Page 1 of 52

MINNESOTA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 52

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 11

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 23

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 23

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

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 38

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 40

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 41

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 47
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 52

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.” 
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 52

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

countermeasure evaluation. 

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

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

locations with higher risk before these severe crash occurs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

report repository is in development to support these efforts. 

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

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

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

to state agencies without derailing local grassroots safety organizing. 

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

these reductions have been less than previous years. While decreasing, this may suggest a plateau. 

Minnesota will continue to emphasize these successful elements of HSIP while looking for new opportunity to 

bend the curve.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 52

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

injury crashes.

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

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

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

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

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

MnDOT.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Formula via Districts/Regions

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 52

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

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

OTST) with representatives from State-Aid and MnDOT District Traffic Engineers, prioritize 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.

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

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

rather than countermeasures within larger projects are given priority.

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

in 2017.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

MnDOT's Office of Traffic Engineering (OTE)--formerly Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology--works closely 

with the State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) office as well as district traffic engineers in the distribution of 

HSIP funds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional HSIP coordination occurs.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 52

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

FHWA

Other-City Engineer Safety Committee

Other-County Engineer Safety Committee

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

HSIP solicitations within their respective boundaries before awards are published. Beginning in 2016, a traffic 

safety culture project in Park Rapids, MN has begun planning processes with local enforcement, public health, 

healthcare providers, emergency response, county commissioners, and chamber of commerce; these partners 

collaborate to develop local initiatives. Evaluation of this community/cultural approach are forthcoming.

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

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

workshops helping to direct action among local partners.

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?

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 52

HSIP (no subprograms) 

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2015 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume 

Lane miles 

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

Critical rate

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions 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
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 52

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 5 

Available funding : 5 

Cost Effectiveness : 5

Other-Treatment Effectiveness : 5

Other-Site Selection: planning or spot location : 5

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

MnDOT has been charged with improving transparency in the selection of state highway projects. As such, 

OTE has developed a preliminary rubric of points and weights to be implemented in the solicitation for HSIP 

funding in the Fall of 2018. While the program and practice of HSIP project selection will not change, the 

forthcoming policy will assign points to objective metrics to better explain this process.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 72 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Horizontal curve signs 

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

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

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 52

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

technologies in Minnesota; a minimal amount of Section 164 funds will help support safety investigations in 

these areas.

www.mndot.gov/automated/index.html

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

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prediction of total crashes.

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

period?

No

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

No
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 52

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.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $46,287,987 $13,861,134 29.95%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

Rule (23 U.S.C. $0 $0 0%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $10,322,055 $7,098,916 68.77%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $56,610,042 $20,960,050 37.03%

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

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

41% 

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

4% 

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

Minnesota divides HSIP funds between local and state highways based on prevalence of fatal and serious 

injury crashes. Due to late letting dates and current accounting practice, the majority of local projects are 

funded via Advanced Construction options which is not included in obligation amounts.

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

3% 
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 52

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

8% 

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$17,500,000 

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

Minnesota transferred half of apportionment from HSIP for federal fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to STP funds. In 

FFY 2017, $17.5 million was transferred; an additional $17.9 million will be transferred in FFY 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

consistently higher than bids.

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

between offices at the Department. New regular updates by programming office on programmed and let 

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

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

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

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

safety program.

Development of shelf/flex projects that can be escalated quickly to meet HSIP goals have been discussed with 

MnDOT Division and District leadership. MnDOT has obtained IDIQ SEP-14 approval to better meet 

obligations; projects have been identified that will use this process moving forward.

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

No
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 52

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

OTTER TAIL CO: 

(PHASE III) LANE 

DEPARTURE 

ENHANCED EDGE 

LINE MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S & 

CR'S

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

40.5 Miles $208914 $232126 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

OTTER TAIL CO: 

(PHASE IIIA) LANE 

DEPARTURE 

SHOULDER PAVING & 

RUMBLE STRIPS ON 

CURVES

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 60 Curves $254082 $282341 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 36/CSAH 2: 

RECLAMATION, 

GROUND-IN 

EDGELINE PVMT 

MARKINGS, STOP 

AHEAD/STOP BARS & 

AGG SHLDRING

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

27.7 Miles $91143 $189565 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 11: CSAH 2 TO 

CO LINE SHOULDER 

PAVING, EDGELINE, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

GUARDRAIL & 

RESURFACING

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

6.3 Miles $235845 $1628829 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 3: TH 60 TO TH 

63- SHOULDER PAVE, 

EDGELINE STRIPING, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 

BITUMINOUS 

RECLAMATION

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 5.8 Miles $316550.3 $1857384 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TODD COUNTYWIDE: 

ON VARIOUS TODD 

COUNTY RDWYSINSTALL 6" EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

168.5 Miles $133664.26 $168510 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TODD CO: INSTALL 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

36.8 Miles $189950.42 $211056 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

DOUGLAS 

COUNTYWIDE: AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT 

DOUGLAS COENHANCED 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

33 Intersections $70805 $78672 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 52

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

CSAH 16 AT CSAH 25, 

PRELIM 

ENGINEERING RURAL 

INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Intersections $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 16 AT CSAH 25 

INSTALL RURAL 

INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Intersections $88287 $98097 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

D-1 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION, 

MAINLINE DYNAMIC 

WARNING SYSTEMS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

8 Intersections $396000 $460026 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

ISANTI CO: INSTALL 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

MARKINGS, 6" 

EDGELINE MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

41.1 Miles $213228 $236920 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 3: SHOULDER 

PAVING & MILL AND 

OVERLAY

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 3.2 Miles $248400 $549776 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CROW WING CO: 

INSTALL 6" GROUNDIN WET REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

36.1 Miles $187513.69 $208349 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection lighting 6 Intersections $421000 $567690 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 5: FROM W CO 

LN (LAC QUI PARLE) 

TO US 212- MILL & 

STRIPING 6" 

EDGELINE EPOXY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

11.3 Miles $43092 $82824 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 5/9: SHLDR 

PAVING, SAFETY 

WEDGE & RUMBLES, 

BIT OVLY, CHEVRONS 

& INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 9.9 Miles $142840.56 $989473 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 19: SHOULDER 

PAVING, RUMBLE 

STRIPS, SHOULDER 

PAVING, BIT MILL & 

RECLAMATION

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 9 Miles $419000 $3382870 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

ITASCA CO: INSTALL 

6" CENTERLINE 

EPOXY STRIPING & 6" 

GROUND-IN WET 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

43.6 Miles $313200 $567151 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 52

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

REFLECTIVE 

EDGELINE STRIPING 

ST LOUIS CO: 

INSTALL CENTERLINE 

RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips - center 81 Miles $233044 $258938 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

ST LOUIS CO: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN 

WET REFLECTIVE 

EDGELINE MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

48.5 Miles $94858 $105398 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

KANDIYOHI CO: 

INSTALL (WETREFLECTIVE) 6" EDGE 

STRIPE HIGH BUILD

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

76 Miles $190415.86 $211573 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

LESUEUR CO: 

RUMBLE 

STRIPS/STRIPES, 

EDGELINE AND 

CENTERLINE PVMT 

MARKINGS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

106.1 Miles $551430 $633606 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

JACKSON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

IMPROVED CURVE 

DELINEATION AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT 

JACKSON COUNTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

61 Curves $153977 $171086 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

BLUE EARTH CO: 

CURVE & 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

(INCLS SIGNING, 

STRIPING & 

BITUMINOUS 

SHOULDERING)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

54 Locations $312783 $347537 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-6 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1057.2 Miles $1704617.91 $1894020 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

WET REFLECTIVE 

EDGELINE PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

LYON CO: 

SYSTEMATIC 

DURABLE (EPOXY) 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

35.3 Miles $228285 $253650 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-2 DISTRICTWIDE: IN 

VARIOUS COUNTIES 

ON MULTIPLE 

ROUTES, INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection lighting 21 Intersections $277650 $308500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-2 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" WIDE 

EDGELINE PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AT 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

536 Miles $319573.31 $419039 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT D-2

CSAH 46: AT CSAH 86, 

CONSTUCT 

ROUNDABOUT 

(SCOTT & RICE CO.)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $811540.43 $901712 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

MORRISON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL EDGELINE 

SINUSOIDAL RUMBLE 

STRIPS ON VARIOUS 

MORRISON CSAH 

ROUTES

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

20 Miles $241820.1 $268689 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

I-90: FROM SD STATE 

LN TO W OF 

WORTHINGTON, 

INSTALL HIGH 

TENSION CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 41 Miles $3482114.18 $3869016 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

MILLE LACS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN, 

WET REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS ON 

MULTIPLE COUNTY 

ROADS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

14.7 Miles $86644.44 $96272 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 23 AT LYON 

STREET - 

CONSTRUCT J-TURN 

& RESTRICTED LEFT 

TURN LN

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

2 Intersections $1440000 $1604250 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

WADENA CO: INSTALL 

6" EPOXY EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

112.1 Miles $238248 $329831 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

WADENA 

COUNTWIDE: INSTALL 

6" EPOXY EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS COUNTY 

ROADS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

112.3 Miles $113416 $331620 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

HENN CO/MPLS: 

GREEN 

THERMOPLASTIC 

BIKE LANES + WHITE 

DASHED POLYPREFORM AT 

INTERSECTION 

APPROACHES

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

23 Intersections $171720 $192124 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Bicyclists

STEARNS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN, 

WET REFLECTIVE 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

50.1 Miles $365740 $406378 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Page 16 of 52
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 52

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

EPOXY MARKINGS ON 

VARIOUS STEARNS 

COUNTY ROADS

TH 169, TH 22 TO N 

OF 270TH ST: INSTALL 

DYNAMIC MSG. 

SIGNS, HIGH 

TENSION CABLE 

BARRIER & LIGHTING

Roadside Barrier - cable 14.9 Miles $1247293.73 $1385882 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

SHERBURNE CO: 6" 

EDGELINE STRIPING, 

RR PVMT MARKING, + 

CR 43: CHEVRONS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

18.5 Miles $535344 $594827 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-2 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS

Lighting Intersection lighting 20 Intersections $335468.35 $372743 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: 

SHOULDER REPAIRS 

& MILLED RUMBLE 

STRIPS AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS ON I-94 & 

MN 114

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

30.8 Miles $1760573.47 $1956193 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

ST LOUIS CO: 

INSTALL 6" PAINT 

EDGELINE MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

48.5 Miles $52200 $64428 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 22: CSAH 15 TO 

CSAH 90, MILL & 

OVLY, ROUNDABOUT 

& CSAH 90: 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1104963.01 $1227737 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 33 AT CSAH 34 

IN NORWOOD YOUNG 

AMERICA: 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1516709 $1885440 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TH 52: S OF I-90 TO 

TH 63- BIT OVERLAY, 

CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.7 Miles $645505.2 $717228 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 55: ROCKFORD TO 

THEO. WIRTH PKWYRUMBLES, 

GUARDRAILS, CONC 

WALK, CURB & 

GUTTER

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 22.3 Miles $1152159 $1640179 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

CSAH 78 (HANSON 

BLVD): FROM CSAH 1 

TO CSAH 14 IN COON 

RAPIDS- SIGNAL 

INTERCONNECT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

16 Intersections $233550 $259500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 52

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

TH 10: THURSTON 

AVE IN ANOKA TO 

101 IN ELK RIVER, 

INSTALL CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

TH 

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.1 Miles $1000642.49 $1113325 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 65: HAM LAKE TO 

EAST BETHEL, 

CONSTRUCT RCIS & 

1ST SIGNALIZED 

RCUT INTERSECTION

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

14 Intersections $3577500 $3975000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

TH 10: TH 47 TO CR J, 

INSTALL 

CONTINUOUS 

FREEWAY LIGHTING

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 3 Miles $876289.03 $973654 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 73: 0.1 MI N OF 

3RD AVE IN KETTLE 

RIVER TO 0.7 MI N OF 

CR 129, PAVE 

SHOULERS, RUMBLE 

STRIPS

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 7.7 Miles $268679.12 $298532 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 10: "ELLA", AT 

CSAH 7 IN LAKE 

PARK, RIGHT, LEFT, 

THRU LANE, ADA, 

INSTALL SIGNALS, 

LIGHTING

& 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $388067.6 $646366 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TH 2: AT CASS CSAH 

75 (BINGO PALACE 

RD), INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT (TURN 

LANES), BIT SURF, 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $523747.49 $581942 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 19: CSAH 28 TO 

FALCON AVE - 

RECONSTRUCT 

HORIZ. ALIGNMENT, 

ADD TURN LNS & 

PAVE SHOULDERS

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.5 Miles $477000 $964225 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

MSAS 129: 

MOORHEAD- BIT 

M&O, SHARED-USE 

PATH, LIGHTING, 

SIGNALS, SIGNING, 

STRIPING, ADA

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $135688 $204525 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 38: CSAH 31 TO 

MN 3 - CONVERT 

FROM 2-LANE TO 3-

LANE ROADWAY

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

2.2 Miles $1144800 $2879677 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

MPLS: 6INSTALL 

MAST ARMS AT 5 

EXIST. SIGNALs, 

INSTALL PEDESTRIAN 

CURB EXTENSIONS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

17 Intersections $2807542 $3326703 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 52

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

CSAH 22: TH 75 TO N 

JCT CSAH 5, RUMBLE 

STRIPS, STRIPING & 

SHLDR BASE 

AGGREGATE

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6.1 Miles $149036 $165596 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 42: AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF 

CSAH 9- CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1607508.34 $1787120 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

MSAS 141 (GRAND 

AVE): HAMLINE AVE 

TO VICTORIA ST - 

PEDESTRIAN/BIKE 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1.1 Miles $566907 $629897 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians

NB I-35E RAMP TO TH 

36 EB IN LITTLE 

CANADA, REALIGN 

RAMP USING 

CONCRETE PVMT, 

TMS, & LIGHTING

Lighting Site lighting - interchange 1 Intersections $1111658.82 $1235176 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 75 AT GROVER 

AVE NW & CSAH 17 

AT CR 139 - 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection lighting 2 Intersections $36000 $40000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-3 DISTRICTWIDE: 

RETIME TRAFFIC 

SIGNALS, INSTALL 

SIGNAL CAMERA, 

FIBER OPTICS & 

COMMUNICATION 

EQUIP

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

92 Intersections $495000 $550000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

I-35W:CR B2 TO CR 

53,CONST MnPASS LN 

FROM CR C TO 

LEXINGTON AV (CSAH 

17)

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

11.7 Miles $448335.99 $498151 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

I-494(EB): E BUSH 

LAKE RD TO W BUSH 

LAKE RD , REPLACE 

CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER WITH CONC 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - concrete 1.1 Miles $1890035.37 $2100039 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

**AC** US 169/MN 37 

ROUNDABOUT + MN 

37 FR JCT US 169/MN 

37 MILL & OVERLAY 

(AC PAYBACK 1 OF 1)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1095000 $1095000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

**AC** DISTRICTWIDE 

LOCAL HSIP - 

LIGHTING, VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS (AC 

PAYBACK, 1 OF 1)

Lighting Intersection lighting 42 Intersections $360900 $360900 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 52

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

CSAH 7, FROM CSAH 

15 TO 390TH ST, 

OVERLAY, CURVE 

SHOULDER PAVING 

AND RUMBLE 

STRIPES

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 1.3 Miles $17250 $436800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 7, FROM CSAH 

15 TO CSAH 13, 

OVERLAY, PAVE 

SHOULDERS AND 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 3.3 Miles $126000 $1123200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

**AC** CSAH 39, W OF 

CO RD 122 TO TH 9, 

SHOULDER PAVING, 

RUMBLES & SAFETY 

WEDGE (AC 

PAYBACK 1 OF 1)

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 9.8 Miles $83644 $83644 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 9/CSAH 8, 

SHOULDER PAVING 

AT CURVES, RUMBLE 

STRIPES, CHEVRONS 

AND INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 3.8 Miles $36000 $1260175 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 57, TH 60 N 

RAMPS TO ST JAMES, 

BIT SHOULDERS AND 

GRND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE PVMT 

MARKINGS

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 1.2 Miles $15750 $665950 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

**ELLA** US 10, FROM 

NORTH BENTON 

DRIVE TO WEST OF 

EAST ST GERMAIN 

ST, INSTALL CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 6.2 Miles $600455 $667172 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

**ELLA** I-35, FROM 

IOWA BORDER TO I90, CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.8 Miles $1146055 $1273394 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

**AC** CSAH 27 AT 

CSAH 68 IN CREDIT 

RIVER TWP - 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUDNABOUT (AC 

PAYBACK 1 OF 1)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $954000 $954000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

METROWIDE -

INSTALL SIGNS ON 

HORIZONTAL 

CURVES TO COMPLY 

WITH NEW MMUTCD 

STANDARDS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

53 Locations $477000 $530000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

XING STRATEGIES 

SPEED & CRASH 

REDUCTION INCLS 

PVMT MARKINGS, 

1: Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 85 Intersections $285883.34 $285883.34 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 52

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

PAINTED MEDIANS & 

RUMBLE STRIPES

XING STRATEGIES 2: 

SPEED & CRASH 

REDUCTION INCLS 

PVMT MARKINGS, 

PAINTED MEDIANS & 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder treatments - other 85 Intersections $900000 $900000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

LANE DEPARTURE 

STRATEGIES & 

DELINEATORS ON 

VAR. 4LN RDWYS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1475.9 Miles $1063248 $1063248 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 33: AT JCT OF I-35 

RAMPS IN CLOQUETINTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS, 

CONST 

ROUNDABOUT

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 2 Intersections $2206785 $2207200 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

STATEWIDE: MN 

CRASH MAPPING 

ANALYTICAL TOOL 

(MNCMAT) UPDATE

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Tool $378000 $378000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Computer 

Program

Noninfrastructure Data

DEVELOPING AN 

ONGOING 

EVALUATION 

PROGRAM FOR 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

THROUGHOUT MN

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Program $400000 $400000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Evaluation 

Program

Noninfrastructure Data

TH 4 AT CSAH 29 - 

ROUNDABOUT, 

LIGHTING & LIVING 

SNOW 

FENCE/LANDSCAPING

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1 Intersections $1791273.5 $1791773.5 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

STATEWIDE: 

DEVELOP STATE 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

PLAN (SHSP)- 

PROJECT 

MANAGEMENT 

SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Plan Support $100000 $100000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Other State 

Agency

Noninfratructure Planning

TH 19/US71: 

REDWOOD FALLS 

ADA, TWLTL & 

SIGNALS TWO-WAY 

LEFT TURN LN

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

2.5 Miles $900000 $900000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

STATEWIDE: STATE 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

PLAN (SHSP) 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Plan Support $115000 $115000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Other State 

Agency

Noninfrastructure Planning

MN19, FROM 0.35 MI 

W OF CSAH 3 TO 

CSAH 89, 

CONSTRUCT CENTER 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.6 Miles $422924 $422924 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 52

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

LEFT & RIGHT TURN 

LANES AND LIGHTING

2018 COUNTY ROAD 

SAFETY PLAN 

UPDATE-YEAR 3 UP 

TO 15 COUNTIES

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Plan Support $1000000 $1250000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Other Local 

Agency

Noninfrastructure Planning

TOWARD ZERO 

DEATH (TZD) 

COORDINATORS 

FROM 7/1/2018 TO 

6/30/2019, SALARIES 

& EXPENSES

Non-infrastructure Outreach 1 Program $750000 $750000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 Other State 

Agency

Noninfrastructure Traffic Safety 

Culture

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 52

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 421 411 368 395 387 361 411 392 358

Serious Injuries 1,271 1,191 1,159 1,268 1,216 1,044 1,127 2,000 1,849

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.740 0.720 0.650 0.690 0.680 0.630 0.700 0.670 0.597

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.230 2.100 2.040 2.230 2.130 1.820 1.910 3.400 3.083

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

51 45 45 47 39 20 50 67 48

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

129 132 150 152 144 124 153 308 279
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 52

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

430

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 52

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 52

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

Year 2015

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

12.4 28.4

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

64.4 116.4

Rural Minor Arterial 64.6 124.2

Rural Minor Collector 21.6 52.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 52

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 Major Collector 63 149.6

Rural Local Road or Street 31.4 84.2

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

15 51.2

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

6 20.4

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

23.4 84.8

Urban Minor Arterial 49.6 253.6

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 12.4 83.4

Urban Local Road or Street 15.6 98
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 52

Year 2017

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 189.8 435.6 0.56 1.29

County Highway Agency 122.8 503 0.87 3.55

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

18.6 61 1.62 5.31

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

45.6 381 0.49 4.05

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
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 52

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 52

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 52

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

At this time, Minnesota is unable to query our crash data by functional classification.

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.

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

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

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

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

concerns training of officers: Minnesota plans to review training material for crash data collection. As of 2017, 

the number of serious injuries has begun to level off to a new normal with the definition.

Moving forward, Minnesota will be looking for best practices for planning and setting goals to maintain 

consistency in HSIP programming over this update. Several key data fields utilized in establishing SHSP focus 

area definitions have been removed or substantially modified; however, new fields are available to supplement 

with more information.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway

Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 52

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 372.0 

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

The number of fatalities was developed using a 5 year rolling average and projecting 

forward to a target year. Additional slight adjustments were made to the measures 

based on local knowledge gathered from stakeholders; this did not result in a 

substantial change in the measures. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1711.0 

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

The number of serious injuries was developed using a 5 year rolling average and 

projecting forward to a target year. This percentage reduction was applied to the 2016 

number (81% increase) and projected forward to the 2019 time period. Additional 

slight adjustments were made to the measures based on local knowledge gathered from 

stakeholders; this did not result in a substantial change in the measures. 

Fatality Rate 0.620 

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

Fatality ate was developed using a 5 year rolling average and projecting forward to a 

target year. Additional slight adjustments were made to the measures based on local 

knowledge gathered from stakeholders; this did not result in a substantial change in 

the measures. 

Serious Injury Rate 2.850 

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

Serious injury rate was developed using a 5 year rolling average and projecting 

forward to a target year. This percentage reduction was applied to the 2016 number 

(81% increase) and projected forward to the 2019 time period. Additional slight 

adjustments were made to the measures based on local knowledge gathered from 

stakeholders; this did not result in a substantial change in the measures. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 267.5 

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

The number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries was developed using a 5 

year rolling average and projecting forward to a target year. Additional slight 
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 52

adjustments were made to the measures based on local knowledge gathered from 

stakeholders; this did not result in a substantial change in the measures. 

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

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

targets. 

Active participation by State agencies and the 8 MPOs in Minnesota established recommendations and input 

for the leadership team to adopt safety performance targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 51 60 59 63 53 82 68

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 91 83 93 89 105 170 164

Pedestrian Serious Injuries
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 52

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

In 2016, Minnesota revised the crash reporting system to be in compliance with "Suspected Serious Injury (A)" 

definitions; with the new language presented to reporters, we have seen a general uptick in the reported injury 

severities across all crash types.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 52

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes

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.

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

MnDOT publishes these trends in an annual pocket-sized Trivia Card for stakeholder and public use. 

www.mndot.gov/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/ While overall fatal and serious injury crashes are declining, vigilance 

is necessary to ensure that these declines have not plateaued as the program addresses the "low hanging 

fruit". 

Currently, MnDOT is negotiating contracts for a large scale HSIP countermeasure effectiveness evaluation 

project to complement the program.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Under consideration 

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

Leading indicators for HSIP performance are currently still under consideration by MnDOT leadership. At this 

time, no further indicators have been adopted.

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.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 52

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 209.8 607.8

Intersections 149.2 684.8

Pedestrians 42.6 157.4

Bicyclists 7 58.4

Older Drivers 100.6 245.2

Motorcyclists 57.6 238.4

Work Zones 9.8 25.2
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 52

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

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

Yes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Single Lane Roundabout 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: 

Results: 

Roundabouts in Minnesota have had 

over an 80% reduction in fatal and 

serious injury crashes. At the time of 

this report, there still has not been a 

multi-vehicle fatality in a roundabout 

in Minnesota. 

File Name: roundaboutstudy.pdf

CounterMeasures: Roundabout 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: 

Results: 

Based on an approximate 60% 

reduction in crash rates and crash 

densities, roundabouts may be 

offering an overall higher 

performance of pedestrian safety. 

File Name: roundaboutsafetyaddendum.pdf

CounterMeasures: Median Acceleration Lanes 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Case-control 

Page 44 of 52
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 52

Results: 

50% decrease in fatal and serious 

injury crashes at median acceleration 

lane sites; 18% increase in total 

crashes at these sites. 

File Name: Acceleration Lane Memo - 2-17-2017.pdf

CounterMeasures: Reduced Conflict Intersections 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

Statistical testing of the RCI sites 

compared to a representative control 

group showed the treatment was 

statistically significant for lowering 

the number of severe right-angle 

crashes, severe crashes, overall 

severity of crashes, and reducing 

number of total right-angle crashes. 

Results: 

File Name: A Study of the Traffic Safety at RCIs in Minnesota_2017_v1.1.pdf
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 52

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A

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

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

Yes

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

Through the Toward Zero Deaths initiative, Minnesota is building the groundwork for improved safety using traffic safety culture shifts. From weekly safety messaging on changeable message signs, to pilot projects and working groups on 

potential interventions this investment is expected to aid HSIP and traffic safety moving forward. Evaluation of these long term methods is possible but forthcoming.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 52

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/20/2015 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2019 

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

 2020 

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

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 0 0 100 0 90

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 0 0 100

Surface Type (23) 100 0 0 80

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 0 0 100 0 90

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 0 0 100 0 90

Segment Length (13) 100 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0 0 100 0 90

Median Type (54) 100 0

Access Control (22) 100 0
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 52

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

One/Two Way 

(91)

Operations 100 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 0 0 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 0 0 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

INTERSECTION

100 0 0 100 0 90

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

85 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

85 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

85 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

85 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

85 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

85 0

AADT Year (80) 85 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

85 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

95 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 52

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

Interchange Type (182) 95 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

70 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 0.00 85.00 0.00 96.36 0.00 0.00 97.78 0.00 90.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

At this time, Minnesota has extensive coverage of MIRE fundamental data elements but is continuing to work on improving accuracy of values. With the upgraded linear referencing system (LRS), characteristics of the local system were 

found to be updated on an ad hoc basis. Thus, default values persist in tandem with updated traffic volumes, surface types, and functional classification. Manual review and updates continue.

The LRS used by MnDOT does not track interchanges; OTE is working with partners to build a comprehensive database of all interchanges and intersections on public roads. This database will compile relevant fields across datasets to 

better report MIRE fields. At this time, OTE is continuing to build and evaluate the scripting and development process.

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 (A) Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes An incapacitating injury is any injury, other 

than a fatal injury, which prevents the 

injured person from walking, driving or 

normally continuing the activities the 

person was capable of performing before 

the injury occurred.

Yes Inclusions: severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or 

when taken from the accident scene, 

unable to leave the accident without 

assistance

Exclusions: momentary unconsciousness

Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury (A) Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than fatal which results in one or 

more of the following: 

Yes severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); crush 

injuries; suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body); unconsciousness when taken 

from the crash scene; paralysis

Yes
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 52

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

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

No

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

2020 

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

A program review was completed in May 2016 to review factors associated with the lower than average HSIP obligation rate: the Minnesota obligation rate was 66% compared to a national average of 83%. The primary recommendation 

of the review was to establish an 80% minimum obligation goal.
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 52

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

roundaboutstudy.pdf

roundaboutsafetyaddendum.pdf

Acceleration Lane Memo - 2-17-2017.pdf

A Study of the Traffic Safety at RCIs in Minnesota_2017_v1.1.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 52

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.