Page 1 of 60

MICHIGAN

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 60

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 19

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 22

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

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 31

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 45

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 47

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 49

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 50

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 54

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 55
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 60

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 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 60

Executive Summary 

The 2018 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the one year 

time period of FY 2017 which commenced on October 1, 2016 and ended on September 30, 2017. This report 

addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 60

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

countermeasure.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

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

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

Development - Design Division - Design Programs Section - Safety Programs/Pavement Markings 

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

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office via Statewide Formula via MDOT Regions

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

Other-Central Office via Funding Set Aside

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

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

owned roadways. There is also a set aside amount directly for state owned roadway pavement markings.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 60

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

Michigan. 

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

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

within each particular Region.

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

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

Engineer located in the Central Office. Typically, only the construction phase is eligible for federal aid. 

Preliminary engineering costs were eligible for federal participation if it was for a project identified on the 

Transparency (5%) Report, by the Local Safety Initiative, in a Road Safety Audit (RSA) or in a traffic signal 

optimization project. Otherwise, preliminary engineering was not eligible for federal safety funds. Projects are 

federally funded at 80 or 90 percent up to an amount not to exceed $600,000 of Federal funding, with a 20 or 

10 percent Local Agency match, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local agencies were invited by a May 8, 2015 memorandum to submit proposed projects for consideration as 

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

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

their respective county for submittal of the application. A subsequent March 22, 2016 memorandum was 

released to solicit an additional $2M of projects specifically on the High Risk Rural Road system. The 

emphasis of the local FY 2017 CFP was to address those locations with correctable fatality and injury crashes 

to support the department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries striving for Toward Zero Deaths. 

Per the CFP, the Local Agency was to provide a Time of Return (TOR) analysis showing how the proposed 

improvement would address fatalities and all injuries. In the TOR, all crash types and severity levels 

correctable by the proposed improvement can be included. A maximum of five years of available crash data is 

to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2017 projects, 2010 to 2014 (or the current availability) crash data was 

used.

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

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

installation and upgrades of traffic signals, access management, horizontal and vertical curve modifications, 

sight distance and drainage improvements, bridge railing replacement or retrofit, roadway intersection 

improvements specifically to improve safety, mid-block pedestrian crossings, improvements to school zones, 

shoulder and centerline rumble strips, and improved permanent signing and pavement markings.

For the FY 2017 CFP, a greater emphasis was placed on the identification of correctable fatalities and serious 

injuries, both in the selection and the prioritization of safety projects. In addition, in FY 2017, a small portion of 

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

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

Safety Audits ($50 K) and Non-motorized Facility/Pedestrian Improvements ($100 K). Local agencies were 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 60

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

conforming projects.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Other-Local Agency Programs 

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

N/A

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

Programs Unit distribute the High Crash List, Transparency (5%) Report, and Pavement Friction Analysis to 

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

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

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

safety program. 

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-County Road Association of Michigan 

Other-Office of Highway Safety Planning

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

N/A

Describe coordination with external partners.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 60

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

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

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

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

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

our Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. 

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

period?

Yes

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

Michigan's HSIP programs are continuously evolving to reflect research findings, the current state of practice 

and better knowledge of state-specific safety needs. 

The Local Safety Call for Projects (CFP) is now proactively split into two separate CFP letters: one for High 

Risk Rural Roads and one for general HSIP projects. MDOT sets aside $6 M of the $15.1 M local safety funds 

for projects located on the High Risk Rural Road network.

The trunkline HSIP program did not make any administration changes on how we implement the HSIP program 

in FY 2017.

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

Yes

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

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

Traffic and Safety (Central Office). For FY 2017, $19 M in safety funding was available, of which $15.6 M was 

allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as funding targets. The allocations were based on the percentage of 

fatalities and serious injuries, lane miles and Vehicle Miles Traveled in each Region. The goal is that all 

Regions receive a minimum of 5 percent of the Safety Target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

safety funding.

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

central office staff, each Region was given $200,000 for low-cost safety improvements to be chosen at the 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 60

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

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

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

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

those improvements meeting funding criteria.

Once the FY 2017 program was developed, it was reviewed and approved by the Project Screening 

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

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

coordination between Regions on various corridors and between the programs.

In FY 2017, the use of HSIP funding continued in the administration of the pavement marking program. Under 

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

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

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

pavement markings in the Annual Pavement Marking Program.

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

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

MDOT HSIP Manual FY 2018.pdf

FY 2017 Trunkline HSIP CFP.pdf

Non-trunkline_FY 2017 Safety Program Call Letter.pdf

Non-trunkline_High Risk Rural Road Program _2017 Call Letter.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Other-Pavement Markings 

Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects

Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural Roads 

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

N/A

Program: Other-Pavement Markings 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2015 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 60

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Lane miles Functional classification 

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

Other-Retroreflectivity of pavement marking

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-funding set aside per each Region

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

N/A
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 60

Program: Other-Highway Safety Call for 

Projects 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/15/2011 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Focus on fatal and serious 

injury crashes along with fixes 

based on crash types and patterns 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 60

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 3 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

N/A

Program: Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/8/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Probability of specific crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 60 

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 3

Other-Funding set asides for specific countermeasures : 4

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

Please see the Call for Projects (CFP) letters that are attached elsewhere in this document. The local High 

Risk Rural Road projects are selected following the same methodology as the local HSIP projects.

Program: Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural 

Roads 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/22/2016 

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

FHWA focused approach to safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 60

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Probability of specific crash types

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 3

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

Please see the Call for Projects (CFP) letters that are attached elsewhere in this document.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 57 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 60

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

Other-Funding set-asides in local safety call for projects

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

Systemic projects selected through the local safety call for projects (CFP) process are awarded a higher 

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

have a base funding percentage of 80% federal with a 20% local match. It should be noted that all selected 

projects that address a fatal or serious (Type A) injury crash are funded at 90% federal participation. 

Additionally, the local safety CFP has set asides for High Friction Surface Treatment, Rumble Strips, Clear 

Zone improvements, and Guardrail upgrade projects that are systemic in nature. Of the federal HSIP funds 

obligated on the local system in fiscal year 2017, approximately 49% of funds went towards systemic projects.

The Trunkline Call for Projects (CFP) allowed for up to 10% of systemic funded projects. Along with the Annual 

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

Overall, in FY 2017, 51% of the total HSIP Trunkline Program funds (Safety And Pavement Markings) was 

used for systemic type projects. 3 percent of Trunkline Safety CFP project funds were systemic type fixes. See 

attached Low-cost Safety Improvement Projects that is used to select systemic type projects.

Overall, 57% of HSIP project funds selected were considered to be systemic type fixes (Trunkline Safety, 

Pavement markings, and Local Safety).

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Other-High Crash List 

Other-Transparency Report 

Other-Fatality and Serious Injury Region-wide Maps 

Other-3R/4R Safety Reviews 

Other-Pavement Friction Analysis 

Other-Customer Concerns 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 60

Other-Local Safety Initiative 

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

N/A

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

ITS technologies are funded via a separate funding source out of the MDOT ITS Programs Office. The ITS 

program promotes advanced technologies, electronic and telecommunication to improve safety and travel time 

on the multi-modal transportation system. Michigan's Connected Vehicles program is intended as a 

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

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

board and road side elements and applications.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for increasing speed limits.

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

period?

No
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 60

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

Yes

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

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

seven MDOT Regions from the Safety Template Program Manager. The FY 2017 Safety Call request was 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(TZD). Emphasis was directed toward implementation of countermeasures to deter wrong way movements 

onto freeways. If the TOR criteria could not be met as outlined below for the Wrong Way Movement (WWM) 

countermeasures, the Regions were allowed to use the 10 percent allocation of their Region target for 

systemic treatments. 

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

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

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

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

years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2017 project, in which 2008 to 2010 (or 

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

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

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

– TOR of 10 years or less.

• Safety improvement in conjunction with another Construction project (Bridge, R&R, etc.) - TOR of 10 

years or less. 

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

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

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

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

beyond funding targets to allocate the $2 M funds statewide. For FY 2017, funding was included in 

programmed preliminary engineering for outer year safety projects to conduct a road safety audit (RSA). For 

guidance, a RSA should be conducted for all proposals exceeding $750,000 in programmed construction 

costs. Each Region was required to conduct at least one RSA for a FY 2017 improvement projects. The RSA 

should be done prior to 30 percent completion of the plans. The purpose of the RSA is to ensure that the 

appropriate safety fixes are incorporated into the overall design based on crash patterns within the project 

limits. Continuing in FY 2017 each Region was required to allocate up to a certain percent of their funding 

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

funding). The focus is to be on systemwide safety improvements done by work authorization or through the 

letting process. A TOR justification is not required if the proposed improvement is selected from the list of 

approved and proven safety systemwide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost Safety Improvement Projects-
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 60

see attachment). For FY 2014 through FY 2017, the percentage is 10 percent. For FY 2018 through 2020 this 

percentage was increased to 25 percent. New for FY 2020 is the allocation of $1 million toward additional low 

cost safety improvements for regions meeting or exceeding their target amount in project proposals. To 

accommodate this change, the $2 million of discretionary funding as described above has been reduced from 

$2 million to $1 million. For FY 2021 to FY 2024 the percentage submitted shall be a minimum of 25 percent up 

to a maximum of 50 percent.

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

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

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

provided. Starting for FY 2020 and continuing for FY 2021 to FY 2024, all submitted concepts must address 

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

See Question #6 for the HSIP methodology for Local HSIP/HRRR Safety.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 60

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $57,137,220 $52,086,397 91.16%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$7,857,884 $6,062,263 77.15%

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$300,000 $300,000 100%

State and Local Funds $4,770,175 $4,609,071 96.62%

Totals $70,065,279 $63,057,731 90%

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?

$25,319,697 

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

$22,467,877 

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

Michigan was subject to the High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Special Rule for Fiscal Year 2017. As projects were 

already selected, a supplemental Call for Projects was issued for additional HRRR eligible projects. This 

increased the amount of HSIP funding programmed and obligated on local roads in fiscal 2017. The amount in 

fiscal year 2018 will be reduced by this same amount. However, beginning in fiscal year 2018, Michigan is 

proactively separating the HSIP programmed for local projects into two separate safety CFP resulting in 

approximately $6M of HSIP spent on HRRR eligible projects each year. The funding amounts above include 

Local Safety HSIP funds and HRRR funds combined, which includes the 10 or 20% local funds match.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 60

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

$1,301,000 

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

$1,301,000 

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

Non-infrastructure projects for FY 2017 included funding for Before and After studies, Statewide crash 

analysis, and safety related research including the collection, analysis and improvement of safety data.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0 

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

N/A

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

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

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

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

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

HSIP funds for educational materials has made this social campaign challenging, as we have to seek other 

funding sources within the department, which are also strained.

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

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

During the reporting period, FY 2017, 2.9 percent of the programmed funds and 3.3 percent of the obligated 

funds of the HSIP State Trunkline system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as Before and 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 60

After studies, Statewide crash analysis, and safety related research including the collection, analysis and 

improvement of safety data.

On the Local Agency side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. Overall, 31.9 percent of 

the total programmed and 31.1 percent of the total obligated federal HSIP/HRRR funds were directed to local 

safety projects.

Overall, 6.8 percent of programmed funds used were State and Local, while 7.3 percent of obligated funds 

used were State and Local. 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 60

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

Sagatoo Road at 

Arenac State 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 Intersections $40968 $45520 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,264 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Round Lake Road Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

3 Curves $108000 $119975 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

2,100 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Cedar Run Road 

and County Road 

633

Roadside Barrier- metal 2.72 Miles $320329 $355921 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,768 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Hobbs Road, 

Garfield Road

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

5.29 Miles $529137 $535892 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,400 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Gordonville Road Roadway Roadway - other 0.79 Miles $537559 $620202 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,748 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Clinton Road Roadway Rumble strips - center 5 Miles $138560 $153956 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,801 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

104th Avenue Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

1.2 Miles $600000 $880991 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

810 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Starvation Lake 

Road

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

1.13 Miles $558000 $657541 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Vergennes Street 

at Cumberland 

Avenue

Alignment Vertical alignment or 

elevation change

0.27 Miles $216000 $368674 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

3,460 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Barry County 

Guardrail and 

slope flattening

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 Locations $237600 $259653 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Mullet Lake Rd Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

0.24 Miles $91460 $101622 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

360 25 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Wilson Road Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.48 Miles $378299 $460871 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

2,106 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Manistee Lake 

Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

0.95 Miles $558000 $599679 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,480 35 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Brown City Road Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

1 Intersections $594053 $660059 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor 

Collector

231 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 60

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

Columbiaville 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips - center 1.51 Miles $483231 $636884 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

3,140 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

19 Mile Road Roadside Drainage improvements 1 Locations $207293 $230325 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

150 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Eastman Road Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.5 Miles $634987 $791286 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

4,481 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Steffas Road Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $44280 $49874 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

1,235 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

County Farm 

Road

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

8.8 Miles $131928 $152727 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

3,402 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Bamfield Road Roadway Roadway - other 1.33 Miles $525164 $583516 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

County Road 426 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

13 Curves $16700 $18556 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

274 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

County Road 581 Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

1.61 Miles $511590 $568433 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,850 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Matekel Road at 

Dexter Creek

Roadside Drainage improvements 1 Locations $74950 $93688 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

80 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

30th Street- 118th 

Avenue to 128th 

Avenue 

Roadway Pavement surface - 

miscellaneous

5.08 Miles $600000 $987177 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,327 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Bellaire Highway Roadside Barrier- metal 2.8 Miles $126941 $158677 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Red Arrow 

Highway

Alignment Vertical alignment or 

elevation change

0.44 Miles $600000 $951188 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,078 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Upgrading 

Guardrails on 

various primary 

roads

Roadside Barrier- metal 13.99 Miles $557349 $700198 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Red Arrow 

Highway and John 

Beers intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $368208 $395205 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,400 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Countywide 

guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal 6 Locations $158087 $168449 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Irish Road at 

Atherton Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 Intersections $44309 $48232 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,542 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Irish Road at 

Bristol Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 Intersections $44041 $48935 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,427 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 60

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

Irish Road at 

Richfield Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $144576 $150836 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,671 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Potter Road at 

Elms Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

1 Intersections $17937 $19930 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,602 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Update and Install 

Warning Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning 

signs and flashers

2120 Signs $83194 $92437 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Update and Install 

Warning Signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

344 Locations $84208 $93564 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Lakeland Trails 

State Park 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian warning signs - 

add/modify flashers

4 Intersections $70700 $78556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,337 35 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Countdown 

Pedestrian 

Signals

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

1 Intersections $70232 $87790 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

19,865 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Intersection of 

Stadium Drive at 

11th Street

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Intersections $333000 $549576 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

20,800 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Sprinkle Road 

corridor

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

13 Intersections $600000 $702692 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

26,207 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

36th Street and 

Kalamazoo 

Avenue 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $103872 $123789 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

30,400 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Lake Drive and 

Fuller Avenue 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Intersections $73186 $105793 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

28,300 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Leonard Street 

and Diamond Ave. 

intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $78240 $121090 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

14,046 25 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

13 Mile Road at 

Alpine Ave

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.16 Miles $266365 $295961 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

22 Intersections in 

Kent County

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

22 Intersections $89683 $118443 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

68th Street at 

Patterson Ave and 

84th Street at 

Clyde Park Ave

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

2 Intersections $216000 $239832 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,743 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Whitneyville Ave 

at 68th Street 

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.37 Miles $335453 $372968 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7,250 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Cannonsburg Rd 

at Myers Lake 

Ave.

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $288001 $393018 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

7,530 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Imlay City Road Roadway Rumble strips - center 4.85 Miles $326505 $358571 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 60

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

H-40 (Hiawatha 

Trail)

Roadside Roadside grading 0.2 Miles $74970 $93713 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

100 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Garfield, 12 Mile, 

and 23 Mile 

(Signal Upgrades 

at 6 Locations)

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

6 Intersections $600000 $701439 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

25,000 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Harper, 14 Mile, 

18 Mile, 19 Mile, 

and 24 Mile

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

6 Intersections $589500 $864998 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

25,000 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Van Dyke, 

Schoenherr, 

Hayes, and 

Chesterfield 

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

7 Intersections $540000 $692867 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

25,000 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Stanton Road Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

14.2 Miles $233083 $271262 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,391 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

12 Mile Road and 

Southfield Road 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $247263 $309079 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

22,562 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

14 Mile Road & 

Dequindre Road 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersections $275877 $307070 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

14,883 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Five intersections 

located in the 

Houghton Lake 

Area

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

stop sign-mounted

5 Intersections $103242 $115441 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

1,530 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Fuller Road Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 2 Locations $46598 $51775 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,600 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs and 

As

Geddes Road Roadway Rumble strips - center 1 Miles $405816 $465907 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,835 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Guardrail Upgrade 

Project

Roadside Barrier- metal 11 Locations $247564 $257474 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,000 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Scio Church Road Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

13 Miles $73148 $78095 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,719 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Jackson Road Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 4.29 Miles $120107 $133753 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

16,700 50 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Meyers Road Roadway Roadway - other 4.21 Miles $600000 $664552 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,800 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Warren Avenue 

"1"

Roadway Roadway - other 3.1 Miles $418500 $448706 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

9,500 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Warren Avenue 

"2"

Roadway Roadway - other 1.3 Miles $600000 $910324 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

26,100 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 60

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

Warren Avenue 

"3"

Roadway Roadway - other 1.3 Miles $424800 $964139 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

29,800 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce Fs and 

As

Countywide 

guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 Locations $164392 $224411 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

250 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Blue Star 

Highway, 118th 

Avenue and 34th 

Street

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

37.65 Miles $600000 $819688 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,900 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

16th Street @ 

Columbia Avenue

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $148000 $191354 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,523 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

10 Mile Road at 

Napier Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $421848 $4796848 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

2,500 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs and 

As

Guardrail Upgrade 

Project

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 Locations $125148 $205795 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

376 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs and 

As

Region Wide Bay 

Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5150 Miles $2757211.27 $2757211.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide Bay 

Region Special 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

1911 Locations $586776.27 $586776.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Grand Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4764 Miles $2430159.34 $2430159.34 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Grand Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

1030 Locations $464508.3 $464508.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

I-94 between Little 

Mack Ave and 16 

Mile Rd - 

Installation of 

UltraGuard 

delineation 

system

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

4 Miles $15231 $15231 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

90,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Metro Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2543 Miles $2602059.99 $2602059.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Metro Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

3473 Locations $1435667.77 $1435667.77 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

North Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5117 Miles $1899170.09 $1899170.09 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 60

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

Region Wide 

North Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

1155 Locations $418311.11 $418311.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Southwest Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

3110 Miles $1629566.59 $1629566.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Southwest Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

1777 Locations $373023.9 $373023.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Superior Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4730 Miles $1536191.25 $1536191.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

Superior Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

863 Locations $362885.59 $362885.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Statewide Blanket 

PE for FY 2018 

marking program

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Project $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

University Region 

Longitudinal 

markings

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4408 Miles $2356291.35 $2356291.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Region Wide 

University Region 

Special markings

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - 

other

2147 Locations $538144.24 $538144.24 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

US-127 BR at N 

Mission Road - Mt 

Pleasant - 

Roundabout 

Construction

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic 

signal to roundabout

1 Intersections $1990032.93 $1990032.93 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Mt. Pleasant TSC 

- Delineator 

installation and 

upgrades

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

12.6 Miles $201211 $201211 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-15 - Vassar - 

North City Limits 

to North of Cottrell 

Road - Extend 

Center Left Turn 

Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.74 Miles $1185375.89 $1185375.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

10,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-44 - Rockford - 

Blakely Drive East 

to Myers Lake 

Avenue - Add 

Center Left Turn 

Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

1.29 Miles $2146990.62 $2146990.62 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

18,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

US-131, I-96, I196, and US-31 - 

Grand Region - 

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

162 Miles $189944.19 $189944.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 60

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

Regionwide 

Upgrade freeway 

delineation

US-131 from M-20 

to North County 

line - Big Rapids - 

Upgrade freeway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

9.5 Miles $14660 $14660 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

15,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-120 - Whitehall 

Rd East to MidMichigan RR - 

North Muskegon - 

Addition of Center 

Left Turn Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.7 Miles $235481.71 $235481.71 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

18,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-115 at 20 Mile 

Rd - Marion - 

intersection 

geometric 

improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

realignment to align offset 

cross streets

1 Intersections $1705085.6 $1705085.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

8,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-19 at 29 Mile - 

New Haven - 

Road Passing 

Flare

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1 Intersections $494066.85 $494066.85 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

12,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Old M-59 between 

Crooks and 

Livernois - 

Rochester Hills - 

Add Center Left 

Turn Lane

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.7 Miles $1395490.07 $1395490.07 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-8 - Detroit - I96 to M-10 

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements - 

Mid Block 

crossings - 

RRFB's

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian 

refuge areas

8 Locations $469199.28 $469199.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

45,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce F's and 

A's 

US-31 South of 

Ball Road - 

Levering - 

Horizontal curve 

flattening

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

0.4 Miles $343985.98 $343985.98 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

I-94 - 17 1/2 Mile 

Road East to the 

Calhoun County 

line - Cable 

Median Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 5.5 Miles $1224902.22 $1224902.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

55,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

Kalamazoo TSC - 

Various Locations 

in Calhoun and 

Kalamazoo 

County - Ramp 

Modifications

Interchange 

design

Improve intersection radius 

at ramp terminus

25 Locations $186116.99 $186116.99 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Reduce F's and 

A's 

Various Freeways 

in Southwest 

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

5300 Miles $204301.97 $204301.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 60

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

Region Enhanced 

Delineation

I-196BL and Blue 

Star Highway - 

South Haven - 

Center Left Turn 

and Right/Thru on 

I-196BL

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1 Intersections $818509.64 $818509.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-553, Sands 

Township, 

Marquette County 

- Curve Realignment

Roadway Superelevation / cross 

slope

1.55 Miles $4472805.66 $4472805.66 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

Multiple Locations 

throughout the 

Superior Region - 

Installation of 

Delineators

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

5240 Miles $223125 $223125 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

US-BR-27 At Stoll 

Rd - Lansing - 

Center Left Turn 

Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1 Intersections $725425.25 $725425.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Statewide 

SafetyAnalyst 

licensing fee

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 2 Years $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 

Statewide 

Synchro 10 

License

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 75 License $83000 $83000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 

I-96 - Doan Creek 

to East of Dietz 

Road - Cable 

Median Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.69 Miles $310812.83 $310812.83 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

45,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

M-52 at Sienna 

Heights Drive - 

Install Center Left 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane1 Intersections $915000.1 $915000.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce F's and 

A's 

Regionwide 

Regionwide Pavt 

marking and 

signing @ Par-Clo 

interchange

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted 

or on barrier 

29 Locations $227324.19 $227324.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

Statewide 

Locations Before 

and After Study 

for HSIP FY 2009 

to FY 2011

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 3 Years $48000 $48000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 

Statewide SHRP 

2 Study 

Interrelationships 

between Speed 

Limits, Geometry 

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Research Project $500000 $500000 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STBG, 

NHPP)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 60

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

and Driver 

Behavior

Statewide Crash 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Research Project $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Non-Infrastructure Data Reduce F's and 

A's 

I-94 E EB near 

Kalmbach, 

Washtenaw Co. 

High Friction 

Surface treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

0.5 Miles $203808.19 $203808.19 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

50,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's and 

A's 

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

N/A
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 60

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 873 937 889 936 951 876 963 1,064 1,028

Serious Injuries 6,520 5,980 5,706 5,676 5,283 4,909 4,865 5,634 6,084

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.910 0.960 0.940 0.990 1.000 0.900 0.980 1.070 1.010

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.800 6.120 6.020 6.020 5.550 5.040 4.970 5.680 5.980

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

145 163 166 157 179 170 208 206 180

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

652 586 580 533 568 517 556 536 617
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 33 of 60

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 34 of 60

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

VMT was updated for both 2016 and 2017 as 2016 VMT was not available at the time of the 2016 FY Report.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

N/A

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

Year 2017

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

19.6 122.2 0.38 2.39

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

10 56.2 0.4 2.31

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

47.4 202.8 1.18 5.03

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

760

780

800

820

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 35 of 60

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Arterial 91 421 1.38 6.38

Rural Minor Collector 13.4 70.2 1.41 7.48

Rural Major Collector 136 610.6 1.72 7.71

Rural Local Road or Street 81.8 427.8 3.35 17.55

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

78.2 398.4 0.45 2.3

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

29.6 171.6 0.47 2.74

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

210.6 1,189.2 1.21 6.83

Urban Minor Arterial 153.8 979.8 0.99 6.29

Urban Minor Collector 1 2.2 0.98 3.78

Urban Major Collector 48 285.8 0.97 0.77

Urban Local Road or Street 55 368.4 0.76 5.13
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 60

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

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Non-Trunkline (County, 

City, Local Owned 

Roadways)

560.4 3,081.8 1.21 6.66

Trunkline (State Owned 

Roadways)

415.8 2,254.4 0.8 4.33
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 38 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 39 of 60

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 60

0

5

10

15

20

25

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 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 60

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State Owned Roadways)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State Owned Roadways)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 43 of 60

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State Owned Roadways)

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 44 of 60

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

VMT was updated for both 2016 and 2017 as 2016 VMT was not available at the time of the FY 2016 Report.

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

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

increase of 5.8% over the 5 year span. State trunkline fatalities had an overall increase of 5.4% while local 

roadway fatalities had an overall increase of 6.2%. 

Serious injuries statewide have seen a decrease of 12.5% over the 5 year rolling average. State trunkline 

serious injuries had an overall decrease of 7.6% while local roadway serious injuries had an overall decrease 

of 15.9%. 

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

Overall, the fatality rate increased 1.1% while the serious injury rate increased 7.7%. The state trunkline saw a 

6.9% decrease in the fatality rate and a 4.3% serious injury rate increase. The local roadways saw a 8.4% 

fatality rate increase and a 10.9% serious injury rate increase. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Non-Trunkline (County, City, Local Owned

Roadways)

Trunkline (State Owned Roadways)

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 45 of 60 

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

miles traveled for 2010-2014, and 2011 to 2015. The local roadway fatality rate was below 1.32 during the 

entire analysis time period, while the state trunkine fatality rate was below 0.86 for the same time period.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1023.2 

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

To forecast the total fatalities and serious injuries for target setting purposes, the 

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Office of Highway Safety 

Planning (OHSP) relied on models developed and maintained by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The UMTRI models rely on 

results of a recently completed research report titled Identification of Factors 

Contributing to the Decline of Traffic Fatalities in the United States, which was 

completed as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program project 17-

67. The two models, predicting counts and the change in counts of fatalities, rely on 

the correlation between traffic crashes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and risk. Four 

factors were identified that can influence risk; economic factors, safety and capital 

expenditures, vehicle safety and safety regulations. For both models, economic factors 

such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, median annual income, the 

unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year old’s and beer consumption had the greatest 

impact at approximately 85 percent. The change model created by UMTRI predicted 

1,029 fatalities in 2018 and 1,028 in 2019. This supports the SHSP by identifying 

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

reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 

Number of Serious Injuries 5406.8 

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

To forecast the total fatalities and serious injuries for target setting purposes, the 

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Office of Highway Safety 

Planning (OHSP) relied on models developed and maintained by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The UMTRI models rely on 

results of a recently completed research report titled Identification of Factors 

Contributing to the Decline of Traffic Fatalities in the United States, which was 

completed as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program project 17-

67. The two models, predicting counts and the change in counts of fatalities, rely on 

the correlation between traffic crashes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and risk. Four 

factors were identified that can influence risk; economic factors, safety and capital 

expenditures, vehicle safety and safety regulations. For both models, economic factors 

such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, median annual income, the 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 60

unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year old’s and beer consumption had the greatest 

impact at approximately 85 percent. The change model created by UMTRI predicted 

5,299 serious injuries in 2018 and 5,152 in 2019. This supports the SHSP by 

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

significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 

Fatality Rate 1.020 

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

The VMT value for 2017 has been estimated along with VMT values predicted for 

2018 and 2019. Using the fatality and serious injury yearly values along with the 

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

five-year rolling average for 2019 and the 2017 baseline. This supports the SHSP by 

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

significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 

Serious Injury Rate 5.410 

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

The VMT value for 2017 has been estimated along with VMT values predicted for 

2018 and 2019. Using the fatality and serious injury yearly values along with the 

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

five-year rolling average for 2019 and the 2017 baseline. This supports the SHSP by 

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

significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 759.8 

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

To forecast the total fatalities and serious injuries for target setting purposes, the 

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Office of Highway Safety 

Planning (OHSP) relied on models developed and maintained by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The UMTRI models rely on 

results of a recently completed research report titled Identification of Factors 

Contributing to the Decline of Traffic Fatalities in the United States, which was 

completed as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program project 17-

67. The two models, predicting counts and the change in counts of fatalities, rely on 

the correlation between traffic crashes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and risk. Four 

factors were identified that can influence risk; economic factors, safety and capital 

expenditures, vehicle safety and safety regulations. For both models, economic factors 

such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, median annual income, the 

unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year old’s and beer consumption had the greatest 

impact at approximately 85 percent. Results from the UMTRI model (the A/K 

relationship) was also used to generate forecasted values of 760 and 751 nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries in 2018 and 2019, respectively. This supports 
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 60

the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and guide investment decisions 

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

roads. 

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

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

network. Emphasis has been put on the departments strategy of Toward Zero Deaths, which MDOT hopes will 

improve the safety culture in Michigan as well as reduce fatalities and serious injuries that occur on our 

roadways every year.

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

targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

N/A

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

MDOT was notified on March 2, 2016 that the HRRR special rule applied to Michigan. MDOT was required to 

obligate $5,852,012 in HRRR funds for FY 2017.

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
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 60

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

125 138 160 126 133 172 155

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

381 418 413 434 393 506 558

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

Data has been updated with 2017 information.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

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 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 60

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

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

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

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

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

markings, delineation, and other systemic treatments.

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

level evaluations.

MDOT is currently conducting a Before and After study for state-owned trunkline roadways for FY 2009, 2010, 

and 2011. 

MDOT is also planning on conducting a Before and After study in fiscal year 2019 for Local roadway safety 

projects (both HSIP and HRRR) that were constructed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

Other-Before and After Studies

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

N/A

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 60

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 439 1,979.2 0.45 2.01

Intersections 272.4 1,926 0.28 1.96

Older Drivers 212.8 943.4 0.22 0.96

Motorcyclists 132.4 599.8 0.13 0.61

Work Zones 17.4 73.2 0.02 0.07

Pedestrians and Bicyclists 188.6 558.8 0.19 0.57

Commercial Vehicles 99.8 304.4 0.1 0.31

Younger Drivers (16 to 24) 285.2 1,819 0.29 1.85

Impaired Drivers 365.8 1,104.2 0.37 1.12
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 52 of 60

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

The 2017-2018 Michigan SHSP has four broad emphasis areas including; High-Risk Behaviors, At-Risk Road 

Users, Engineering Infrastructure, and System Administration. Under these emphasis areas are specific areas 

of focus including the following: 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 53 of 60

High-Risk Behaviors

• Distracted Driving 

• Impaired Driving 

• Occupant Protection 

At-Risk Road Users

• Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

• Motorcycle Safety 

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

• Senior Mobility and Safety 

• Drivers Age 24 and Younger 

Engineering Infrastructure

• Traffic Safety Engineering 

System Administration

• Traffic Incident Management 

• Traffic Records and Information Systems 

Each focus area has a statewide action team that is under the Governors Traffic Safety Advisory Commission 

(GTSAC) that meets quarterly to discuss key safety issues and tackle a series of short-term and long-term 

strategies to improve safety within their specific emphasis area.

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

No

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

N/A
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 54 of 60

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.

MDOT is currently conduction a Before and After study for state-owned trunkline roadways for FY 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

MDOT is also planning on conducting a Before and After study in fiscal year 2019 for Local roadway safety projects (both HSIP and HRRR) that were constructed in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

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

Yes

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

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

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

As reported in previous HSIP Reports the department undertook two system wide initiatives in FY 2008: freeway median barrier and non-freeway rumble strips. Both initiatives address lane departure, which is part of one of the 11 focus 

areas in the SHSP, Traffic Safety Engineering. Lane departure related crashes accounted for at least 424 fatalities statewide in 2017 (41 percent of all fatalities). A primary objective for this focus area is to identify cost effective strategies 

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

roadside clear zones.

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

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

In FY 2017, a small portion of the local safety funds were allocated to five several lane departure countermeasures, Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips, Guardrail Upgrades, and Clear Zone Improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.michigan.gov/ZeroDeaths
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 60

Compliance Assessment

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

 03/15/2017 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2018 

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

 2018 

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

Here is the link to Michigan's current SHSP.

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

The future SHSP will be on a 4-year cycle to coincide with the Gubernatorial cycle in Michigan (2019-2022). 

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 56 of 60

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 80 95

Access Control (22) 0 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

95 10

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0 80 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 95 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 60

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 98 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 98 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

76.39 70.83 50.00 49.38 90.55 100.00 66.67 33.33 40.00 40.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

MIRE FDE percent completes remain uncharged for 2017.

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

MDOT plans on beginning the collection of MIRE FDE in 2020 using the Roadsoft program updated by Michigan Technological University.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

other than fatal, that prevents the injured 

person from walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities which he or she 

was capable of performing prior to the 

motor vehicle traffic crash. 

No See description on attached UD-10 Manual 

Instructions 

No

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary Suspected Serious Injury Yes Suspected Serious Injury is any injury, 

other than fatal, that prevents the injured 

person from walking, driving, or normally 

continuing the activities which he or she 

Yes When the Crash Database Data Dictionary 

is produced, the definition will be compliant. 

Yes
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 60

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 * 

was capable of performing prior to the 

motor vehicle traffic crash. 

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

Michigan will be compliant before April 15, 2019. 

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

Please see attached UD-10 Manual pages in reference to the Suspected Serious Injury definition and attributes. 

The crash report form instruction manual should be completed by October 1, 2018, this is currently being updated. 

The Crash Database Data Dictionary is produced on a need basis. When this is produced the database dictionary is MMUCC 4th Edition complaint.

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.

2021 

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

MDOT conducted a HSIP program evaluation with the final report in February of 2017. Please see attached. 

Beginning in FY 2017, MDOT conducted a research study that included the following objectives: 

1. Review and synthesize the TZD National Strategy and related strategies.

2. Review and synthesize the FHWA Noteworthy Practices database, other engineering databases, and other state and local safety programs and practices.

3. Review the current MDOT trunkline and local safety programs to identify gaps and determine the impacts of utilizing new strategies on Michigan’s crash profile.

4. Identify best practices for selecting and programming safety projects in other states and local agencies.

5. Make recommendations to improve Michigan’s safety programs to accelerate reductions in fatal and incapacitating injury crashes on the trunkline and local owned networks.

6. Provide training on the new TZD concept, revised tools for prioritizing safety decisions, and benefit/cost analysis.

MDOT plans to conduct a HSIP program assessment in 2021.
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 59 of 60

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

MDOT HSIP Manual FY 2018.pdf

FY 2017 Trunkline HSIP CFP.pdf

Non-trunkline_FY 2017 Safety Program Call Letter.pdf

Non-trunkline_High Risk Rural Road Program _2017 Call Letter.pdf

Low Cost Eligibility Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:

HSIP Program Review Final Report MAR142017.pdf

UD-10 Manual Serious Injury Definition.pdf
2018 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 60 of 60

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.