Page 1 of 50

MINNESOTA
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 50

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 21

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 21

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 36

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 38

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 45
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 50

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 50

Executive Summary 

The Minnesota safety program distributes HSIP funds between Local and State agencies. The program balances needs 

for fiscal responsibility with effective safety strategies by emphasizing projects identified in systemic analysis or safety 

planning. As fatal and serious injury crashes are widely distributed, lower-cost countermeasures receive additional 

consideration to improve coverage of the roadway system.

The SHSP is the comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on public roads in Minnesota; this 

plan is the primary guidance for HSIP. Collaboration between local and state, internal and external partners is key to this 

process. The Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) program and HSIP provide the context for partners to engage with 

State traffic safety programming.
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 50

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

Technology (OTST) solicits projects from local governing units for the next four years; a parallel solicitation 

for State projects is issued to the districts. These solicitations aim to fully program safety projects in the next 

two years, but projects three to four years out are awarded to ensure planning. A parallel process is conducted 

within the Minneapolis-St Paul Metro that is coordinated through the MPO. Funding is distributed between 

Local and State based on fatal and serious injury crashes; distribution between each district or Area 

Transportation Partnership is based on the location of these fatal and serious injury crashes. 

Beginning with SFY 2017, OTST approves all State and Local HSIP projects before they are entered in the 

STIP. The award memo received is the basis for being allowed to enter the STIP.

 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Formula via Districts/Regions

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

Page 6 of 50

Central Office allocates funds based on fatal and serious injury crashes between State Highways and Local 

Roads. Within these each DOT District or Area Transportation Planning Region receives targets based on crash 

history. Solicitations are administered centrally twice annually. 

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

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

with representatives from State-Aid and MnDOT District Traffic Engineers, prioritize the local HSIP projects 

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

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

follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

rather than countermeasures within larger projects are given priority.

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

2017. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

district traffic engineer is aware of and supportive of their prospective project if it impacts MnDOT roadways. 
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 50

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

additional HSIP coordination occurs. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

FHWA

Other-City Engineer Safety Committee

Other-County Engineer Safety Committee

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

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

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

collaborate to develop local initiatives.

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

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

helping to direct action among local partners.

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

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 50

File Name:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 50

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 : 3

Cost Effectiveness : 3

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

Minnesota does not define explicit programs or subprograms for HSIP: projects are selected from a competitive 

application process.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 72

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Horizontal curve signs

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

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

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 50

Yes

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

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

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

investigations in Minnesota have been funded outside of HSIP.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

prediction of total crashes.

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 50

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $37,276,296 $11,639,254 31.22%

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) $3,821,446 $3,821,196 99.99%

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 $0 $0 0%

Totals $41,097,742 $15,460,450 37.62%

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

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

56%

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

6%

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

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

Page 12 of 50

2%

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

4%

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

consistently higher than bids.

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

communication between offices at the Department. New regular updates by programming office on 

programmed and let projects to help OTST reallocate HSIP funds back to HSIP projects. Development of 

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

and District leadership. MnDOT has obtained IDIQ SEP-14 approval to better meet obligations; projects have 

been identified that will use this process moving forward.

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

No
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 50

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

CSAH 50: AT CSAH 11/CR 

404 IN BEMIDJI, INSTALL 

RURAL INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

1 Intersections $132450.3 $147167 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 20: AT THE JCT OF 

CSAH 20 & CSAH 19 IN 

POLK COUNTY. 

INTERSECTION 

REALIGNMENT & 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Intersections $166630 $185144 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 13: FROM CSAH 3 

TO TH 25, SHOULDER 

PAVE, RUMBLE STRIPE & 

SAFETY EDGE, INCLUDES 

BIT RECLAIM & CULVERT 

REPLACEMENT (NON PAR)

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3 Miles $108000 $733861 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

BLUE EARTH 

COUNTYWIDE: CURVE 

AND INTERSECTION 

SAFETY IMP. INCLUDING 

SIGNING, PVMT 

MARKINGS, SHLDR 

PAVING, RUMBLE STRIPS 

& STRIPES AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

92 Miles $589056 $654507 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-1 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 2017 RURAL 

INTERSECTION LIGHTING 

AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT CARLTON, 

ITASCA & ST. LOUIS 

COUNTIES (ST LOUIS IS 

LEAD)

Lighting Intersection lighting 55 Intersections $1058247 $1175830 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CASS COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" EPOXY 

EDGELINE STRIPING & 6" 

GROUND IN WETREFLECTIVE EDGELINE 

STRIPING AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT CASS CO

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 63 Miles $433055.07 $481172.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

SKOGMAN LAKE RD: 

FROM 0.15 MI S OF CSAH 

10 TO CSAH 10, REALIGN 

SKOGMAN RD TO A TINTERSECTION AT CSAH 4 

& ON CSAH 10 AT CSAH 

4/SKOGMAN RD, TURN 

LNS

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $275565 $306184 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

CSAH 23 (CHISAGO BLVD): 

AT CSAH 27 (MORGAN 

AVE) IN CHISAGO LAKES 

TWP, CONSTRUCT LEFT & 

RIGHT TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $280800 $477050 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 1: CSAH 27 TO TH 

30, OVLY, PAVE SHLDRS, 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

8 Miles $324816.96 $3019113.3 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 31: AT NORTHLAND 

DR & MENDOTA HEIGHTS 

RD (MSAS 103) IN 

MENDOTA HTS, CONST TO 

3/4 ACCESS 

INTERSECTION AT 

NORTHLAND DR & LFT 

TRN LNS ALONG MSAS 

103

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $667791.96 $741991.06 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 1: CSAH 18 TO EAST 

COUNTY LINE, INSTALL 2' 

SHOULDER PAVING WITH 

SAFETY WEDGE & 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 7 Miles $193555 $215061 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 1: CSAH 18 TO EAST 

COUNTY LINE, INSTALL 2' 

SHOULDER PAVING WITH 

SAFETY WEDGE & 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 7 Miles $571050 $645753 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-6 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" EDGELINE 

EPOXY PVMT MARKINGS 

AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 457 Miles $1034481.25 $1149423.62 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

METRO COUNTYWIDE: 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON 

CSAH'S 17,61,81,130 & 152, 

FIBER OPTIC CABLE 

INTERCONNET, 

PURCHASE ATMS TO 

MONITOR & COORDINATE 

81 TRAFFIC SIGS

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing -

signal coordination

39 Intersections $1459246 $1621384 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

ISANTI COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND IN WETREFLECTIVE PVMT 

MARKINGS ON VARIOUS 

CSAH'S/CR'S

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 21 Miles $143398 $177034 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

ISANTI COUNTYWIDE: ON 

MULTIPLE CSAH'S/CR'S 

THROUGHOUT ISANTI CO., 

INSTALL CHEVRON SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

35 Curves $50114 $61869 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-8 LINCOLN 

COUNTYWIDE: INSTALL 

CHEVRONS & EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

36 Curves $137523.09 $152803.43 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

LYON COUNTYWIDE: AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

65 Miles $353000 $491603 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

THROUGHOUT LYON CO., 

DURABLE PVMT 

MARKINGS

LYON COUNTYWIDE: AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

THROUGHOUT LYON CO., 

CHEVRON INSTALLATION

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

30 Curves $26001 $28890 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-8 MCLEOD 

COUNTYWIDE: INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AT VARIOUS 

LCOATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

107 Miles $57858.35 $64287.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

MORRISON COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL CHEVRON SIGNS 

ON MULTIPLE COUNTY 

ROADS IN MORRISON 

COUNTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

43 Curves $19305.59 $21450.66 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

MORRISON COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN 6" 

EPOXY WET REFLECTIVE 

MARKING ON MULTIPLE 

MORRISON COUNTY 

ROADS

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 62 Miles $235411.09 $261567.88 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

MORRISON COUNTYWIDE: 

6" PAVEMENT MARKINGS 

ON VARIOUS CSAH'S & 

CR'S IN MORRISON CO

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

250 Miles $166238.26 $262144.79 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

US 10: FROM 126' S OF 

CSAH 33 TO 1160' N OF E 

ST. GERMAIN ST IN ST. 

CLOUD- INSTALL CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 6 Miles $195142.04 $216824.49 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

US 10: FROM 126' S OF 

CSAH 33 TO 1160' N OF E 

ST. GERMAIN ST IN ST. 

CLOUD- INSTALL CABLE 

MEDIAN BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 0 Miles $405312.74 $450347.49 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 25: FROM TH 95 TO TH 

23 IN FOLEYRECLAMATION & PAVE 

SHOULDERS

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing shoulders 5 Miles $208868.68 $232076.31 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-8 MURRAY 

COUNTYWIDE: INSTALL 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

EDGELINES/CENTERLINES 

AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 28 Miles $172635.35 $191817.06 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL LATEX & EPOXY 

EDGELINE PVMT 

MARKINGS AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

1358 Miles $778690.92 $865212.15 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

CSAH 53: AT CSAH 11, 

INTERSECTION 

REALIGNMENT & 

LIGHTING & ON CSAH 53, 

FROM CSAH 11 TO CSAH 

50, BIT SUF & AGG 

SHOULDER

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $90119.97 $394295.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 45 (LONG LAKE RD): 

AT THE INTERSECTION OF 

CSAH 10 (MOUNDS VIEW 

BLVD) IN MOUNDS VIEWCONST LEFT TURN LNS, 

REPLC SIGNAL, APS & 

COUNTDOWN TIMERS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

1 Intersections $315640 $459371 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

D-8 RENVILLE 

COUNTYWIDE: INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE PAINT 

STRIPING AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

185 Miles $66883.06 $130218.72 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 13: AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF CSAH 

45 IN ST. LOUIS COMAINLINE DYNAMIC 

WARNING SYSTEM 

PROJECT

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

1 Intersections $67889.03 $75432.26 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-1 ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE:TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL CONFIRMATION 

LIGHT PROJECT, INSTALL 

RED LIGHT-RUNNING 

CONFIRMATION LIGHTS 

AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS 

IN DULUTH(cont)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

13 Intersections $32400 $36000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

CSAH 27: AT CSAH 68 IN 

CREDIT RIVER TWP, 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $954000 $1478356 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 1: AT 

INTERSECTION OF CSAH 4 

(W OF ZIMMERMAN) AND 

ON CSAH 16, AT 

INTERSECTION OF CSAH 

11 (S OF SANTIAGO)-

INSTALL LED STOP SIGNS

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

2 Intersections $7758 $8620 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

SHERBURNE 

COUNTYWIDE: IMPROVE 

INTERSECTION SIGNING 

ON MULTIPLE 

SHERBURNE COUNTY 

ROADS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

6 Intersections $11484 $12760 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

STEARNS COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE EPOXY 

PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON 

MULTIPLE CSAH'S/CR'S 

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 22 Miles $264823.34 $294248.16 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

THROUGHOUT STEARNS 

CO

CSAH 2: GREYSTONE RD 

TO CSAH 75 & FROM N 

LIMITS OF ST. JOSEPH TO 

CSAH 4 & ON CSAH 133, 

FROM N LIMITS OF ST. 

JOSEPH TO 19TH AVEINSTALL RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

16 Miles $12469.5 $13855 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-3 TODD COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROIUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT 

MARKING ON MULTIPLE 

ROADS

Roadway 

delineation

Improve retroreflectivity 208 Miles $81220.13 $90244.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 3: FROM S COUNTY 

LN TO TH 27, SHOULDER 

PVMT, SAFETY WEDGE, 

RUMBLE STRIPES & 

BITUMINOUS OVERLAY

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

9 Miles $459653.41 $2043535.55 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

CSAH 35: AT JCT OF CSAH 

6 & JCT OF CSAH 8, 

INSTALL INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

2 Intersections $205265 $228072 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

CR 117 (EDMONSON AVE): 

AT JCT'S OF CSAH 35, 

CSAH 37 & CR 113 AND AT 

JCT OF CSAH 39 AND 

CSAH 11, INSTALL 

DYNAMIC RURAL 

INTERSECTION WARNING 

SYSTEMS

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

4 Intersections $217187 $241319 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

D-8 YELLOW MEDICINE 

COUNTYWIDE: INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE (EPOXY & 

LATEX) AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

28 Miles $32198.88 $35776.53 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 169: AT TH 37 IN 

HIBBING & ON TH 37, 

FROM TH 169 TO 0.29 MI E 

OF TH 169 - CONST 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2559864.15 $2847848.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TH 65 (CENTRAL AVE): IN 

COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, 

FROM 47TH AVE TO 51ST 

AVE, PEDESTRIAN & 

VEHICLE LIGHTING & 

CONST 3/4 INTERSECTION 

BTWN 47TH & 48TH AVE 

NE

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $833976 $957518 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

MSAS 221 (7TH ST S): 

FROM 3RD AVE S TO 11TH 

AVE S IN MINNEAPOLIS, 

INSTALL MAST ARMS AT 6 

EXISTING SIGNALS (3RD, 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

6 Intersections $1638000 $1871604 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

5TH, PORTLAND, PARK, 

CHICAGO & 11TH)

TH 92: AT INTERSECTION 

OF CSAH 26/27 (340TH ST) 

IN NORA TWP, INSTALL 

RURAL INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM (RICWS) & 

LIGHTING

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS -

other

1 Intersections $115983 $128870 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

TH 52: 1070' N OF CSAH 86 

TO 130' S OF CSAH 46, 

CLOSE MEDIAN XOVERS, 

CONST 3/4 INTERSECTION 

WITH U-TURN & TURN LN, 

CABLE MEDIAN BARRIER

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $3561205.58 $3956895.09 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 52: NH FROM 

ROCHESTER TO CANNON 

FALLS- MED BIT OVLY, 

CULV REPLC/REPAIR, 

TENSION CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER, TURN LNS & 

BYPASS LN

Roadside Barrier - cable 7 Miles $1086998.4 $1207776 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

I-35: 'ELLA' FROM 

IOWA/MN BORDER TO I-90 

(JUST N OF ALBERT LEA)-

INSTALL CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 14 Miles $1146054.72 $1273394.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

I-35: 'ELLA' FROM 

IOWA/MN BORDER TO I-90 

(JUST N OF ALBERT LEA)-

INSTALL CABLE MEDIAN 

BARRIER

Roadside Barrier - cable 14 Miles $0 $0 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 59: AT CSAH 6, CONST 

LEFT TURN LANE

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $452228.81 $502576.46 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

TH 238: 0.4 MI N OF 

RAILROAD AVE IN ALBANY 

TO CR 21 IN UPSALARECLAMATION & 

SHOULDER WIDENING

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

14 Miles $126998.55 $141109.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 94: TH 15 

INTERCHANGE TO 

STEARNS CSAH 75 

INTERCHANGE IN ST. 

CLOUD- REPLACE MEDIAN 

CABLE GUARDRAIL

Roadside Barrier - cable 1 Locations $0 $0 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN 

D-4, RUMBLE/MUMBLE 

STRIPES & SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

224 Miles $373899.3 $415443.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: AT 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN 

D-4, RUMBLE/MUMBLE 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

224 Miles $100676.33 $111862.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

STRIPES & SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

CSAH 3: FROM TH 32 IN 

ST. HILAIRE TO TH 59, 

SHOULDER PAVING, 

RUMBLE STRIPS & 

SAFETY WEDGE

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 Miles $144669.54 $160743.93 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

METRO DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL SIGNS ON 

HORIZONTAL CURVES TO 

COMPLY WITH NEW 

MMUTCD STANDARDS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

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

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 71: 0.5 MI N OF TH 23 

TO 0.2 MI N OF TH 9- M&O, 

TURN LANES & GLACIAL 

LAKES STATE TRAIL EXT, 

CONST UNDERPASS 

UNDER TH 71 (BR 34X05)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Locations $451296.54 $1277517.84 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

D-4 DISTRICTWIDE: 

LIGHTING AT VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Lighting Intersection lighting 55 Intersections $360900 $476969 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State and 

County Highway 

Agencies

Systemic Intersections

CSAH 8: FROM CSAH 46 

TO CR 77: SHOULDER 

PAVING, RUMBLE 

STRIPES, ENHANCED 

CENTERLINE PVMT 

MARKINGS & BIT SAFETY 

EDGE

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3 Miles $114652.96 $842493.84 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

TH 59: AT CSAH 22, 

ROUNDABOUT (BIT & 

CONC SURF), ADA & 

LIGHTING

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1808040.35 $1808290.35 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TH 19: FROM 0.27 MI W OF 

CSAH 3 TO CSAH 89 -

CONSTRUCT CENTER 

LEFT & RIGHT TURN 

LANES & LIGHTING

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

1 Intersections $480000 $480000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

TH 94: TH 15 

INTERCHANGE TO 

STEARNS CSAH 75 

INTERCHANGE IN ST. 

CLOUD- REPLACE MEDIAN 

CABLE GUARDRAIL

Roadside Barrier - cable 1 Locations $813155.25 $813155.25 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

STATEWIDE: TRAFFIC 

EVALUATION, ROAD 

SAFETY AUDIT OF MN TH 

23 FROM CITY OF FOLEY 

TO MILACA (NE OF ST. 

CLOUD)

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 16 Miles $25000 $25000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Planning / 

Management 

Systems

STATEWIDE: *SEC164*: 

CRASH DATABASE 

SYSTEM & DATA 

ENHANCEMENTS: CRASH 

BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE 

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $100000 $100000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 50

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

ENHANCEMENT -

GEOSPATIAL ANALYTICS, 

SITE

STATEWIDE: TRAFFIC 

EVALUATIONROUNDABOUT CAPACITY 

& SAFETY ANALYSIS

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $25000 $25000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 NoninfrastructureOther Intersections

STATEWIDE: TRAFFIC 

EVALUATION, 

INTERSECTION CONFLICT 

WARNING SYSTEMS 

ANALYSIS

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $30000 $30000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 NoninfrastructureOther Intersections

STATEWIDE: 

INTERSECTION 

STRATEGIESCONSTRICTOR 

PAVEMENT MARKING & 

SINUSOIDAL RUMBLES 

BID PKG

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

82 Intersections $55000 $55000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure

STATEWIDE: 5.5 TZD 

(TOWARD ZERO DEATHS) 

REGIONAL COORDINATOR 

POSITIONS, SALARIES & 

EXPENSES 7/1/17 TO 

6/30/18

Non-infrastructure Educational efforts 5.5 Numbers $485000 $485000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

0 NoninfrastructureSystemic Traffic Safety 

Culture

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

Page 21 of 50

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 455 421 411 368 395 387 361 411 392

Serious Injuries 1,553 1,271 1,191 1,159 1,268 1,216 1,044 1,127 2,000

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0.790 0.740 0.720 0.650 0.690 0.680 0.630 0.700 0.670

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.710 2.230 2.100 2.040 2.230 2.130 1.820 1.910 3.400

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

38 51 45 45 47 39 20 50 67

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

170 129 132 150 152 144 124 153 308
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 24 of 50

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

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

displayed to the officer added "Suspected." With the revised phrasing, we have seen A injuries reported at 

higher numbers than previously seen (2,000 serious injuries reported in 2016 versus an average of 955 over the 

last five years). Part of this may be due to the new definition but part may be attributed to officer training. 

Minnesota hopes to address training and modeling to set targets/goals moving forward.

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

Year 2015

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

12.4 28.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 50

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 -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

64.4 116.4

Rural Minor Arterial 64.6 124.2

Rural Minor Collector 21.6 52.6

Rural Major Collector 63 149.6

Rural Local Road or Street 31.4 84.2

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

15 51.2

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

6 20.4

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

23.4 84.8

Urban Minor Arterial 49.6 253.6

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 12.4 83.4

Urban Local Road or Street 15.6 98
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 50

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 190 449.8 0.57 1.35

County Highway Agency 137.4 482.4 0.98 3.45

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

19.6 56.4 1.64 4.71

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

33 285.6 0.36 3.1

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 50

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 50

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 50

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

Over the course of 2016, Minnesota has been in the process of updating MnDOT's linear referencing and crash 

reporting systems. At this time, traffic volume data by functional classification was not consistently available as 

the new system is being populated. While functional classification is being reported in the crash report, current 

extracts have been inconsistent in populating this field. As such, 2016 performance measures by functional 

classification have not been populated for this report.

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

elaborate?

Yes

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

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

displayed to the officer added "Suspected." With the revised phrasing, we have seen A injuries reported at 

higher numbers than previously seen (2,299 serious injuries reported in 2016 versus an average of 955 over the 

last five years). Part of this may be due to the new definition but part also concerns training of officers: 

Minnesota plans to review training material for crash data collection.

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

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

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

with more information.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 50

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 375.0 

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

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

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

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

substantial change in the measures. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1935.0 

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

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

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

number (81% increase) and projected forward to the 2018 time period. Additional 

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

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

Fatality Rate 0.620 

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

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

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

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

the measures. 

Serious Injury Rate 3.190 

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

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

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

(81% increase) and projected forward to the 2018 time period. Additional slight 

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

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

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 348.0 
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 50

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

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

year rolling average and projecting forward to a target year. Additional slight 

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

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

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

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

targets. 

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

the leadership team to adopt safety performance targets for the state.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

58 51 60 59 63 53 79

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

86 91 83 93 89 105 88
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 50

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 50

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes

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

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

level evaluations.

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

While overall fatal and serious injury crashes are declining, further investigation is necessary into (1) potential 

plateauing of fatalities, and (2) inconsistencies in reporting serious injuries after instrumentation change at the 

beginning of 2016. MnDOT publishes these trends in an annual pocket-sized Trivia Card for stakeholder and 

public use.

http://www.mndot.gov/trafficeng/publ/triviacard/

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Other-Under consideration

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

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

no further indicators have been adopted.

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 50

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 201.2 549.2

Intersections 135.6 655

Pedestrians 38.4 122.4

Bicyclists 7.2 55.8

Older Drivers 90.6 203.4

Motorcyclists 56.8 222.4

Work Zones 7.6 19.6
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 50

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

In 2016, a new crash report was implemented in Minnesota. While definitions have been developed to track 

each of the SHSP Emphasis Areas, the underlying fields have changed. Abnormal spikes in the data from 2015 

to 2016 have occurred but will normalize over time.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 42 of 50

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

Yes

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

CounterMeasures: Multi-lane Roundabouts 

Description: Update of previous study on Multilane Roundabouts (2013) 

Target Crash Type: Angle 

Number of Installations: 39 

Number of Installations: 39 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Case-control 

Results: 

Multi-lane roundabouts are 

showing several problems 

that require complex 

solutions. These solutions 

could add significant costs 

for a multi-lane 

roundabout to function 

correctly.

The safety performance of 

multi-lane roundabouts is 

not definitive; it appears 

they have a similar safety 

performance to high 

volume, low speed 

signalized intersections; 

defined by MnDOT as a 

traffic volume greater than 

15,000 ADT, and the 

posted speed is less than 

45 mph. The unbalanced 

and dual lane roundabout 

crash rate is also 240% 

and 630% greater, 

respectively, than the 

single lane roundabouts in 

Minnesota.
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 50

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Reduced Conflict Intersection 

Description: 

Target Crash Type: Angle 

Number of Installations: 8 

Number of Installations: 8 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Before/after using comparison group 

Results: 

The Reduced Conflict Intersections 

aim to reduce the number of fatal and 

serious injury right-angle crashes. 

Based on the limited after crash data, 

the RCI is reducing the target crashes: 

fatal (-100%), serious injury (-67%), 

and right-angle crashes (-77%).

When aggregated, the crash data for 

intersection-related crashes obtained 

has shown that RCIs have reduced all 

crashes by 15%. Right-angle crashes 

have been reduced by 77%. Most 

importantly, they have reduced fatal 

and injury crashes by over 50% (when 

comparing injury crashes with 

severity K, A, B, and C) and the most 

severe crashes (Fatal and A-injury) by 

100%.

These results are statistically 

significant and lower than standard 

thru-stop controlled intersections.

File Name: Hyperlink
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 50

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A

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

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

Yes

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

MnDOT is discussing adding evaluation to the initial project scope. Currently, we have begun the process with two projects by setting up evaluation plans before the project is executed; deliverables may be either data or an evaluation 

report.
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 50

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/20/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2019

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

 2020

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

Minnesota anticipates working on the SHSP update process in calendar 2018 with publication targeted for 2019.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 0 0 100 0 90

Route Number (8) 100 0

Route/Street Name (9) 100 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 0 0 100

Surface Type (23) 100 0 0 80

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 0 0 100 0 90

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 0 0 100 0 90

Segment Length (13) 100 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0 0 100 0 90

Median Type (54) 100 0
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 50

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 0 0 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 0 0 100

AADT Year (80) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0 0 100 0 90

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

85 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

85 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

85 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

85 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

85 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

85 0

AADT Year (80) 85 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

85 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

95 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 50

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

Interchange Type (182) 95 0

Ramp AADT (191) 85 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 85 0

Functional Class (19) 100 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

70 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 0.00 85.00 0.00 93.64 0.00 0.00 97.78 0.00 90.00

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

MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management (OTSM) collects and maintains MIRE fundamental element data and quality. These elements are stored and made available through MnDOT via the linear referencing system. There 

are discussions underway that will improve the accuracy of local road data by referencing locally updated Minnesota Next Gen E911 systems. Currently, roadway data continuously updated and edited to match the existing environment; 

OTSM estimates that all characteristics are updated at least annually.

Non-local Paved Roads are defined here as trunk highways: in Minnesota, all of these roads are owned by the State. MnDOT has maintained an inventory of intersections and interchanges with trunk highways. In developing safety plans for 

the MnDOT districts, additional intersections in Greater Minnesota were added; approximately 87% of the intersections existed in the previous inventory. At this time, Minnesota has extensive coverage but will conduct further investigation 

into level of accuracy, especially on the local system.

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

At this time, Minnesota has extensive coverage of MIRE fundamental data elements but is working on improving accuracy of the values. Before we can expand accuracy, we will analyze current accuracy and coverage of the data. There are 

discussions underway that will improve the accuracy of street name data by referencing locally updated Minnesota Next Gen E911 system. Similarly, there has been progress in discussions regarding sharing local data on tribal roads 

moving forward. Minnesota is working to improve centerlines from van-mounted LiDAR data along state highways; MnDOT is investigating the option of using aerial LiDAR to improve local road data in the future.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

than a fatal injury, which prevents the 

injured person from walking, driving or 

normally continuing the activities the 

person was capable of performing before 

the injury occurred.

Yes Inclusions: severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or 

when taken from the accident scene, 

unable to leave the accident without 

assistance

Exclusions: momentary unconsciousness

Yes
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 50

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

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

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

other than fatal which results in one or 

more of the following: 

Yes severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; broken 

or distorted extremity (arm or leg); crush 

injuries; suspected skull, chest or 

abdominal injury other than bruises or 

minor lacerations; significant burns (second 

and third degree burns over 10% or more 

of the body); unconsciousness when taken 

from the crash scene; paralysis

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

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

of the review was to establish an 80% minimum obligation goal.
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 50

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

2015strategicfocusareatrends.pdf

Multi-Lane_Roundabouts_Minnesota_2016.pdf

RCIs_in_Minnesota_2017_v1.1.pdf

Compliance Assessment:

MMUCC - Status of Compliant Serious Injury Reporting - MN.pdf

Injury Definitions, Table.pdf
2017 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 50

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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