Page 1 of 53

MICHIGAN

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 53

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 ..............................................................................................................21

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................32

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................32

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................38

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................40

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................42

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................42

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................42

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................47

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................49
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 53

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.”
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 53

Executive Summary

The 2019 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the one year 

time period of FY 2018 which commenced on October 1, 2017 and ended on September 30, 2018. This report 

addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 53

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

countermeasure.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-TSMO (Transportation Systems Management and Operations)

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

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

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

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Other-Central Office via Statewide Formula via MDOT Regions

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

• Other-Central Office via Funding Set Aside

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

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

markings and delineation. 

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

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

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

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

within each particular Region.The State Trunkline Call for Projects cycles on a five year call for projects. 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local agencies were invited by a June 2, 2016 memorandum (HRRR) and a June 21, 2016 memorandum 

(HSIP) to submit proposed projects for consideration as part of an annual Call for Projects (CFP). All local 

agencies (counties, cities, and villages) are able to apply for the funds. Townships and tribal organizations are 

also eligible to receive the safety funds but must work with their respective county for submittal of the 

application. The emphasis of the local FY 2018 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 2018 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 2018 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 2018, 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 ($600 K), High Friction Surface Treatment ($100 K), Road 

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

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

conforming projects.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 53 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Local Agency Programs 

• Other-TSMO

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 and Pavement Friction Analysis to the Region and TSC staff for 

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

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

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

including various types of GIS mapping. 

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-County Road Association of Michigan 

• Other-Office of Highway Safety Planning

N/A

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fatalities and serious injuries on every roadway in Michigan. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Summit_2019_Program_07b_649295_7.pdf
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 53

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period. 

In 2018, MDOT added a Delineation Template in order to systemically treat Trunkline Freeway and NonFreeway locations to help reduce lane departure crashes. Project types include the following: 

Freeway Delineation:

1. Mainline Freeway Shoulder Delineation 

2. Freeway to Freeway Traveled Way Connections 

3. Interchange Delineation (Focus on non-lighted interchanges first) 

4. Interchange Guardrail Delineation 

5. Mainline Guardrail Delineation 

Non-Freeway Delineation:

1. Divided Highways Including Directional Turn arounds 

2. Rural two-lane roadways roadside Delineation 

3. Two-way/Two Lane Curved Roadway Sections 

4. Guardrail Delineation (focus on rural two-lane roadways) 

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 2018, $21.5 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.The funding was increased in March of 2018 

from the original $19 M. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

safety funding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

those improvements meeting funding criteria.

Once the FY 2018 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.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 53

In FY 2018 an additional Delineator template was created containing $1.5 M per year. This template provided 

Regions with additional funding used to install freeway and non-freeway types of delineation. 

In FY 2018, 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.The funding was increased in March of 2018 

from the original amount to add an additional $1 M to the program for FY 2018. 

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

FileName:

MDOT HSIP Manual August 2019.pdf

The MDOT HSIP Manual was recently updated in 2019.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Other-Pavement Markings 

• Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects

• Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

• Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural Roads 

• Other-Delineation

N/A

Program: Other-Pavement Markings 

Date of Program Methodology:9/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Lane miles Functional classification 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 53

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Retroreflectivity of pavement marking

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-funding set aside per each Region

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

N/A

Program: Other-Highway Safety Call for Projects

Date of Program Methodology:9/15/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Focus on fatal and serious injury 

crashes along with fixes based on crash 

types and patterns 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 53

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:3

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

N/A

Program: Other-Local Safety Call for Projects 

Date of Program Methodology:5/8/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 53

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

N/A

Program: Other-Local Safety High Risk Rural Roads 

Date of Program Methodology:3/22/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 53

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

• Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

• Level of service of safety (LOSS)

• Probability of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

N/A
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 53

Program: Other-Delineation

Date of Program Methodology:10/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Lane departure crashes Volume Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-funding set aside 

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

N/A

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 42
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 53

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• Other-funding set-asides for Local Agency Projects

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Safety Edge

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• Wrong way driving treatments

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

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

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

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

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

Rumble Strips, Clear Zone improvements, and Guardrail upgrade projects that are systemic in nature. Of the 

Federal HSIP funds obligated on the local system in fiscal year 2018, approximately 7 percent of funds went 

towards systemic projects.

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

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

program. Overall, in FY 2018, 50 percent of the total HSIP Trunkline Program funds (Safety, Pavement 

Markings, and Delineation) was used for systemic type projects. 7 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, 42 percent of HSIP project funds selected were considered to be systemic type fixes (Trunkline Safety, 

Pavement markings, Delineation, and Local Safety).

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Other-High Crash List

• Other-Transparency Report 

• Other-Fatality and Serious Injury Region-wide Maps 

• Other-3R/4R Safety Reviews 

• Other-Pavement Friction Analysis 

• Other-Customer Concerns 

• Other-Local Safety Initiative 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 53

N/A

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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 TSMO Division. The ITS program 

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

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

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

Wales, United Kingdom, aimed at providing an incubator for testing of a variety of on board and road side 

elements and applications.

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for increasing speed limits.

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

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

updated analysis spreadsheet. 

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

in 2018, MDOT added a Delineation Template in order to systemically treatment Trunkline Freeway and NonFreeway locations to help reduce lane departure crashes. The following project types are implemented with the 

delineation template. 

Freeway Delineation:
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 53

1. Mainline Freeway Shoulder Delineation 

2. Freeway to Freeway Traveled Way Connections 

3. Interchange Delineation (Focus on non-lighted interchanges first) 

4. Interchange Guardrail Delineation 

5. Mainline Guardrail Delineation 

Non-Freeway Delineation:

1. Divided Highways Including Directional Turn arounds 

2. Rural two-lane roadways roadside Delineation 

3. Two-way/Two Lane Curved Roadway Sections 

4. Guardrail Delineation (focus on rural two-lane roadways) 

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 2018 Safety Call request was 

made to the Regions on September 17, 2012. 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 25 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 2018 project, in which 2009 to 2011 (or 

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

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

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

– TOR of 10 years or less.

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

years or less. 

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

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

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

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

beyond funding targets to allocate the $4.5 M funds statewide. For FY 2018, 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 2018 improvement projects. The RSA 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 53

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 2018 each Region was required to allocate up to a certain percent of their funding 

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

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

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

approved and proven safety system wide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost Safety Improvement 

Projects-see attachment). For FY 2018 through 2020 this percentage was increased to 25 percent. 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 

2025 the percentage submitted shall be a minimum of 25 percent up to a maximum of 50 percent over a fiveyear rolling average period. 

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

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

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

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

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

See Question #6 for the HSIP methodology for Local HSIP/HRRR Safety.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 53

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

The State Fiscal year ran from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $53,887,381 $49,103,948 91.12%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $10,898,706 $11,251,261 103.23%

Totals $64,786,087 $60,355,209 93.16%

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

safety projects?

$15,933,651

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

$15,716,450

Michigan intentionally programs more local HSIP funds than the program has allocated to allow for flexibility if 

a project needs to be delayed to a different fiscal year. Projects are moved to later fiscal year as needed.

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

$550,000

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

$550,000

Non-infrastructure projects for FY 2018 included funding for Road Safety Audits for each of the 7 Regions and 

Local Safety Initiative crash review for various Local Agencies in Michigan.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 53

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

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

$0

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

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

$0

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

the future. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

During the reporting period, FY 2018, 1.08 percent of the programmed funds and 1.18 percent of the obligated 

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

Audits and the Local Safety Initiative. 

On the Local Agency side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. Overall, 24.6 percent of 

the total programmed and 26.0 percent of the total obligated federal HSIP/HRRR funds were directed to local 

safety projects.

Overall, 16.8 percent of programmed funds used were State and Local, while 18.6 percent of obligated funds 

used were State and Local. 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 53

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Walker Road 

at Poor Farm 

Road

Roadway Rumble strips - transverse 1 Intersection

s

$126000 $222570 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Pioneer Road Roadway Roadway widening - curve 0.38 Miles $153000 $155224.7 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 777 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Territorial 

Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.25 Miles $403315.65 $409154.04 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,983 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Genesee Road 

at Vienna 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

1 Intersection

s

$24513.53 $27237.26 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 2,076 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Bard Road Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

2 Miles $301500 $372616.58 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,550 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Almena Drive 

at KL Avenue

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

modify skew angle

1 Intersection

s

$456602.01 $507335.57 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 3,745 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Shippy Road Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

1.9 Miles $600000 $709499.2 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 480 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

90th Avenue Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.8 Miles $556555.5 $618428.5 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 709 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Eastman Road 

at Shaffer 

Road

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$505492.5 $577379.85 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 4,478 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Poseyville 

Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

2 Miles $640000 $1077570.7 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 3,535 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

8 Intersections 

in Monroe 

County

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled8 Intersection

s

$75202.44 $83558.27 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 6,013 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Miller Road at 

CR 489

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$243000 $276504.45 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,300 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

County Road 

432, 433, 437, 

438, 439, 440, 

441, 442, 453, 

455

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

604 Signs $84436.83 $93818.71 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 300 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

County Road 

436 (H-42)

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

1.56 Miles $600000 $833701.2 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 400 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Constantine 

Road

Roadway Roadway widening - travel 

lanes

0.98 Miles $260766.1 $285992.78 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

1,181 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Mast Road Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

2.8 Miles $466809.75 $540952 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 3,435 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Brown City 

Road

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 2 Intersection

s

$594052.65 $660058.5 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 231 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Ridge Road at 

Hack Road

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.13 Miles $14795.5 $29591 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 7,424 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Clark Road Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

1 Intersection

s

$10836 $12040 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,600 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Guardrail in 

Cass County

Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Locations $107637.53 $124576.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 2,590 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Mackinaw Trail Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$284062.5 $315625 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 15,725 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Q Avenue at 

10th Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$243000 $267379.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,500 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

9th Street at KL 

Avenue and 

Quail Run 

Drive

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

2 Intersection

s

$136000 $194454 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Portage Road 

at Lakeview 

Drive

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Intersection

s

$352800 $506380.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 16,175 25 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Oakland Drive 

at Vanderbilt 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection flashers - add 

overhead (continuous)

1 Intersection

s

$32130 $40162.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,650 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

44th Street at 

Stauffer 

Avenue

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$173572.88 $192858.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther30,500 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Fuller Avenue 

at Fulton Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Intersection

s

$88416 $101368 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Madison 

Avenue at 

Alger Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

1 Intersection

s

$347479.2 $383557.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 12,808 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Michigan 

Street

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

4 Intersection

s

$149040 $165985 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther16,430 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Pedestrian 

Upgrades

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

38 Intersection

s

$600000 $718422 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

Pine Island 

Drive 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.26 Miles $378000 $411330.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,038 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Lee Road at 

Whitmore Lake 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$600000 $997299.24 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 24,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

9 Mile Road Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian refuge 

areas

3 Locations $109141.65 $174807.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 25,500 35 City or 

Municipal 

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Highway 

Agency

Ryan Road 

and Hoover 

Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replacement

3 Intersection

s

$465705 $549715 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 33,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Oakville Waltz 

Road and Luna 

Pier Road

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

5.23 Miles $513900 $574108 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,070 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

N. Territorial 

Road

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

8.34 Miles $420510.15 $482008 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 6,551 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Seventh Street Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

2.11 Miles $79238.78 $144429.45 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,300 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Reduce Fs 

and As

Mack Avenue Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

5.38 Miles $600000 $708044 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,800 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Mt. Elliot Street 

and Conant 

Street

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

3.61 Miles $600000 $675275 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther11,300 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

curve warning 

signs, stop 

signs and stop 

ahead signs

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

284 Signs $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 5,000 55 multiple 

counties and 

cities

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

State Road Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

5.52 Miles $40304.7 $44783 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,923 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Coleman Road Roadside Barrier- metal 0.25 Miles $70320 $87900 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,143 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs

and As

Rives Junction 

Road

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

0.71 Miles $225899.46 $282374.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 3,150 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

M-47 and 

Garfield Road 

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island - install on one or 

more approaches

1 Intersection

s

$59996 $88405.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 2,533 50 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As

Lapeer Road 

and Allen Road

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$405537.3 $732942.9 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,070 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce Fs 

and As
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Bay Region 

Freeway 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

89 Miles $371250 $371250 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand Region 

Freeway 

Delineation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

41 Miles $307000 $307000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North Region 

M-22 NonFreeway 

Delineation - 

Onekema

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

52 Miles $267000 $267000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North Region 

M-22 NonFreeway 

Delineation - 

M-204 to M-20

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

25 Miles $207603 $207603 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University 

Freeway 

Delineation -

Lansing TSC 

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

26 Miles $367513 $367513 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University 

Non-Freeway 

Delineation - 

US-12 at 

Devils Lake

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

13 Miles $103000 $103000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University 

Freeway 

Delineation -

Brighton TSC 

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators post-mounted or on 

barrier 

10 Miles $77281 $77281 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay Region 

pavement 

marking 

Retroreflectivit

y readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1328 Miles $12201 $12201 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4978 Miles $2357960.1

1

$2357960.1

1

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1535 Locations $416769.68 $416769.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Grand 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1166 Miles $12314 $12314 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand Long 

line pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4961 Miles $2453352.1

2

$2453352.1

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Grand special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 2855 Locations $874089.26 $874089.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment 

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 728 Miles $11543 $11543 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2739 Miles $2506019.1

5

$2506019.1

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 4015 Locations $1261822.8

2

$1261822.8

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 541 Miles $13740 $13740 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4911 Miles $1583865.4

8

$1583865.4

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North Special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 609 Locations $270777.5 $270777.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Southwest 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 686 Miles $7750 $7750 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

3349 Miles $1685971.3 $1685971.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Southwest 

Special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 1424 Locations $384597.4 $384597.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 1031 Miles $13287 $13287 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4586 Miles $1567086.7

5

$1567086.7

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Superior 

Special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 875 Locations $416096.19 $416096.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings and 

condition 

assessment

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 962 Miles $10166 $10166 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

University 

Longitudinal 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4112 Miles $2112526.3

3

$2112526.3

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

University 

Special 

pavement 

marking 

application

Roadway

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 2072 Locations $576594.12 $576594.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-150 at 

Bristol Road 

Center Left 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

0.2 Miles $745660.54 $745660.54 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

13,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-46 from 

Hidden Oaks 

Drive to Pine 

River Center 

Left Turn Lane 

and Sidewalk 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.7 Miles $2181609.2

2

$2181609.2

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

6,500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-75 and US-23 

Median and 

Wrong Way 

Delineation

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

25 Locations $621484.16 $621484.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Bay Region 

Systemic 

Safety 

Improvements 

rumble strips, 

delineation 

Roadway Rumble strips - unspecified or 

other

25 Locations $215243.09 $215243.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-96 WB OnRamp At M-44 

Connector 

(Plainfield Ave) 

Widen and 

extend WB onramp

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on ramp 0.39 Miles $1861165.6

8

$1861165.6

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

37,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

North US-131 

at Hall and 

Wealthy Install 

Wrong Way 

Traffic system

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Locations $66000 $66000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate125,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-10/US-31 

from Brye Rd

to US-31 

Radar speed 

signs

Speed 

management

Radar speed signs 4.34 Miles $35000 $35000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,000 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31/US-10 

at Brye Road 

Install 

Dilemma Zone 

System

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Locations $27830 $27830 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,000 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

US-31 and I-96 

Planting living 

snow fence 

along ROW

Roadside Roadside - other 1.01 Miles $92507.1 $92507.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate25,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-196BL W 

88th Avenue to 

I-196 Traffic 

Flow 

Improvement

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on ramp 0.99 Miles $3246260.9

5

$5861260.9

5

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther30,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31 at Port 

Sheldon Install 

dilemma zone 

system

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Locations $27830 $27830 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther23,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-3 City of 

Eastpoint 

Median 

Pedestrian 

Refuge Islands

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian refuge 

areas

0.32 Miles $459034.32 $461732.98 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther30,000 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-94 Various 

Locations High 

Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.81 Miles $446512.72 $446512.72 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-24 

between M-59 

and James K. 

Blvd Midblock 

pedestrian 

crosswalk 

installation

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian refuge 

areas

0.74 Miles $857979.03 $857979.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther35,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Metro Region 

Wrong Way 

Signs, 

Pavement 

Markings, Stop 

Bars

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

31 Locations $336555.27 $336555.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-24 (SB) at 

Van Born 

center left-turn 

lane and signal 

upgrade

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Locations $805581.48 $805581.48 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther65,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-131 at 

Lears Road, 

Harbor Drive, 

and M-32 

Installation of 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

3 Intersection

s

$94000 $94000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Dilemma Zone 

Detection

US-131and M186 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - no control to 

two-way stop

1 Intersection

s

$2229763.0

8

$2229763.0

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-31/M72/M-37 

Corridor - 

Traverse City 

Pavement 

Marking 

Installation 

(Stop Bars)

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation - other 12.1 Miles $150790.26 $150790.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-55 and 

Cadillac Rd 

offset right turn 

lane and 

passing flare

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

0.21 Miles $268037.63 $268037.63 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 10,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

Various 

trunklines in 

North Region 

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment 

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1.54 Miles $574147.77 $574147.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-194 N 

Dickman 

Ramp Install 

Wrong Way 

Traffic 

Detection 

System

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Locations $33500 $33500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate25,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-60 at Pine 

Lake Road 

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

0.74 Miles $256866.94 $256866.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-96 at G 

Avenue right 

turn lane 

improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify rightturn lane offset0.22 Miles $140923.77 $140923.77 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-152 at 

County Line 

Road guardrail 

installation

Roadside Roadside - other 0.27 Miles $110001.27 $110001.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 53

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

I-75BS / 

Mackinac Trail 

/ 3 Mile Rd 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3120972.9

6

$3241804.2

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 15,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

M-28 

Installation of 

Sinusoidal 

Rumble Strips 

on Shoulders

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

51.8 Miles $315020.04 $315020.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-127 - I-496 

to Clinton 

County Line 

cable median 

barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 3.52 Miles $821823.75 $821823.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

45,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

WB I-96 from 

M-52 to 

Gramer Rd 

Cable median 

barrier 

Roadside Barrier - cable 2.67 Miles $187786.61 $294061.61 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate50,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

EB I-94 exit 

ramp at 

Sargent Road 

Wrong Way 

Traffic 

Detection 

System

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 Locations $35500 $35500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate48,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 

I-96 W of M-59 

to Ingham 

County Line 

Cable Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.7 Miles $864639.21 $864639.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate60,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce F's 

and A's 

US-24 from N 

of Buhl to 

Newport center 

left turn lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.49 Miles $2399087.1

4

$2419778.1

4

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce F's 

and A's 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 53

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 942 889 940 947 901 967 1,065 1,030 974

Serious Injuries 5,980 5,706 5,676 5,283 4,909 4,865 5,634 6,084 5,586

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.970 0.940 1.000 1.000 0.930 0.990 1.070 1.010 0.940

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.130 6.020 6.030 5.560 5.040 4.970 5.680 5.980 5.380

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

157 162 149 175 170 199 201 177 166

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

586 580 533 568 517 556 536 617 573
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 53

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 53

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 53

FARS data was used to set the 2020 performance targets. All other data in this report was taken from the State 

of Michigan Crash database (Road Classification, Roadway Ownership, SHSP Emphasis Areas, etc) 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

FARS data is used to calculate the 2020 performance targets. All other data included in the report uses 

Michigan's Statewide Crash database for reporting (Emphasis Areas, Road Classification, Road Ownership, 

etc) 

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

19 108.4 0.36 2.05

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

9.8 53.8 0.38 2.12

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

50.2 207 1.22 5.01

Rural Minor Arterial 90.4 434 1.34 6.44

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 53

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 13.2 70.2 1.41 7.56

Rural Major Collector 136.4 620.6 1.69 7.69

Rural Local Road or 

Street

75.8 420.6 3.08 17.22

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

77.4 398.6 0.44 2.27

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

29.4 177.2 0.46 2.79

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

210.2 1,203.2 1.19 6.83

Urban Minor Arterial 158.4 986.4 1.01 6.28

Urban Minor Collector 1.2 3 1.19 4.6

Urban Major Collector 50.2 291.6 1.6 5.82

Urban Local Road or 

Street

58.2 383.8 0.8 5.27
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 53

Year 2018

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 or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

Indian Tribe Nation

Non-Trunkline 

(County, City, Local 

Owned Roadways)

562.6 3,113.8 1.2 6.64

Trunkline (State 

Owned Roadways)

418.4 2,284 0.79 4.32

VMT was updated for 2017 and 2018 in the calculation of the above rates.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 53

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 6.9 percent over the 5 year span. State trunkline fatalities had an overall increase of 4.7 percent 

while local roadway fatalities had an overall increase of 8.7 percent. 

Serious injuries statewide have seen a decrease of 1.7 percent over the 5 year rolling average. State trunkline 

serious injuries had an overall increase of 1.3 percent while local roadway serious injuries had an overall 

decrease of 3.8 percent. 

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

Overall, the fatality rate increased 2.4 percent while the serious injury rate decreased 5.9 percent. The state 

trunkline saw a 1.4 percent decrease in the fatality rate and a 4.7 percent serious injury rate decrease. The 

local roadways saw a 6.7 percent fatality rate increase and a 5.6 percent serious injury rate decrease. 

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

miles traveled for 2010-2014 to 2014-2018. The local roadway fatality rate was below 1.20 during the entire 

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

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:999.4

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

To determine a forecasted value for the five-year rolling average for the first four measures listed 

above, the decision was made to use the model created by UMTRI like that used for establishing CY 

2019 targets in 2018.The change model created by UMTRI predicts 966 fatalities in CY 2019, and 

962 in 2020. While serious injuries have fluctuated over the past three years, the linear relationship of 

the ratio of serious injuries and fatalities (A/K) is still evident. However, this trend suggests greater 

reduction in serious injuries. Therefore, a quadratic trend is being used that projects a flattening 

pattern. The model predicts 5,181 serious injuries in CY 2018, and 5,117 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 roadways.

Number of Serious Injuries:5520.4

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

To determine a forecasted value for the five-year rolling average for the first four measures listed 

above, the decision was made to use the model created by UMTRI like that used for establishing CY 

2019 targets in 2018.The change model created by UMTRI predicts 966 fatalities in CY 2019, and 

962 in 2020. While serious injuries have fluctuated over the past three years, the linear relationship of 

the ratio of serious injuries and fatalities (A/K) is still evident. However, this trend suggests greater 

reduction in serious injuries. Therefore, a quadratic trend is being used that projects a flattening 

pattern. The model predicts 5,181 serious injuries in CY 2018, and 5,117 in 2019. This supports the 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 53

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

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

Fatality Rate:0.970

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2018, 2019 and 2020. Using the fatal and serious injury 

values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality rates are 0.91 for CY 2019, 

and 0.89 for CY 2020, and annual serious injury rates of 4.90 for CY 2019, and 4.75 for CY 2020. 

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

generate non-motorized forecasted annual values of 710 for CY 2019, and 699 for CY 2020. This 

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

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

Serious Injury Rate:5.340

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2018, 2019 and 2020. Using the fatal and serious injury 

values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality rates are 0.91 for CY 2019, 

and 0.89 for CY 2020, and annual serious injury rates of 4.90 for CY 2019, and 4.75 for CY 2020. 

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

generate non-motorized forecasted annual values of 710 for CY 2019, and 699 for CY 2020. This 

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

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

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:735.8

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

To determine a forecasted value for the five-year rolling average for the first four measures listed 

above, the decision was made to use the model created by UMTRI like that used for establishing CY 

2019 targets in 2018.The change model created by UMTRI predicts 710 fatalities and serious injuries 

in CY 2019, and 699 in 2020. This supports the SHSP by identifying Michigan's key safety needs and 

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

public roadways.

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. See attached Assessing Safety Performance HSIP 2020 Target summary document.

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. 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 53

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

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

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

N/A

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Using the updated fatal information from FARs through 2017 and the updated VMT from the CY 2020 targets 

setting process 4 of the 5 CY 2018 final measures would meet either the target or base. In response to 

changes in FARs data the 2016 base for Fatalities and Non-motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries were 

revised from the original numbers provided in 2017. In addition, an update to the 2016 travel data revised the 

base Serious Injury Rate.

The numbers are draft due to the draft 2018 travel data, which may impact the final CY 2018 values for the two 

rates. The table below summarizes the progress of meeting the 2018 Safety Performance Targets. 

Safety Performance 

Measure

Baseline Through 

Calendar Year 2016

Calendar Year 2018 

State Safety Target

Final

Calendar

Year 

2018

% 

difference 

From 

Target

Meet 

Either 

Target or 

Base 

Fatalities 964.0 1,003.2 987.4 1.6 Yes

Fatality Rate 1.00 1.02 0.99 2.9 Yes

Serious Injuries 5,273.4 5,136.4 5,415.6 -5.4 No

Serious Injury Rate 5.45 5.23 5.41 -3.4 Yes

Non-motorized Fatalities & 

Serious Injuries 720.8 743.6 742.4 0.2 Yes

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

N/A

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

138 160 126 133 172 155 159
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 53

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

418 413 434 393 506 558 509

Data has been updated with 2018 crash data information based on the State of Michigan Crash database.
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 53

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

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

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

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

markings, delineation, and other systemic treatments.

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

MDOT conducted a Before and After Study for trunkline projects in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 in 2018. 

See attached report and summary below. 

The majority of project locations experienced a reduction in the number of crashes between the before and 

after periods however, a significant portion were not found to be statistically significant. This is due, in part, to 

limitations of available crash data, the length of time it takes to move a safety project through MDOT's Safety 

Call for Projects, currently 5 years, and the variability of crashes and traffic operations in general. Moving 

forward, MDOT Safety Programs is improving their HSIP programming considering innovative ideas for safety 

improvements along with focusing their efforts on project data retention including the original time of return 

(TOR) form, intended targeted crashes, and crash data used to justify the original safety project. In the future 

MDOT Safety Programs will continue to conduct before and after studies utilizing the data-driven approach to 

safety decisions focusing on the Towards Zero Deaths initiative.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• Other-Before and After Studies

• Other-Additional Systemic Treatments based on crash data

N/A

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 53

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 430 1,963 0.43 1.97

Intersections 279.4 1,985.2

Older Drivers 212.6 972.8 0.21 0.97

Motorcyclists 133.2 617.6 0.13 0.62

Work Zones 18.8 70.2 0.02 0.07

Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists 

187 559.8 0.19 0.56

Commercial Vehicles 103.4 321.8 0.1 0.32

Younger Drivers (16 to 

24) 

281.8 1,774.2 0.28 1.78

Impaired Drivers 390.2 1,134.4 0.39 1.14
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 53

N/A

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

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

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 53

N/A
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 53

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

See attached Before and After Study for Trunkline locations for fiscal years 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.

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 400 fatalities statewide in 2018 (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.In 2018 MDOT added $1.5 M to construct delineation on Freeway and Non-Freeway Roadways. We also added an additional $1 M to our annual pavement markings program to help reduce lane departure crashes. 

In 2018 installed sinusoidal mumble strips as a pilot project. Analysis of the functionality of the effectiveness of the installation will be conducted during FY 2019 and 2020. 

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

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

MDOT also created Safety Guides for Local Agencies regarding Cost Effective Proven Safety Countermeasures. 

https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=ddb32e1d-ed1b-4b23-a234-

18eef0b2a0b0&fileName=Making%20our%20Roadways%20Safer%20One%20Countermeasure%20at%20a%20Time%202019%20Michigan%20Edition.pdf

https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=7a5d30ec-3a2b-475f-b5bf-1e3ac5858e9a&fileName=Common%20Safety%20Countermeasures%20for%20Local%20Agencies.pdf

MDOT is piloting various locations of Wrong Way warning system throughout the state in areas where wrong way drivers are being detected. These systems will be analyzed on their effectiveness to move forward with implementation.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9620_11057-484050--,00.html

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 MDOT created a "Crash vs. Accident" poster and campaign that was distributed throughout the state in our Region and TSC Offices as well as our Rest Areas. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/Crash_Accident_Posters_630244_7.pdf

Research is also a key factor in reaching our TZD goals. MDOT conducts multiple research projects per year. In 2018 several projects were completed were the list below. These research projects help MDOT Safety Programs access our 

current safety program and goals in order to improve the overall safety of Michigan's roadways. 
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 53

1.Safety Performance Functions for Rural Road Segment and Rural Intersections in Michigan 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/OR14-027_-_MDOT_Rural_SPF_-_FINAL_REPORT_May_11_2018_623286_7.pdf

2. Assessment of Countermeasure Gaps, Predictive Crash Analysis and Engineering Safety Programs in Michigan

3. Evaluating the Impacts of Speed Limit Increases on Identified Case Studies

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPEED_LIMIT_FINAL_REPORT_-_SPR_-_1648_616270_7.pdf

4. Developing Michigan Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Models 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/SPR-1651_-_Final_Report_Developing_Michigan_Pedestrian_and_Bicycle_Safety_Models_626802_7.pdf

The following projects will be completed in FY 2019 or 2020. 

1. Sponsorship of the TRB Roundtable on Preparing for Automated Vehicles and Shared Mobility Services

2. Measure the Operational Cost and Benefit of Speed Feedback Signs
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 53

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: 2019

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

 2020

The 2019-2022 SHSP will be approved by the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission and the Governor in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020. Any future SHSP will be on a 4-year cycle to coincide with the Gubernatorial cycle in 

Michigan. 

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

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100

Segment Length

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 80 95
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 53

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22)

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

95 10

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

80 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 95

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100

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)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

AADT Year (80) 100 95

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

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
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 53

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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)

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

MIRE FDE percent completes remain uncharged for 2018.

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.

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

No

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

MDOT plans to conduct a HSIP program assessment in 2021.

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 53

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

FY 2018 HSIP Local Safety Program Call Letter.pdf

FY 2018 Trunkline CFP.pdf

HRRR_2018_Call Letter 06-02-16.pdf

MDOT HSIP Manual August 2019.pdf

Low Cost Eligibility Guidelines.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

MDOT 2020 PM1 Safety Targets.pdf

Evaluation:

MDOT HSIP FY2009 2010 2011 Before After Repot - Final (Signed).pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 53

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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