs

40500

0

450000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

8821-

268

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

8 

Numbe

rs

18000

0

200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

8816-

2505

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numbe

rs

50000 50000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

8816-

2506

Non-infrastructure 

Enforcement

1 

Numbe

rs

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

0206-

65

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

2 

Numbe

rs

12600

0

140000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

027-

030-

035

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian signal

43 

Numbe

rs

21299

8

317000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

141-

030-

023

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian warning signs -

overhead

12 

Numbe

rs

12096

00

134400

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

141-

030-

024

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian signal

40 

Numbe

rs

30688

0

341600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 City of 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

141-

030-

028; 

027-

030-

044

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian warning signs -

overhead

24 

Numbe

rs

23278

80

258653

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

161-

030-

001

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

Pedestrian signal

8 

Numbe

rs

69313

8

770153 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Pedestrian

s

1380-

85

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.4 

Miles

16200

00

180000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

2480-

106

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.2 

Miles

10000

00

100000

0

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

2713-

120

Roadside Barrier - concrete 3.4 

Miles

19911

60

221740

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

2762-

98

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.5 

Miles

13680

00

136800

0

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

8608-

30

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.3 

Miles

76860

0

854000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

8825-

551

Roadside Barrier - other 15.4 

Miles

20170

00

201700

0

Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

004-

070-

016

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

6.6 

Miles

20880

0

232000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

012-

070-

005; 

012-

606-

012

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

11 

Miles

54054

0

600600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

013-

030-

005

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

26.1 

Miles

23242

1

258246 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

024-

070-

017, 

024-

070-

018, 

024-

070-

019, 

024-

070-

020

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

26.8 

Miles

13900

50

154450

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

045-

070-

003

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

10.9 

Miles

35000

0

388889 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

054-

070-

003

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

24.5 

Miles

14760

0

164000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

056-

070-

019

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

40 

Numbe

rs

24471

5

271905 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

057-

070-

004AC

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

67.4 

Miles

23360

0

233600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

057-

070-

006

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

34.1 

Miles

10800

0

120000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

062-

609-

006; 

6284-

162

Roadway Roadway - other 1 

Numbe

rs

63000

0

172000

00

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

071-

070-

031, 

071-

070-

032

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

12 

Miles

16785

0

186500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

075-

070-

008; 

075-

601-

031

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

4.8 

Miles

17640

0

196000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

079-

070-

008

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

2.1 

Miles

15000

0

166666 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

8606-

62

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction surface

1.6 

Miles

45000

0

450000 Penalty 

Transfe

r –

Section 

164

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

8822-

185

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

55.9 

Miles

11514

7

127941 HSIP 

(Sectio

0 0 State 

Highway 

Lane 

Departure
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

n 148) Agency

8824-

117

Roadway Rumble strips -

unspecified or other

223.6 

Miles

48528

0

539200 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

002-

601-

047

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

5.9 

Miles

27291

6

303240 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

005-

070-

001

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

19.1 

Miles

14152

5

157250 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

018-

070-

012

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

41.2 

Miles

22500

0

250000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

025-

070-

009

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

6.6 

Miles

50490 56100 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

027-

030-

033

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

75.3 

Miles

81803

0

908922 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

030-

070-

007

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

27 

Miles

20425

5

226950 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

033-

070-

007

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

225.4 

Miles

15052

5

167250 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

034-

070-

007

Roadway delineation 

Raised pavement markers

65.4 

Miles

30949

8

343887 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

068-

070-

002

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

44 

Numbe

rs

14530

5

161450 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

069- Roadway delineation 7.2 37800 42000 HSIP 0 0 County Lane 
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

070-

018

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

Miles (Sectio

n 148)

Highway 

Agency

Departure

077-

070-

007

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

208.1 

Miles

15000

0

166667 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

080-

070-

005

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

49.6 

Miles

11907

8

132309 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

088-

070-

045

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

139.7 

Miles

85950

0

955000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

8826-

181

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

28.9 

Miles

47558

9

528432 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

017-

070-

001

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

32 

Numbe

rs

95040 105600 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

023-

070-

002

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

43 

Numbe

rs

49860 55400 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

056-

070-

020

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Curve-related 

warning signs and flashers

39 

Numbe

rs

18711

2

207902 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

070-

030-

007

Shoulder treatments Pave 

existing shoulders

22.7 

Miles

20520

00

228000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

083-

070-

007, 

083-

070-

008

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments -

other

10 

Miles

45450

0

320000

0

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

8827-

257

Shoulder treatments 

Shoulder treatments -

other

115.3 

Miles

47700

0

530000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of fatalities 433 410 396.4 384.4 384.4

Number of serious injuries 1382 1288.4 1221 1175.6 1162.8

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.758 0.718 0.696 0.674 0.67

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 2.42 2.262 2.146 2.064 2.026

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

20
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

21
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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

Year - 2014

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

12.8 27.2 0.3 0.67

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

64.6 123.2 0.87 1.73

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

62.6 126 1.23 2.63

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

25 57.2 1.76 4.31

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

63.8 156.6 1.56 3.81

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

30.6 81.6 1.16 3.18

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

15.4 82 0.18 0.97

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

5.6 40.4 0.16 1.15
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

23.2 31.8 0.51 0.7

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

52 113.6 0.63 1.4

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

13.8 221.4 0.56 8.6

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

13.4 82.2 0.3 1.83
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

26
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

27
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Year - 2015

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 186.2 435.4 0.56 1.31

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 146 447.8 1.05 3.21

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

19 49.2 1.61 4.16

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

30.2 224.2 0.33 2.46
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

32
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

In 2015, Minnesota experienced a total of 411 traffic fatalities: that is 50 more lives lost than last year. 

This is the highest number of fatalities since 2010, with 411 as well. The VMT based fatality rate for 2015 

is 0.70, among the lowest in the nation. This increase may signal a "leveling off" of Minnesota's previous 

success: we will be considering how to continue to drive down traffic deaths beyond the initial "low 

hanging fruit" strategies.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.098 0.096 1.67 1.666 1.662

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.146 0.14 0.132 0.126 0.126

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.246 0.236 0.218 0.208 0.204

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

See also attached Excel file with formulas and graphs.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Using revised Older User Guidance (May 19, 2016)

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

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

Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Minnesota is tracking the number of HSIP projects as an indicator of success. Each set of 

countermeasures will be studied for their effectiveness at reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. To 

date, large scale studies of 6-inch edgelines, reduced conflict interesections, and acceleration lanes are 

been studied. As more years of data are collected, Minnesota will conduct more studies.

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

Organizational Changes

Other-Revised Minnesota district safety plans.

Other-update Crash Records System

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

New office director for the Office of Traffic, Safety & Technology. District safety plans are now complete 

and ready for use in solicitation of HSIP funding. In conjunction with TRCC and Department of Public 

Safety, MnDOT committed a substantial investment in time and resources outside of HSIP to update the 

crash records reporting system. The partnership will provide improved data quality and help identify, 

program, and evaluate HSIP projects going forward.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2015

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 202.8 519.4

Intersections 130.8 495

Pedestrians 33.6 97.2

Bicyclists 6.6 47.4

Older Drivers 91.4 179.4

Motorcyclists 53 194.4

Work Zones 6.8 16.6
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Groups of similar project types
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP Unknown.

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

SKIP Changes to databases (linear referencing system, crash reporting) has made tracking these metrics suspect at this time.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

41
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

Minnesota is trying to balance out our investment between prevention and reduction. Projects focusing 

on prevention tend to be low-cost systemic projects touching a large number of miles with our HSIP 

dollars. Local HSIP projects in rural areas tend to fall under the prevention category. Reduction refers 

to the high crash locations that focus more dollars on fewer miles. Projects in the Metro area tend to be 

in the reduction category. These urban projects can balloon as associated improvements, e.g. ADA 

revisions and retiming, can be expensive.
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

Various 

Reduced 

Conflict 

Intersections 

(RCIs)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control -

other

4 2 31 22 59 15 30 45 1.20

MnDOT is revising our process for working with local agencies after a project has been funded. The previous process did not include a consistent 

feedback loop on reporting when a project is finished. We have developed a database for tracking installation and begun in 2016 outreach to our 

partners. As the database is populated, we will be able to consistently and efficiently evaluate similar projects on an annual basis.

An evaluation of auxiliary buffer lanes at interchanges was conducted. Comparison was treatment sites to similar control sites.

Fatal Crashes: 0 treatment | 0 control

Serious Injury Crashes: 0 treatment | 4 control

Total Crashes: 877 treatment | 2,186 control

Crash Rate: 0.87 treatment | 1.42 control
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

Evaluation at MnDOT has expanded to include non-infrastructure strategies. The SHSP highlights "Improving Traffic Safety Culture" as a priority 

focus area for Minnesota. In 2015, a report on Measuring Minnesota Traffic Culture was published that creates a baseline metric for future 

analysis. In this initial report, new analysis of networks highlights the importance of facilitating a highly connected coalition for TZD.

A similar study evaluating connections in the Towards Zero Deaths regions resulted in a survey for further analysis. Beta tests of the survey were 

successful; however, dissemination will require a longer timeframe than initially planned.

MnDOT has evaluated locations for risk factors. In 2015, a study of motorcycle crashes (attached) explored identification of these factors and 

potential systemic solutions. Interestingly, shallow rather than sharp curves were found to have a higher risk for fatal and serious injury 

motorcycle crashes. Over 51% of fatal and serious injury motorcycle crashes occurred in areas with populations below 5,000. When crashes 

involved more than one vehicle, the most salient combination was motorcyclist travelling straight while vehicle turning left. Outreach to 

motorcycle groups confirmed findings and supplied strategies for implementation.

A similar systemic evaluation of sinusoidal rumble strips ("mumble strips") was published on risk factors, guidance, and acceptability.

MnDOT now publishes traffic safety reports on our external website at www.mndot.gov/trafficeng/safety/reportspubl.html
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Program Structure: Program Administration HSIP Distribution.xlsx

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets: 

Application of Special Rules

Older Driver Metric (New Guidance).xlsm
2016 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Glossary

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system.

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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