Page 1 of 49

MICHIGAN 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence .............................................................3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................30

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................30

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

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

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................39

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................39

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

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

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................45

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................48

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................49
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 49

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. 407 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.” 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 49

Executive Summary

The 2022 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the one year 

time period of FY 2021 which commenced on October 1, 2020 and ended on September 30, 2021. This report 

addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and non-trunkline roadways.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 49

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 trunkline and nontrunkline 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 Trunkline and Non-Trunkline 

roadways. There is also a funding set aside amount directly for Trunkline 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 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 49

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

within each Region. The State Trunkline Call for Projects cycles on a five-year call for projects platform.

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

For the local roadway network HSIP funds, $15M was programmed and approximately $17 M were obligated 

by the Local Agency Programs Safety Engineer located in the Central Office. The HSIP funds were allocated to 

three separate Call for Projects: $6 M for High-Risk Rural Roads (HRRR), $7.5 M for Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP), and $1.5 M for Streamlined Systemic 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 (LSI), 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 per project, with a 20 or 10 percent Local Agency match, respectively. A maximum amount 

of $2M per Local Agency per fiscal year was allowed.

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 Local Agencies 

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

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

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

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

Local agencies were invited by a May 6, 2019 memorandum to submit proposed projects for consideration as 

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

the funds. MDOT asked the County Road Association of Michigan and the Michigan Municipal League to 

distribute this notice to their member agencies. Townships and Tribal Agencies were 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 2021 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 2021 call for projects, 2013 to 2017(or the current availability) crash data was used.

Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. Project types may be either systemic or spot 

locations and 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, or any other safety related work.

For the FY 2021 CFP, an emphasis was placed on the identification of correctable fatalities and serious 

injuries, both in the selection and the prioritization of safety projects. A portion of the local safety funds were 

allocated to six subprograms in 2021. Allocations remained the same for all six subprograms: Regional Traffic 

Safety Plans ($3 M), Safety Edge ($500 K), Road Safety Audits ($50 K),Non-motorized Facility/Pedestrian 

Improvements ($500 K),High Friction Surface Treatment ($500 K), and Guardrail Upgrades and Clear Zone 

Improvements ($750 K). Each selected project could count towards multiple subprograms. Local agencies 

were informed of the listed subprograms and encouraged to submit projects based on the subcategories.

The Streamlined Systemic program allowed the submittal of five specific project types: Horizontal Curve 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 49

Delineation, Edgeline Pavement Markings (on roadways that did not previously have striped edgelines), 

Rumble Strips/Corrugations (centerline and edgeline, or both), Signal backplates, and Stop Controlled 

Intersection Sign Upgrade projects. Projects were federally funded at 90 percent up to an amount not to 

exceed $200,000 of Federal funding.

There were not any funds directed to tribal organizations in 2021. In 2021, the CFP letter (for FY 2023) was 

updated to clarify the eligibility of tribal organizations and tribal roadways. Federally recognized Tribes are 

allowed to submit applications for safety funds directly during the call for projects time frame instead of through 

their corresponding County Agency.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-Local Agency Programs 

• Other-TSMO

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.

Internal training is also provided to new Traffic and Safety staff including the TOR form, HSM spreadsheet, 

Roadsoft, and general safety information related to the call for projects and MDOT standards and guidance.

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. 

Internal training is also provided to new Traffic and Safety staff including the TOR form, HSM spreadsheet, 

Roadsoft, and general safety information related to the call for projects and MDOT standards and guidance. 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 49

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

• Other-Michigan's Local Technical Assistance Progam

• Other-State Highway Strategic Planning Action Teams

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 will continue to assist the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) and the GTSAC in planning 

Engineering sessions for the Annual Michigan Traffic Safety Summit if in the future they occur again. MDOT 

has provided 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 in the 

past years of the Summit and will continue to do so when the conference is planned again. 

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 2021, $19.0 M in safety funding was available, of which $16.6 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. $1.0 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, each Region was given $200,000 for low-cost safety improvements to be 

chosen at the discretion of the Region staff.

After the original call for projects letter was issued an additional $6.2 M was dedicated to the State Trunkline 

Program, beyond the initial allocation of $19.0 M. The TOR values for projects beyond the initial funding 

targets were used to allocate the additional funds statewide.

Local Safety HSIP administration is explained in Question #6.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 49

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

A HSIP Manual describing the planning, selection, and evaluation of HSIP projects for the state trunkline 

program, local roadways program (non-trunkline) and HRRR program was published in June of 2021. This 

manual is provided as part of the annual Call for Projects Process (CFP) and updated yearly to reflect 

changing CFP subcommittees, funding targets and any other changes that may be necessary. 

The Local Agency HSIP manual is specific to local agencies and provides information on the local agency call 

for projects process and application process. 

MDOT's Safety Manual was finalized in July 2020. It provides guidance relating to a variety of traffic safety and 

operational needs including Road Safety Audits, Local Safety Initiatives, Road Diets, Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Guidance, High Crash Analysis, Safety Call guidance, and Design Exception Crash Analysis. 

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 

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

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?
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 49

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

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

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
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 49

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

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 

• 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
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 49

• 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

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

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? 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 49

• 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

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? 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 49

• 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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 77

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Clear Zone Improvements 

• High friction surface treatment 

• Horizontal curve signs 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Rumble Strips 

• Safety Edge 

• 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. 

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 2022, 77 percent of the total HSIP Trunkline Program funds (Safety, Pavement 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 49

Markings, and Delineation) was used for systemic type projects. Regions can use Low-cost Safety 

Improvement Projects to select systemic type projects.

Overall, 77 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 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

MDOT is considering connected vehicles and ITS technologies as part of the HSIP program. In response to the 

need for wider lane markings and proposed changes to national standards, MDOT has moved forward with sixinch-wide lane markings on all freeways in summer 2020. MDOT contractors also placed white dotted line 

extensions on exit and entrance ramps to provide further lane guidance to road users. The additional $200,000 

investment for six-inch lane markings and $450,000 for dotted line extensions were done as part of MDOT’s 

annual pavement marking restriping projects. Starting in 2021, MDOT moved its attention to non-freeways in 

changing all white non-freeway markings to six-inches. Starting in 2022, MDOT is converting all yellow 

markings to six-inch widths as well.

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 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 49

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.

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 recommends 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 and additional trainings will be conducted in fall of 2022.

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 2021 Safety Call request was 

made to the Regions on September 15. 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).

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 2021 project, in which 2012 to 2014 (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 . 

For FY 2021, 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 

2021 improvement projects. The RSA should be done prior to 30 percent completion of the plans. The purpose 

of the RSA is to ensure that the appropriate safety fixes are incorporated into the overall design based on 

crash patterns within the project limits.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 49

Continuing in FY 2021 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, each Region received $200,000 for FY 2019. 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 2021 to FY 2025 the percentage submitted 

shall be a minimum of 25 percent up to a maximum of 50 percent over a five-year rolling average period.

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

submitted for FY 2021 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. 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.

Eligibility Guidelines

for

Low Cost Safety Improvement Projects

Location: State Trunkline Highways

Funding: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Funds

Purpose: To authorize low-cost, system-wide improvements on State Trunkline Highways

Description: Projects to be funded under this program are proven low-cost safety improvements not requiring a 

Time-of-Return (TOR) cost/benefit analysis, meet the eligibility requirements for funding, and are to be 

constructed through the contract letting or Safety Work Authorization processes. Example improvements are:

Attaching guardrail to structure railings(does not include general gr upgrade)

Re-grading side slopes to 1:4, or flatter, to eliminate the need for guardrail

Obstacle removal, clear zone widening

Improvements to sight vision corners

Extending or modifying culverts to eliminate a fixed-object

Pavement grooving/high-friction surface treatment

Installing or reconstructing impact attenuators

Installing delineators, including linear systems

Installing channelization

Installing warning/regulatory signs
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 49

Reflective sign post strips for horizontal alignment signs

Re-striping to provide an offset, left-turn lane

Installing horizontal signing, pavement markings (i.e., STOP AHEAD markings in advance of a T-intersection)

Eliminate drop-offs, edge-rutting/ Safety Edge

Construct centerline or shoulder rumble strips

Construct roadside access control/driveway consolidation

Construct right-turn lanes, including offset

Construct minor intersection widening

Construct or widen shoulders

Widen shoulders to accommodate shoulder rumble strips

Construct passing flares

Construct intersection curb control

Sidewalk gap filling(Maintenance agreement required)
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 49

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

The State Fiscal year ran from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $51,039,773 $49,150,617 96.3%

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 $5,671,086 $5,461,180 96.3%

Totals $56,710,859 $54,611,797 96.3%

State and Local funds include Local Agency project matches (10%/20%/50%) for HSIP funds. Local agency 

programs programed $5,671,086 and obligated $5,461,180 state/local funds including corresponding match 

and any additional local funds. 

HRRR Special Rule funds were not required for FY 2021. Any HRRR focused project is covered under the 

HSIP funding category. 

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

safety projects? 

$18,616,467

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

$16,995,722

The local safety program is generally over programmed (above $15 M) to ensure that all allocated local HSIP 

funds are obligated and utilized. Additionally, obligational authority for the local safety program comes out of 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 49

the local urban obligational authority and projects are obligated on a first come first serve basis. Therefore, the 

local safety program occasionally obligates additional federal funds over the budgeted (~$15 M) amount.

For FY 2021 Local agency projects programmed $18,616,467 and obligated $16,995,722, 91.29%, 

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

$250,000

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

$250,000

For FY 2021 the Local agency safety program did not have any non-infrastructure safety projects. 

During the reporting period, FY 2021, 0.94 percent of the programmed and obligated funds of the HSIP State 

Trunkline system were directed to miscellaneous (previously non-infrastructure) safety items such as Road 

Safety Audits and safety studies. 

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 2021, 0.94 percent of the programmed and obligated funds of the HSIP State 

Trunkline system were directed to miscellaneous (previously non-infrastructure) safety items such as Road 

Safety Audits and safety studies.

Overall, 10.0 percent of obligated (10.0 percent programmed) funds used were from State and Local funding 

sources.

On the Local Agency side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety projects. In FY 2020, none of the 

obligated funds for the Local system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as Road Safety 

Audits and a Before and After study. Overall, 24.6 percent of the total programmed and 26.0 percent of the 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 49

total obligated federal HSIP/HRRR funds were directed to local safety projects.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 49

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Grand Regionregionwide 

delineation

0 Data

Regionwide 

freeways - Grand 

Region, Freeway 

Enhanced 

Delineation 

Installation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

0 Miles $249729 $249729 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Regionwide, 

Various locations, 

Metro Region, 

Installation of sign 

support reflective 

panels

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

0 Miles $434470 $434470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

0 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Traverse City 

TSC-wide, 

Various Routes, 

Delineation 

Installation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

75.211 Miles $173306 $173306 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-33, I-75 north to 

14th Street in Mio, 

Delineation 

Installation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

34.706 Miles $161060 $161060 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,744 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

US-23 S, US-23 

State line to I-94; 

US-23 Spencer to 

County Line;M14/USBR23,, 

Delineation 

Installatin

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

60.263 Miles $828405 $828405 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

67,589 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Bay Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklnes in Bay 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

24440842 feet $3389286 $3389286 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Bay Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in Bay 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

2002 Locations $639346 $639346 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Bay Region, 

Retroreflectivity 

readings on 

trunklines in Bay 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

6980400 feet $18428 $18428 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Bay Region, 

Durable Pavement 

Marking 

Placement

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings – new

199071 feet $391482 $391482 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Grand Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

Grand Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

22839320 Miles $2977671 $2977671 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Grand Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

Grand Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

1213 Locations $428108 $428108 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Grand Region, 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings on 

trunklines in 

Grand Region

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

5318040 feet $15954 $15954 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Metro Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklines in Metro 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

14342000 feet $2790470 $2790470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Metro Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in Metro 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

3640 Locations $1412416 $1412416 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Metro Region, 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings on 

trunklines in Metro 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

4560800 feet $25084 $25084 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

North Region, 

Application of 

durable pavement 

markings on M-37

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings – new

2 Locations $265149 $265149 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

North Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklines in North 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

24356597 feet $2197025 $2197025 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

North Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in North 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

778 Locations $487824 $487824 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

North Region, 

Pavement 

marking 

retroreflectivity 

readings on 

trunklines in North 

Region

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

5778520 feet $10401 $10401 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

North Region, 

Durable Pavement 

Marking 

Application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings – new

215215 feet $408392 $408392 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Southwest 

Region, 

Installation of 

durable 

longitudinal 

pavement 

markings and 

mumble strips

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings – new

28.309 Miles $1128655 $1128655 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Southwest 

Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

Southwest Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

14952871 feet $1983192 $1983192 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Southwest 

Region, Special 

pavement marking 

application on 

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

1168 Locations $285960 $285960 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

trunklines in 

Southwest Region

Southwest 

Region, Pavement 

Marking 

Retroreflectivity 

Readings on 

Southwest Region 

trunklines

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

4120570 feet $10713 $10713 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Southwest 

Region, Durable 

Pavement 

Marking 

Application

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

393 Locations $268069 $268069 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Superior Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

Superior Region

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

21638530 feet $1944461 $1944461 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Superior Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

Superior Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

940 Locations $627358 $627358 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Superior Region, 

Pavement 

Marking 

Retroreflectivity 

Readings on 

Superior Region 

trunklines

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

5633140 feet $10140 $10140 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

University Region, 

Longitudinal 

pavement marking 

application on 

University Region 

trunklines

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

20405834 feet $3035461 $3035461 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

University Region, 

Special pavement 

marking 

application on 

trunklines in 

University Region

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

2218 Locations $722344 $722344 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

University Region, 

Pavement 

Marking 

Retroreflectivity 

Readings on 

University Region 

trunklines

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

4467440 feet $12241 $12241 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

University Region, 

Durable Pavement 

Marking 

Application

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings – new

218331 feet $385590 $385590 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-13 at Beaver 

Road, Signal 

Modernization & 

Geometric 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

1 Locations $320065 $320065 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,177 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-53 at Dryden 

Road, Signal 

Modernization and 

Dilemma Zone 

Technology

Intersection 

traffic control

Dilemma Zone 

Detection System

1 Locations $248932 $248932 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther16,077 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-47 at 

Tittabawassee 

Road, Signal 

Modernization

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal –other

1 Locations $277212 $277212 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,520 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-57, Farland Ave 

East to Ramsdell 

Drive, Passing 

Relief Lanes

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

2.01 Miles $4295267 $4295267 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,515 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-104 from 148th 

to 124th, Install 

Speed Feedback 

signs

Speed 

management

Dynamic Speed 

Feedback Signs

1.434 Miles $22640 $22640 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,144 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Reduce Fs 

and As

M-53, 18 Mile to 

27 Mile, Median 

Cable Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable 9.636 Miles $3025987 $3025987 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther54,709 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

I-696 WB from 

Greenfield to 

Lincoln, High 

Friction Surface 

Treatment

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

0.45 Miles $493267 $493267 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate130,698 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

I-275, Ecorse 

Road to Ford 

Road, Median 

Cable Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable 5.118 Miles $1405523 $1405523 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate82,872 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

M-10 S/Wyoming 

Ramp, M-10 at 

Wyoming, M-10 at 

Elmhurst, and I-94 

at Addison, High 

Friction Surface 

Treatment and 

Signing 

Improvements

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

0.347 Miles $256878 $256878 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

4,576 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-32, Fair Road 

(East Jordan) to 

W. Otsego Co 

Line, Lane 

departure 

mitigation

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier

34.457 Miles $1620487 $1620487 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,350 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

I-75, Between M93 and Waters 

(Marlette Road), 

Remove Roadside 

Obstacles

Roadside Removal of fixed 

objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

11.683 Miles $1151827 $1151827 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate19,405 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

US-31, Holiday 

Road to Five Mile 

Road, 

Constructing a 

center median 

island

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

0.9 Miles $1693574 $1693574 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther27,505 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

Regionwide, 

Various locations 

in the North 

Region, 

Installation of 

Backplates

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

backplates with 

retroreflective 

borders

0 Miles $51340 $51340 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-72 at Benzonia 

Trail, Installation 

of an Rural 

Intersection 

Warning System

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System (ICWS)

1 Locations $84725 $84725 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,734 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-60 Marshall 

TSC Wide Rural 

Intersections, 

Non-Freeway Sign 

Replacement

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic 

improvements – 

stop-controlled

61.297 Miles $229353 $229353 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,623 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-43 at 28th 

Street, Richland 

Township, 

Kalamazoo Co., 

Add Left turn 

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

realignment

1 Locations $1042359 $1042359 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,448 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Lanes and 

Intersection 

Realignment

I-94 between I-94 

Business Route 

and 40th Street, 

Roadside Fixed 

Object Removal

Roadside Removal of fixed 

objects (trees, 

poles, etc.)

6.812 Miles $448891 $448891 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate54,153 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

Regionwide, 

Various locations 

in Berrien, Cass, 

St. Joseph, and 

Van Buren 

Counties, 

Upgrade 

intersection 

signing

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic 

improvements – 

stop-controlled

69.44 Miles $193067 $193067 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

Regionwide, 

Various Routes - 

Superior Region, 

Sinusoidal 

Rumble Strips on 

narrow HMA 

shoulders.

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

0 Miles $1178032 $1178032 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-28 from US-2 to 

Crusher Road, 

Access 

Management and 

Intersection 

Improvements

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

1.132 Miles $168832 $168832 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,666 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

M-28, from M-64 

south to M-64 

north, Grading and 

paving for 8 ft wide 

HMA Shoulders

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

4.08 Miles $527113 $527113 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,923 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

US-2, Various 

Locations - 

Superior Region, 

Intersection 

improvements and 

access 

management

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

11.464 Miles $354174 $354174 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce Fs 

and As

I-96, 900' East of 

Clinton County 

Line to I-69, Install 

Median Cable 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier – cable 9.608 Miles $3768985 $3768985 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate41,146 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 49

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

I-96 near Okemos 

Road, Install 

median guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal 1.619 Miles $576493 $576493 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate50,086 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce Fs 

and As

M-43 (Saginaw 

Street) and I69BL, I-96BL 

(Grand River), 

Sidewalk 

construction

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.276 Miles $130289 $130289 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,608 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

I-94BL, Michigan 

Avenue from East 

Avenue to Page 

Avenue, Install 

mid-block crossing 

and rapid flashing 

beacon

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install new 

crosswalk

0.14 Miles $124140 $124140 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,737 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

M-156, Elm Street 

to Silver Creek, 

Walnut Street to 

Baldwin Street, 

and Greeley 

Street to Park 

Drive, Construct 

sidewalks

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 0.33 Miles $150346 $150346 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther1,558 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Reduce Fs 

and As

Statewide, 

Updating 

Pedestrian/Bicycle 

Risk Model

Miscellaneous Data collection 500 Locations $77000 $77000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs 

and As

Statewide, Safety 

Analysis

Miscellaneous Data analysis 100 Locations $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Reduce Fs 

and As
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 49

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 947 901 967 1,065 1,031 977 985 1,083 1,131

Serious Injuries 5,283 4,909 4,865 5,634 6,084 5,586 5,629 5,433 5,979

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.996 0.925 0.989 1.074 1.013 0.954 0.964 1.251 1.165

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

5.555 5.040 4.974 5.679 5.976 5.455 5.508 6.274 6.158

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

178 174 205 204 181 167 166 218 207

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

568 517 556 536 617 573 628 524 481
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 49

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 49

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 49

Will be updated as VMT is available 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

Combination of data used since 2021 data is not available in FARS - MSP data, etc. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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

21.6 91.6 0.4 1.66

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

12.8 54.4 0.53 2.44

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

50.8 231 0.89 5.09

Rural Minor Arterial 93.6 438.2 1.55 6.06

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 49

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 14.6 75.6 1.94 10.05

Rural Major Collector 136.6 644 1.48 7.8

Rural Local Road or 

Street

80.2 440.2 3.69 21.15

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

74.8 389 0.47 2.53

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

31.4 166.6 0.59 2.7

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

231.4 1,286.2 1.67 8.54

Urban Minor Arterial 163.2 1,045 1.12 7.32

Urban Minor Collector 1.8 6.6 2.21 8.84

Urban Major Collector 53.2 318.6 1.25 6.88

Urban Local Road or 

Street

63.2 433.8 0.89 6.11
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 49

Year 2019

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)

Non-Trunkline 

(County, City, Local 

Owned Roadways)

576.6 3,196.6 1.22 6.76

State Highway 

Agency

County Highway 

Agency

Trunkline (State 

Owned Roadways)

426.2 2,348.4 0.8 4.39

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)

Indian Tribe Nation

Trunkline (State 

Owned Roadways)

Non-Trunkline 

(County, City, Local 

Owned Roadways)
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 49

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 6.5 percent over the 5-year span. State trunkline fatalities had an overall increase of 5.9 percent 

while local roadway fatalities had an overall increase of 7.0 percent. 

Serious injuries statewide have seen an increase of 7.2 percent over the 5-year rolling average. State trunkline 

serious injuries had an overall increase of 5.9 percent while local roadway serious injuries had an overall 

increase of 8.7 percent.

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

Overall, the fatality rate increased 6.5 percent while the serious injury rate increased 7.2 percent. The state 

trunkline saw a 5.9 percent increase in the fatality rate and a 5.9 percent serious injury rate increase. The local 

roadways saw a 7.0 percent fatality rate increase and an 8.6 percent serious injury rate increase.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1105.6

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, the decision was 

made to use the change model created by UMTRI used for establishing previous targets. UMTRI predicts 1065 

fatalities in CY 2022, and 1105 in 2023. The change model predicts change in fatalities from the previous year 

based on several predictors. This log-change regression model is tied closely to whatever happened recently, 

so it cannot diverge very far from the current time unless we predict many years out into the future. In the 

future, the change model predicts a steady (slow) decrease in fatalities. The dataset is a set of differences from 

one year to the next within the state, expressed as a percentage of the previous year. Thus, the predictors can 

influence exposure and/or risk. The count model, however, directly predicts counts so it could diverge from 

observed by a lot if the patterns change in the real world. Based on known factors the count model shows a 

steady increase in fatalities through 2025. As this is not what is expected the change model was selected in 

developing the targets. 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:5909.2

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

The model predicts 5,673 serious injuries in CY 2022, and 5,909 in 2023. While serious injuries have fluctuated 

over the past several years, the linear relationship of the ratio of serious injuries and fatalities (A/K) going back 

to 2003 is still evident. However, this trend suggests a greater reduction in serious injuries than being 

observed. Therefore, a linear model using the last eight year of data was used which projects a flattening 

pattern. 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.

Fatality Rate:1.136
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 49

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2020, 2021 and 2022. VMT estimates for CY 2020 are reduced due 

to COVID-19. Using the fatal injury values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality 

rates are 1.051 for CY 2022, and 1.136 for CY 2023.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:6.058

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

VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2020, 2021 and 2022. VMT estimates for CY 2020 are reduced due 

to COVID-19. Using the fatal injury values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted serious 

injury rates are 5.778 for CY 2022, and 6.058 for CY 2023.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:743.4

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

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

generate non-motorized forecasted annual values of 762 for CY 2022, and 743 for CY 2023.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.

The annual forecasted values for CY 2022 and CY 2023 along with the actual values from CY 2018 to 2020 to 

determine the 2023 Targets (five-year rolling average) are shown in the table. In addition, actual values dating 

back to CY 2012 are included as part of the determination of the 2020 baseline condition.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

N/A
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 49

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 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.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 968.6 1040.2

Number of Serious Injuries 5533.6 5742.2

Fatality Rate 0.982 1.070

Serious Injury Rate 5.609 5.884

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

771.2 763.2

Based on Targets vs Actual, Michigan will preliminarily not meet 4 of the 5 performance targets for FY 2021.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

133 172 155 159 159 181 206

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

393 506 558 509 574 464 515

Data has been updated with 2021 crash data information based on the State of Michigan Crash database.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 49

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: 

· Non-infrastructure – training and workforce development, traffic studies, data analysis 

· Advance technology and ITS – ITS 

· Alignment – horizontal and vertical alignment 

· Interchange design – interchange improvements 

· Intersection geometry – auxiliary lanes, geometry improvements 

· Intersection traffic control – flasher install, conversion to roundabout, signal modernization, intersection 

upgrades 

· Railroad grade crossings – widen crossing 

· Roadside – barrier install (cable, concrete, metal), drainage and grading improvements, roadside object 

removal 

· Roadway – access management, high friction pavement surface, roadway narrowing/widening, rumble strips 

· Roadway delineation – delineators, pavement markings, retroreflectivity improvements 

· Roadway signs and traffic control – curve warning signs, signing upgrades and/or replacement 

· Shoulder treatments – shoulder paving, shoulder widening 

· Speed management – radar speed signs 

· Vulnerable Road Users – median and refuge areas, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal improvements 

· Lighting – lighting improvements 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

MDOT plans on conducting before and after studies utilizing the data-driven approach to safety decisions 

focusing on the Towards Zero Deaths initiative. 
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 49

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 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021

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 444 2,007 0.51 2.2

Intersections 291 2,002 0.37 2.27

Motorcyclists 138 670 0.18 0.89

Work Zones 17 87 0.02 0.08

Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists

189 560 0.22 0.52

Commercial Vehicles 98 315 0.11 0.34

Impaired Drivers 542 1,385 0.65 1.66

Younger Drivers 282 1,837 0.31 1.88

Older Drivers 294 1,422 0.24 1.11
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 49

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 49

Other 1 - Lane departure crashes 

Other 2 - Motorcycles 

Other 3 - Work zones 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 49

Other 4 - Ped/Bike

Other 5 - Impaired Drivers

Other 6 - Young Drivers

Other 7 - Elder Drivers
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 49

Project Effectiveness

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

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

We have made sinusoidal strips standard for non-freeway shoulders, an option for centerline and edgeline on non-freeways based on certain criteria, and need further investigation and discussion on freeway shoulders.

We rewrote section 6.05.11 of the Road Design Manual if you want to see all the options and criteria we now have for rumble/mumble strips.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 49

Compliance Assessment

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

 11/07/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2019 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 15

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

80 95
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 49

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

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

Access Control (22) 

[23]

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

95 10

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 80 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 95

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 95

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 95

AADT Year (80) [82]

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 49

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

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

98 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

98 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 81.94 70.83 50.00 49.38 81.45 100.00 66.67 35.00 40.00 40.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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 is still continuing to collect the MIRE FDE data using the Roadsoft program updated by Michigan Technological University through 2022 and beyond. MDOT currently is on pace to have complete access to the MIRE FDE by 

September 30, 2026.
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 49

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Local Agency HSIP Manual_August 2019.pdf

Highway CFP Manual_June_2021.pdf

MDOT Safety Manual.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 49

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.