Page 1 of 44

NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 44

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 12

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 14

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 17

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 17

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

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 31

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 33

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 34

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 38

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 39
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 44

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lists, or data.” 
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 44

Executive Summary 

The North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is administered through the NDDOT's 

Programming Division. This year continues the increasing emphasis on projects that are chosen through 

"systemic" process. On both the local and state network, sites have been identified through a risk analysis to 

determine the best locations for widespread low-cost countermeasures.

Project evaluation was conducted on some of the safety projects done in 2013. Even though only a simple 

before and after analysis was done, the safety projects did appear to have some success in reducing the 

overall number of crashes. 

In the last year the North Dakota HSIP program has been integrated into a new initiative called "Vision Zero". 

This initiative's mission is to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes. For 2017, 

North Dakota has seen some positive trends--the 5-year rolling average for both fatalities and serious injuries 

declined for the second year in a row. In addition, the fatality rate and serious injury rate has also decreased 

for the second year in a row.
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 44

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 NDDOT solicits state and local agencies to submit safety project applications each year. Potential projects 

are identified through the traditional "reactive" approach that address high crash locations, fatal crash locations 

or areas where road safety reviews took place. Projects are also developed using a "systemic" approach that 

apply low-cost treatments over a large area. The NDDOT central office reviews applications and selects and 

prioritizes projects based on the state’s SHSP emphasis areas: l ane departure, unbelted vehicle occupants, 

alcohol-related, excessive speed/aggressive driving, intersection, and "involving driver under 21".

Most HSIP projects primarily address the lane departure or intersection emphasis areas. After projects are 

programmed, they get designed and implemented with the same process as regular federally funded 

transportation projects. The NDDOT has evaluated some past projects with simple before-after crash 

comparisons.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-Programming

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

The Office of Transportation Programs at NDDOT has HSIP staff within the "Programming" division.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 44

The NDDOT addresses safety on local roads through the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP). Local public 

agencies can also submit applications for non-LRSP safety projects each year during the solicitation period. 

Selection of local and tribal road projects use the same methodology as State roads. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Other-Safety Division, Local Government

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Design

The Design Division is included in the distribution of the high crash listings. All road safety reviews require at 

least one member of the Design Division. Their participation and review of at-risk locations helps in the 

development of potential project countermeasures.

Planning

The Planning Division provides data for the development of the HSIP. Roadway features are collected and 

maintained in the Planning Division include: traffic volume, truck volumes, traffic projections, roadway features, 

roadway viewer (for state highways) and mapping. The Planning Division is also included in the distribution of 

the high crash listings.

Safety Highway Safety Office (SHSO)

The SHSO is the lead entity for the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and involves law 

enforcement and other partners in the process. In North Dakota, the behavioral strategies in the SHSP are 

largely funded through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds with funding going to 

various traffic safety partners including law enforcement agencies statewide for overtime enforcement of traffic 

safety laws. The SHSP process drives HSIP project priorities. Infrastructure strategies in the North Dakota

SHSP are largely funded through HSIP and deployed through the State's Local Road Safety Program (LRSP) 

and State Road Safety Program (SRSP). These programs identify proven, low-cost road safety strategies and 

prioritize the road safety strategies for implementation at identified at-risk locations on the local and state road 

systems. 

Local Government
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 44

Members of the Local Government Division provide project development through city, county and tribal 

agencies. The local government assists in the solicitation of safety projects. They also participate in road safety 

reviews.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Technical Assistance Program

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-and other traffic safety advocates/partners

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

All the entities are involved at SHSP at some level (Executive Leadership Team, SHSP Steering Committee, 

SHSP Implementation Team or general SHSP stakeholder).

Regional Planning Organizations: North Dakota has 3 MPO's that must approve any HSIP applications that are 

submitted by their respective cities. The MPO's were also included in the team that developed the ND Local 

Road Safety Program (LRSP).

Local Government Agency, Tribal Agency: The cities, counties, and tribal agencies are solicited each year for 

potential safety projects. They are encouraged to submit projects directly from the LRSP or at high crash 

locations. 

Law Enforcement Agency: Law enforcement and HSIP personnel are extensively involved in North Dakota's 

SHSP process. The Programming Division Director serves on the SHSP Steering Committee and as 

chairperson for two SHSP emphasis area teams (Lane Departure and Intersection implementation Teams). 

Law enforcement serve at all levels of the SHSP including the SHSP Executive Leadership Team, the SHSP 

Steering Committee and SHSP Implementation Teams.

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?
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 44

Yes

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

Schedule for HSIP requests:

• Fall – send out HSIP solicitation letter and high crash location lists/maps, HSIP application forms (SFN 

59959) are due by the end of the year

• Winter – NDDOT analysis of HSIP requests and Draft HSIP project listing

• Spring – verify the construction year for previously approved projects

• Summer – finalize HSIP project listing, send responses out on approvals (or non-approvals) for the 

HSIP applications

• August 31st – Final HSIP project list due to FHWA, HSIP online reporting due

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

File Name:

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

NDDOT is working towards a future HSIP manual.

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: 3/1/2017 

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]
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 44

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Horizontal curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency) 

Other-Systemic

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 70 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 44

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

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]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Stakeholder input 

Other-National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and other evidence-based practices

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? 

Yes

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

The NDDOT has implemented the ITS technology of ICWS (Intersection Conflict Warning Systems).

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

No

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

NDDOT is currently working on integrating the HSM into its HSIP process.

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

period?

No
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 44

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

No
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 44

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $9,825,476 $20,508,899 208.73%

HRRR Special 

148(g)(1))

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

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

STBG, NHPP)

(i.e. $0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $9,825,476 $20,508,899 208.73%

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

Notes:

All amounts shown are Federal

Programmed from STIP Export of 2018 on 8/7/18 including one amendment (ND 22 Dickinson)

Section 164 penalty funds ended in 2016 for ND

Obligated amount is from FMIS as of 8/7/18 (ZZ provided safety status)

Obligated amount of projects not yet bid are from 2018 construction year spreadsheet as of 8/2/18

Did not assume State and Local funds were "match" dollars for the federal funds

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

$3,770,000 

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

$2,620,000 

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

Page 13 of 44

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

$0 

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

$0 

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.

None

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

No
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 44

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

Grand Forks 

citywide school 

sign replacement

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

808 Signs $32000 $35000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Bismarck Signals - 

LRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic 

improvements - 

signal-controlled

109 Intersections $478000 $550000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections

Exit 161 Right 

Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn lane

1 Intersections $211000 $234000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Statewide 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

0 Miles $7591000 $7591000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Devils Lake 

District SRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

signing - add 

enhanced 

advance warning 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

91 Intersections $735000 $661000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Grand Forks 

District SRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

signing - add 

enhanced 

advance warning 

(double-up and/or 

oversize)

63 Intersections $645000 $717000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Cavalier County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

23 Miles $33000 $37000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

US 52 Logan 

Intersection - 

turn lane

Left 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $503000 $558000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

US 83 / ND 5 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $363000 $404000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

ND 22 - Signals at 

34th, 33rd, 32nd

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

3 Intersections $58000 $64000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Walsh County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - new

64 Miles $98000 $109000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Williams County 

Projects from 

LRSP

Shoulder 

treatments

Pave existing 

shoulders

36 Miles $399000 $443000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 44

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

McLean County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

102 Miles $302000 $335000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Divide County 

Projects from 

LRSP

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

47 Miles $189000 $210000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Fargo area FYA 

retrofit

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

2 Intersections $26000 $29000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Cass County 

Safety Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

11 Locations $267000 $297000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Mountrail County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

23 Locations $41000 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Curves on ND 18 

at RP 16.76, 

17.76

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

2 Locations $643000 $714000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Curve on ND 

RP 111.8

18 at Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

1 Locations $486000 $540000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Richland County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

31 Locations $844000 $937000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Sargent County 

Road Projects 

from LRSP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

11 Locations $304000 $338000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Valley City District 

SRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

signing - add basic 

advance warning

58 Intersections $947000 $1052000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Fargo District 

SRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

signing - add basic 

advance warning

58 Intersections $755000 $838000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Standing Rock 

Reservation Road 

Projects from 

LRSP

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

7 Locations $301000 $301000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Park, Forest, 

or Reservation 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Valley City signal 

revisions from 

LRSP

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic 

improvements - 

signal-controlled

6 Intersections $130000 $144000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Var Loc - 

Statewide - 

Individual

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

$1619000 $2000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

N/A Intersections

SHSP Planning 

and 

Implementation

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

N/A Intersections

Small Scale 

Improvements

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

$100000 $111000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

N/A Intersections
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 44

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING FUNCTIONAL AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

CATEGORY COST($) COST($) CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION SITE SELECTION

Statewide crash 

report evaluation

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

N/A Data

Highway Safety 

Improvements

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

$113000 $125000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

N/A Intersections

Curve delineation 

- Statewide

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

$135000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

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

Page 17 of 44

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 140 105 148 170 148 135 131 113 116

Serious Injuries 332 380 462 575 517 518 540 433 426

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.720 1.270 1.620 1.680 1.470 1.290 1.300 1.160 1.195

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.180 4.580 5.040 5.700 5.120 4.690 5.360 4.446 4.390

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

5 9 10 10 3 12 8 10 7

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

25 27 39 25 30 32 31 21 24
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 19 of 44

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 20 of 44

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

Describe fatality data source.

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 8.8 31.6 0.54 1.95

(RPA) - Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 39.4 103 1.57 4.1

(RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial 18 44.8 2.08 5.17

Rural Minor Collector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 21 of 44

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Major Collector 21.4 77.4 5.59 19.7

Rural Local Road or Street 23.4 56 1.53 3.39

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

2 6 0.43 1.27

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

5.4 55.8 0.65 6.76

Urban Minor Arterial 3.6 37.2 0.59 6.13

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 1.2 18.2 0.45 6.82

Urban Local Road or Street 4.2 29.4 0.88 6.15
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 44

Year 2017

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 79 260.2 0.71 2.31

County Highway Agency 32.4 111.6 0.92 3.22

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

10 85.6 0.79 7.63

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

3.8 2

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 24 of 44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 25 of 44

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 26 of 44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RPA -

Interstate

RPA -

Other

Rural

Minor

Arterial

Rural

Major

Collector

Rural

Local

Road or

Street

UPA -

Interstate

UPA -

Other

Urban

Minor

Arterial

Urban

Major

Collector

Urban

Local

Road or

Street

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 44

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest,

or Reservation

Agency

Private (Other than

Railroad)

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 44

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 44

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 127.3 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input. 

Number of Serious Injuries 486.2 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 44

Fatality Rate 1.271 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.848 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 34.6 

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

Review of historical data and expert group input. 

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

The long-term goal of the North Dakota SHSP is to move toward zero deaths. Targets were established with 

consideration of this long term goal but also considering SMART objectives. The targets were considered 

specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-oriented.

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

targets. 

The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) resides in the NDDOT. The SHSO (i.e., the NDDOT Safety Division) 

and other NDDOT Divisions including Local Government, Programming and planning/Asset Management 

review performance measure data and define the method to set the targets. Proposed targets are then shared 

by the NDDOT at a regular meeting between NDDOT and the MPOs. Safety performance targets will be 

shared with SHSP stakeholders at regional workshops scheduled for 2017-2018. Feedback obtained from 

those workshops will be used to inform subsequent target setting strategies.

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? 
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 44

No

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 19 15 8 10 10 9 14

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 30 22 21 36 37 35 27

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 44

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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.

There was a slight increase in the number of fatalities from 2016 to 2017. The number of serious injuries has 

decreased. The NDDOT took a look at some of the HSIP projects done in 2013 and conducted a simple 

before/after evaluation of crashes. Crash data was collected within the project areas for three calendar years 

before and after 2013. Note that all crashes that occurred within the project area were included, even if the 

crash was not related to the type of improvement.

ND 200, Pick City to Riverdale

Before (2010-2012) = 12 crashes

After (2014-2016) = 9 crashes

This project was a minor rehabilitation HBP overlay with sliver grading and safety options to improve curve 

superelevations on Garrison Dam. A radial-T was built at 45 Ave NW and an EB left turn lane was added at the 

intersection of ND 48.

Bismarck District Rumble Strips

Before (2010-2012) = 279 crashes

After (2014-2016) = 195 crashes

This project installed rumble strips along various highways in the Bismarck District.

Devils Lake District Rumble Strips

Before (2010-2012) = 221 crashes

After (2014-2016) = 133 crashes

This project installed rumble strips along various highways in the Devils Lake District.

ND 13 and Main St Intersection - Milnor

Before (2010-2012) = 1 crash

After (2014-2016) = 0 crashes

This project eliminated the slip-ramp on the east side of Milnor and updated turn lanes at ND 13 & Main St.

I-29 State Line North to Jct ND 13

Before (2010-2012) = 68 crashes

After (2014-2016) = 49 crashes

This project updated all the roadway signs to current standards. The project included northbound and 

southbound roadways including all ramps and overheads.

Western ND County Road Safety Program

Before (2010-2012) = 250 crashes

After (2014-2016) = 278 crashes
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 44

This project involved installing enhanced signing for road curves, upgrade signing/markings to improve visibility 

of intersections, larger regulatory or warning signs, intersection rumble strips.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

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

This year continues increasing emphasis on systemic projects. The 2017 construction season will include 

several districtwide safety projects that involve lighting, signing, and marking at multiple intersections over a 

widespread area.

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 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure All 65.6 225.4 0.66 2.25 0 0 0

Intersections All 27.2 132.6 0.27 1.32 0 0 0
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 36 of 44

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

Lane departure crash data based on new definition in draft SHSP plan.

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 44

No

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

Page 38 of 44

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

ND 200, Pick City 

to Riverdale

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway widening - curve 10.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 12.00 9.00

Bismarck District 

Rumble Strips

Varies Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

190.00 125.00 11.00 9.00 15.00 15.00 63.00 46.00 279.00 195.00

Devils Lake 

District Rumble 

Strips

Varies Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

147.00 81.00 3.00 7.00 13.00 8.00 58.00 37.00 221.00 133.00

ND 13 and Main 

St Intersection - 

Milnor

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1.00 1.00

I-29, State Line 

North to Jct ND 

13

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

48.00 32.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 18.00 10.00 68.00 49.00

Western ND 

County Road 

Safety Program

Varies Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

143.00 163.00 11.00 8.00 28.00 27.00 68.00 80.00 250.00 278.00

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?

No
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 44

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/02/2013 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 To: 2018 

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

 2018 

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

North Dakota anticipates completing its next SHSP update by September 1, 2018.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 33 1 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 0 0
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 44

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) 33 1

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

0 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

33 0 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 44

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)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

55.50 44.56 12.50 0.00 36.36 27.27 66.67 55.56 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

The Department will continue to collect required MIRE FDE elements already required by HPMS. In addition, the accessibility of HPMS Data for safety analysis will be investigated. The Department will continue its efforts implementing 

Data Governance, and will develop a comprehensive plan for closing the gap between available data and required MIRE data elements by 2026.

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 2=Suspected Serious Injury/Incapacitating Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual 2. Suspected Serious Injury/Incapacitating Yes A suspected serious injury is any injury 

other than fatal which results in one or 

more of the following:

Yes a. Severe laceration resulting in exposure 

of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood.

b. Broken or distorted extremity (arm or 

leg)

c. Crush injuries

d. Suspected skull, chest or abdominal 

injury other than bruises or minor 

lacerations

e. Significant burns (second or third degree 

burns over 10 percent or more of the body)

f. Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

g. Paralysis

Yes

Crash Database Occ_Injury_Class Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Occ_Injury_Class Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

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

Page 42 of 44

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

No

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

2019 

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

The state began an assessment in 2018 with expected completion in 2019. The assessment is scheduled to occur immediately following the SHSP update. A safety expert consultant has been hired to facilitate the process.
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 44

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 North Dakota Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 44

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.