Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Michigan Department of Transportation

2013 Annual Report

The 2013 HSIP Annual Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be for the 

one year time period of FY 2012 which commenced on October 1, 2011 and ended on September 30, 

2012. This report addresses safety improvements funded through MDOT on both trunkline and nontrunkline roadways including the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). 

HSIP Program Structure

Program Administration

State Trunkline Program

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

in Traffic and Safety (Central Office). For FY 2012, $19 M in safety funding was available, of which 

$15.6 M was allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as funding targets. The allocations were based on the 

percentage of fatalities and serious injuries, lane miles and Vehicle Miles Traveled in each Region. The 

goal is that all Regions receive a minimum of 5 percent of the Safety Target.

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

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

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

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

use their discretionary funds to apply to worthy projects that exceeded a particular Region’s funding 

target. All project phases; preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right of way and 

construction are eligible for safety funding.

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and can be initiated quickly throughout the fiscal year in response to safety needs. Federal 

funds are used for those improvements meeting funding criteria.

Once the FY 2012 program was developed, it was reviewed and approved by the Project Screening 

Committee (PSC). The PSC consists of Region and central office program managers and Planning staff 

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

ensures coordination between Regions on various corridors and between the programs.

New for FY 2013 is the use of HSIP funding in the administration of the pavement marking program. 

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

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

included in an applicable State SHSP. In prior years Surface Transportation Safety funding was used in 

the placement of pavement markings in the Annual Pavement Marking Program. 

Local Roadways Program

For the Local Roadways Safety Program, the funds are administered by the Local Agency Programs 

Safety Engineer located in Central Office. Typically, only the construction phase is eligible for federal 
aid. Preliminary engineering costs for projects identified on the Transparency Report, projects identified 

by the Local Safety Initiative and traffic signal optimization projects are eligible for federal participation. 

Otherwise, preliminary engineering is not eligible for federal safety funds. Projects are federally funded 

at 80 percent up to an amount not to exceed $400,000 Federal, with a 20 percent local match. All local 

agencies within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must coordinate with their MPO in order to 

have their respective project included in the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 

Program Methodology

State Trunkline Program

The annual 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 2012 Safety Call request was 

made to the Regions on December 12, 2008. 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 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 FY 2012 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. 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 improvement. A minimum of the 

latest three years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2012 projects, in

which 2005 to 2007 crash data was used, three TOR criteria were established:

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

• Stand alone safety improvement for location on the current Transparency Report – TOR of 10 

years or less.

• Safety improvement in conjunction with a Construction project - TOR of 10 years or less.

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

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

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

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

for projects beyond funding targets to allocate the $2 M funds statewide.

MDOT continues to look at the use of earmarked funds as a way to promote various safety strategies

statewide and with the Regions. The following are specific example of such strategies. 

In 2011, the department completed a study of 110 wrong-way crashes that occurred on freeways from 

2005 to 2009. The results from this study emphasized the need to provide additional guidance at night for 

confused drivers. For many, darkness masks the roadside cues that are more visible during the day at 

these locations. Additionally, the study convinced the department to concentrate on interchange types that 

may increase the occurrence of this crash type due to their physical layouts (i.e., exit/entrance ramps 

adjacent and parallel to each other). During the next four years, MDOT plans to apply one or more of 

seven selective countermeasures to 161 interchanges. MDOT recognizes that wrong-way crashes can 
occur on other ramp types. MDOT will lower the height of the DO NOT ENTER and WRONG WAY 

signs at the remaining 630 interchanges and apply the red reflective sheeting to the sign posts.

In 2012, the American Transportation Research Institute released a truck overturn study that highlighted 

the 10 interchanges most prone to truck rollovers for 31 states. Ten such interchanges were identified in 

Michigan. In response to the study, the Safety Programs area pulled single vehicle truck overturn crashes 

from 2002-2011 and coded them to the appropriate portion of each interchange. This was done to 

determine causation of each crash and any appropriate action that can be taken. From this information the 

Traffic Signing Unit reviewed each location and developed a signing plan to improve the guidance of 

trucks along the ramps within these interchanges. While several of the interchanges are in the five year 

improvement plan each interchange was addressed with new signing 2012 and 2013. 

For FY 2013, 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. The RSA should be done prior to 30 percent 

completion of the plans. The purpose of the audit is to ensure the appropriate safety fixes are 

incorporated into the overall design. 

New to the Safety Call for FY 2014 through 2017 is the opportunity for each Region to allocate up to 10 

percent of their funding target for low cost safety improvements. This amount is in addition to the SWA 

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

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

the list of approved and proven safety systemwide fixes (Eligibility Guidelines for Low Cost Safety 

Improvement Projects). For FY 2018 this percentage is 25 percent.

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

projects submitted for FY 2019, 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.

Local Roadways Program

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 January 13, 2010 memorandum to submit proposed projects 

for consideration as part of an annual call-for projects (CFP). Agencies submitting multiple projects are 

requested to submit a prioritized list for consideration. The projects are programmed in order of the 

project’s priority amongst the overall program project submittals.

The emphasis of the local FY 2012 CFP was to address those locations with correctable fatality and injury 

crashes to support the department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries. In the submittal, the 

local agency was required to provide a TOR analysis showing how the proposed improvement would 

address fatalities and injuries. In the TOR, all crash types and severity levels correctable by the proposed 

improvement were included. A minimum of five years of available crash data is to be used in the TOR 

analysis. For FY 2012 projects, 2005 to 2009 crash data was used. 

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

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

signal optimization, installation and upgrades, access management, horizontal and vertical curve 

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

intersection improvements to improve safety, mid-block pedestrian crossings, improvements to school 

zones, shoulder and centerline rumble strips, and improved permanent signing and pavement markings.
For the FY 2012 CFP, a greater emphasis has been placed on the identification of correctable fatalities 

and serious injuries, both in the selection and prioritization of safety projects. In addition, in FY 2012, a 

small portion of the local safety funds was allocated to five subprograms: Centerline and Shoulder 

Rumble Strips ($200 K), Guardrail Upgrades and Clear Zone Improvements ($1 M), and Traffic Signal 

Optimization – all red phasing ($150 K), Road Safety Audits ($50 K) and Non-motorized 

Facility/Pedestrian Improvements ($100 K). Local agencies were told this money is reserved for these 

strategic improvements, and encouraged to submit conforming projects..

Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects

HSIP Funds Programmed

HSIP State Trunkline Project Funding 

Reporting Period: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2012

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $7,075,411 $6,438,376

Hazard Elimination (Section 152) $8,976,635 $6,510,184

Penalty Funds (154 and 164)

Other Federal Funds

Incentive Grants (Sections 406, 163)

State and Local Funds

Total $16,052,046 $12,948,560

HSIP Local Roadway Project Funding 

Reporting Period: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2012

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148)

Hazard Elimination (Section 152) $17,296,730 $16,010,292

Penalty Transfer (154 and 164)

Other Federal Funds

Incentive Grants (Sections 406, 163)

State and Local Funds

Total $17,296,730 $16,010,292

* “Available” (Programmed) funds refer to those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

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

During the reporting period 5.1 percent of the programmed and 6.3 percent of the obligated funds for the 

state trunkline system were directed to non-infrastructure safety items such as road safety audits, training,

outreach and educational efforts. On the local side no HSIP funds were directed toward tribal safety 

projects. Overall, 52 percent of the programmed and 55 percent of the obligated funds were directed to 

local safety projects. 

General Listing of Projects

Attached are the general listings of projects for both the State Trunkline (Attachment A) and Local 

Roadways Programs (Attachment B). The costs shown are obligated construction costs and other phases 

obligated for the projects. Not all design or right-of-way costs were accrued in FY 2012.
Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

The Safety Program is a major component in the department’s emphasis of addressing locations with 

safety concerns as part of the transportation program. More importantly the Safety Program is a means by 

which the department can support the goals of the SHSP. The purpose of the SHSP is to identify the key 

safety needs in the state and guide investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways. MDOT developed and began the implementation of 

a SHSP in 2003. Specific focus areas included intersection safety, roadway departure, pedestrian and 

bicycle safety, and elderly mobility. In late 2004, the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission 

(GTSAC) requested the development of a statewide, multi-disciplinary highway Michigan SHSP. The 

plan resulted in the identification of 12 strategic focus areas for reducing fatalities to 1.0 per 100 million 

vehicle miles traveled by 2008. As a result of creating emphasis areas that targeted over 80 percent of 

Michigan’s highway fatalities the goal was met with 0.97 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 

in 2008. In 2008, the SHSP was updated to reflect current needs and number the goals from a rate to a 

more meaningful goal of an incremental reduction of the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries. The 

revised goals address both fatalities and serious injuries. The 2008 SHSP goals are to reduce traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries from 1,084 and 7,485 in 2007 to 850 and 5,900 in 2012.

Since that initial SHSP Michigan is on its third plan with the 2013 SHSP. The new SHSP goals are to 

reduce statewide traffic fatalities and serious injuries from 889 and 5,706 respectively in 2011 to 750 and 

4,800 in 2016. The new SHSP is focused on four broad emphasis areas; High-risk Behaviors, At-risk 

Road Users, Engineering Infrastructure and System Administration. Within these emphasis areas, the 

following action teams have been created to provide more targeted guidance:

Traffic Records and Information Systems Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Motorcycle Safety

Traffic Safety Engineering Traffic Incident Management Impaired Driving

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Occupant Protection Distracted Driving

Senior Mobility and Safety Drivers Age 24 and Younger

Given the four year SHSP update cycle, each action team is tasked with providing more immediate 

updates based upon shorter-term changes in traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities. This is done through 

annual updates to the action plans, which capture changes in key performance measures, in addition to 

documenting those policies and programs that have been implemented. In addition to allowing for 

adaptive responses, these annual updates also provide useful information to the safety stakeholders in 

Michigan, as well as other states. The primary measures used to evaluate progress with respect to the 

SHSP process are the changes in the number of traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries that occur on 

an annual basis. Michigan currently maintains a traffic records system that is among the best in the 

country, allowing for timely feedback as to how various traffic safety trends are changing over time. 

Attachment C shows the progress of statewide fatalities and serious toward meeting the goals of the 2008 

and 2013 SHSPs. The values shown in the graphs are not 5-Year Moving Averages but year specific.

Overview of General Highway Safety Trends

In review of the 5-Year Moving Average for statewide, state trunkline and local roadways (Attachment D, 

Table 1), both fatalities and serious injuries have decreased at minimum 14.85 percent from 2004-2008 to 

2008-2012. The greatest reductions were for serious injuries, ranging from 22.63 to 23.07 percent. In 

regard to rates while the fatality and serious injury rates are lower on state trunkline the percent decrease 

over the analysis time period is consistent between the two roadway networks. For both statewide and 

state trunkline the fatality rate has been below 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled since 
2006-2010 and below 1.0 for state trunkline during the entire analysis time period. Fatality and serious 

injury frequencies and rates for the various functional classes are shown in Attachment D, Table 2. 

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For the analysis time period the 5-Year Moving Average for fatality and serious injury frequencies and 

rates has decreased for all the engineering related SHSP Emphasis Areas; Intersections, Lane Departure, 

and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety except the fatality rate for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (Attachment 

E). While the percentage change for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety fatalities was positive overall the 

number of fatalities has remained virtually unchanged over the analysis time period. The largest gains are 

in serious injuries for all three emphasis areas. Statewide, the percent reduction is as follows:

SHSP Emphasis Area Fatalities Serious Injuries

Intersections 14.75% 22.11%

Lane Departure 17.04% 21.56%

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 2.41% 20.77%

Application of Special Rules – High Risk Rural Road Safety

Per notification from FHWA the High Risk Rural Roads Safety special rule does not apply to Michigan.

Application of Special Rules – Older Drivers

23 U.S.C. 148(g)(2) states 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, 

that State shall be required to include, in the subsequent State SHSP, strategies to address the increases in 

those rates, taking into account the recommendations included in the FHAW publication entitled 

'Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians'. Using the 5-Year Moving Average of 

fatalities and serious injuries for drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age and older and the number of 

people 65 Years of age and older (Per 1,000 Total Population), as provided by FHWA, the rate has

decreased from 4.95 for 2005-2009 to 4.45 for 2007-2011. With this decrease the special rule does not 

apply. The calculations are shown in Attachment F.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation)

Systemic Treatments

As reported in the 2011 HSIP Report the department undertook two system wide initiatives in FY 2008: 

freeway median barrier and non-freeway rumble strips. Both initiatives address lane departure, which is 

part of one of the 12 focus areas in the SHSP. Lane departure related crashes accounted for at least 457

fatalities statewide in 2012 (49 percent of all fatalities). A primary objective for this focus area is to 

identify cost effective strategies that help reduce unintentional lane departures, as well as alert the driver 

should a lane departure occur. The secondary objective is to assist the driver in returning to the travel 

lane safely and minimize departure consequences by creating roadside clear zones.

Rumble strips are a proven and cost-effective countermeasure to lane departure crashes brought on by 

driver drowsiness, distraction, and/or inattention. MDOT predicted, from national crash reduction studies, 

that implementation of this systemwide initiative in Michigan will result in an annual reduction of 337 

crashes, saving 16 lives and 62 serious injuries. Since the late 1990s, MDOT has been systematically 

installing rumble strips on freeway shoulders. In 2007, MDOT pursued expanding rumble strips onto the 

rural, non-freeway system, as part of a three-year funding effort. MDOT’s innovation was to make this a 

network-wide implementation. Rumble strip milling was incorporated in the annual pavement marking 

program and coordinated with MDOT’s pavement engineers. To implement this effort, $3 M a year of 
additional funding was added to the pavement marking program for 2008 through 2010. The result is 

approximately 5,400 miles of centerline rumbles and 2,700 lane miles of shoulder rumbles. 

Freeway median barriers minimize departure consequences. MDOT staff evaluated the state trunkline to 

project how many lives might be saved in Michigan through the installation of median barrier on 

candidate roadways. The crash analysis examined all freeway corridors without median protection which 

experienced four or more crossover type crashes during 2002 through 2006. Using a 90 percent reduction 

factor to estimate the benefit of median protection a total of 340 miles was identified. These corridors, 

with medians widths not requiring protection per MDOT’s standards, experienced 66 fatalities and 257 

serious injuries. Cable median barrier projects were done in conjunction with road/bridge projects when 

possible, or as corridor projects. To implement this effort, $14 M a year of additional funding was added 

to the safety template for 2008 through 2010. Since this initial funding effort cable barrier projects have 

been supported in the annual Safety Call for Projects. To date 285 miles of cable median barrier has been 

installed with an additional 45 miles in the construction stage. MDOT predicts that implementation of 

this initiative will result in the saving 13 lives and 51 incapacitating injuries each year.

The overall effectiveness of both initiatives has not been quantified at this time although research is in 

progress. The ‘Evaluation of Non-Freeway Rumble Strips - Phase II’ research project will provide a 

comprehensive report on the impacts of MDOT’s 2008 through 2010, statewide, non-freeway rumble strip 

initiative. The Phase II evaluation will provide a cost/benefit ratio for installation of rumble strips, 

estimated crash modification factors, a procedural guideline for state and local agencies on implementing 

rumble strips, and other valuable information regarding the installation of non-freeway shoulder and 

centerline rumble strips. Project completion is September 2014. 

The goal of ‘Study of High Tension Cable Barrier on Michigan Roadways’ research project is to 

determine the effectiveness of MDOT’s high tension cable barrier installations in reducing the frequency 

of cross-median crashes and resultant injuries and fatalities. With this information MDOT will be able to

estimate the overall life-cycle cost of high tension cable barriers in Michigan on both a site-specific and 

system-wide basis and compare these costs with alternative treatments. In addition, the research is 

looking at the impacts of cable barriers and other median treatments on crash severity, including effects 

specific to motorcyclists, and determine the effects of traffic volumes, median width and cross-slope, 

horizontal and vertical alignment, regional weather patterns, and other factors on the frequency of cable 

barrier impacts in Michigan. Project completion is October 2014.

A recently study from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) looked at the impact of wider edge lines on 

safety using Michigan data. Rural highways are less safe when compared to other road types and account 

for a disproportionately large number of injury and fatal crashes. The TTI study analyzed a large amount 

of data from Michigan, Kansas, and Illinois to identify how wider edge lines impact several crash types. 

After analyzing the data, the researchers found “detailed evidence to suggest that wider edge lines are 

effective in reducing crashes on rural, two-lane highways, especially with regard to relevant target crashes 

such as single vehicle crashes and related disaggregate crashes (e.g. single vehicle night, single vehicle 

fatal injury”. In Attachment G the percent crash reduction estimates for wider edge lines on rural two-lane 

highways based on Michigan’s data is shown. As a reference, bolded entries are findings with statistical 

significance. The researchers utilized two separate analytical methods on the data from both Kansas and 

Michigan. The second analytical method placed tighter controls to ensure rigor in the face of logistical 

constraints. As a result, the second analytical method includes more conservative measures.

There are a variety of policies that state DOTs can pursue to address the disproportionately large number 

of injury and fatal crashes on rural two-lane highways, but one of the most cost effective is increasing the 

width of edge lines. From the research, wider edge lines have been shown to reduce total crashes 15 to 30 
percent and fatal plus injury crashes 15 to 38 percent. In addition, the benefit-cost ratio for wide edge 

lines is $33 to $55 for each $1 spent. For Michigan’s rural, two-lane trunklines the reduction of total 

crashes is approximately 19 to 27 percent and single vehicle crashes approximately 19 to 30 percent. The 

greatest impact of the wider edge was on wet crashes. For wet, wet night and single vehicle wet crashes 

the reduction was approximately 63 to 68 percent, 77 to 79 percent and 66 to 74 percent respectfully.

Although not funded by the HSIP program a new systemic safety initiative of MDOT, which is directly 

related to lane departure safety, is the adoption of a safety edge policy. The safety edge is a simple but 

extremely effective solution that can help save lives by allowing drivers who drift off highways to return 

to the road safely. Research has shown that by providing a 30 degree angle at the edge of the pavement 

drivers can recover back onto the roadway when they stray off. The Safety Edge will be used on 

shoulders for the following conditions on all pavement types:

• All constructed temporary pavements including shoulder widening that will be used as temporary 

lanes with construction speeds of 45 mph or greater. 

• Freeway shoulders 4 feet or less in width or shoulders that do not have rumbles. The Safety Edge 

may be omitted where the shoulder is separated by curb and gutter or valley gutter.

• Freeway to freeway ramp shoulders that do not have shoulder corrugations.

• Shoulders on all rural, 2-lane, 4-lane and divided trunk line roadways where the posted speed is 45 

mph or greater and there are no shoulder corrugations. In developed rural areas where driveway 

density exceeds 30 access points within 1⁄2 mile, the Safety Edge may be omitted.

Finally, MDOT launched a new statewide safety campaign in July on selected interstates and highways in 

Michigan. MDOT is displaying the number of traffic fatalities on Dynamic Message Signs one day per 

month through November in an effort to raise public awareness and improve driver behavior. The year-todate traffic fatality statistics are provided by MSP, using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS). In support of the campaign, MDOT developed a Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) video for 

YouTube that asks the public what number should be the goal. To further educate MDOT staff, a 

“Countdown to Zero” board is now displayed in the lobby of the Transportation Building in Lansing. The 

board displays fatalities and serious injuries to date and is updated weekly, posing the question: “What are 

you doing to get to Zero?”

High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP)

Program Administration

For the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) the funds are administered by the Local Agency 

Programs (LAP) Safety Engineer located in the Central Office. MDOT allocates funds for this program 

to only local roadways that qualify.

Only the construction phase is eligible for federal aid. Federal funds are capped at $400 K per project. 

Right of way and construction engineering are not eligible for these funds. Preliminary engineering costs 

for projects identified on the Transparency Report or by the Local Safety Initiative are eligible for federal 

participation; otherwise, preliminary engineering is not eligible for federal HRRR funds. Projects are 

federally funded at 90 percent, with a 10 percent local match, or funded with 100 percent federal funds for 

projects consisting entirely of traffic control signalization, safety, pavement marking, rail-highway 

crossing closure, or installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete 

barrier end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems.
Local agencies within MPO areas must coordinate with their MPO to ensure inclusion of their project in 

the area’s TIP. Those agencies that are part of a rural task force are to notify their members that they 

applied for these funds. Rural task force approval is not necessary. LAP coordinates with MDOT 

Planning to ensure these projects are included in the STIP.

Program Methodology

Local agencies were invited by a December 17, 2009 memorandum to submit proposed projects for 

consideration as part of the FY 2012 CFP. Agencies submitting multiple projects were requested to 

submit a prioritized list for consideration. The projects were programmed in order of the project’s priority 

amongst the overall program project submittals.

SAFETEA-LU defines a HRRR as; 1) any roadway functionally classified as rural major or minor 

collector or a rural local road that the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the 

statewide average for those functional classes of roadway, or 2) any roadway functionally classified as 

rural major or minor collector or a rural local road that will likely have increases in traffic volumes that 

are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide 

average for those functional classes. MDOT used the following data to determine the required statewide, 

average accident rate:

75,977 Total miles of roadway functionally classified as rural major or minor collector or rural 

local road

9,999 Total number of crashes resulting in fatalities or incapacitating injuries, located on 

roadway classified as described above, for the time period, 2004 – 2008

 0.14 Statewide average frequency of such accidents per mile of such roadway over a 5 year 

time period

This data lead to the calculation of a crash frequency that exceeds the statewide, average accident rate, at 

a minimum: Within the most recent 5 year time period of available crash data, at least one crash, 

resulting in fatalities (K) or incapacitating (A) injuries, has occurred within a segment of eligible roadway 

no longer than 7.14 miles (1/0.14). 

The 2012 eligibility requirements for roadways in the HRRR program were:

1. The roadway is functionally classified as rural major or minor collector or rural local road.

2. Within the most recent 5 year time period of available crash data, at least 1 intersection crash, 

resulting in fatalities or incapacitating injuries has occurred; or 1 such serious crash has occurred 

within a 7.14-mile long segment of such roadway. 

The proposed projects had to demonstrate a direct correlation to correct an area related to the fatal or 

incapacitating crashes. The proposed project limits must be relevant to the roadway features attributable 

to the crashes. Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. The local agency is required 

to submit a project evaluation form to show the effectiveness of the project when three years of crash data 

are available after project construction.
Progress in Implementing the HRRRP Projects

HRRRP Funds Programmed

HRRRP Project Funding

Reporting Period: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2012

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HRRRP $3,856,200 $3,026,425

Other Federal-aid funds 

State and Local funds

Total $3,856,200 $3,026,425

* “Available” (Programmed) refers to the HRRRP funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) and can be expended on HRRR projects.

General Listing of Projects

The general listing of projects for the HRRRP is shown in Attachment H.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of HRRR Improvements (Program Evaluation)

Table 2 of Attachment D summarizes the safety trends for rural major collector, minor collector, and rural 

local roads in Michigan. The 5-Year Moving Average for fatality and serious injury frequencies and rates 

has decreased during the analysis time period for the three National Functional Classes that comprise the 

HRRR. The greatest reduction is for rural local followed by minor collector. 

National Functional Class 2004_2008 2008_2012 % Diff

5 Year Rolling Average 

Fatalities

7-Major Collector (Rural) 148 137 7.57%

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 20 17 13.86%

9-Local (Rural) 117 94 19.55%

5 Year Rolling Average 

Serious Injuries

7-Major Collector (Rural) 958 778 18.84%

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 132 92 29.89%

9-Local (Rural) 725 559 22.88%

5 Year Rolling Average 

Fatality Rate

7-Major Collector (Rural) 1.79 1.67 6.43%

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 1.96 1.83 6.90%

9-Local (Rural) 4.91 3.93 19.91%

5 Year Rolling Average 

Serious Injury Rate

7-Major Collector (Rural) 11.60 9.48 18.22%

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 12.59 9.70 22.96%

9-Local (Rural) 30.54 23.44 23.24%
Attachment C

980

871 937 889

936 1033 985 938 894

850

860 831 804 777 750

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Fatalities

Year

Statewide Fatalities

Actual

2012 Goal

2016 Goal

6725 6511 5980 5706

5676

7141 6812 6499 6200 5900

5,512

5,325 5,144 4,969 4,800

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000 Serious Injuries

Year

Statewide Serious Injuries

Actual

2012 Goal

2016 Goal
Attachment D

Overview of General Highway Safety Trends

Table 1

Michigan Statewide Safety 

Trends

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 1,090 1,032 993 953 923 15.32%

Serious Injuries 7,946 7,388 6,881 6,492 6,121 22.96%

Fatality Rate 1.06 1.01 0.98 0.96 0.95 9.88%

Serious Injury Rate 7.72 7.25 6.83 6.56 6.33 18.08%

MDOT Roads

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 463 436 416 409 395 14.85%

Serious Injuries 3,154 2,931 2,737 2,585 2,440 22.63%

Fatality Rate 0.90 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.80 10.15%

Serious Injury Rate 6.08 5.77 5.45 5.22 4.98 18.22%

Local Roads

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 626 595 576 544 528 15.69%

Serious Injuries 4,763 4,431 4,121 3,887 3,664 23.07%

Fatality Rate 1.23 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.11 9.49%

Serious Injury Rate 9.35 8.69 8.15 7.88 7.69 17.74%
Attachment D

Overview of General Highway Safety Trends

Table 2

National Functional Class

5 Year Rolling Average Fatalities 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012

1-Principal Arterial - Interstate (Rural) 28 27 25 25 23

2-Principal Arterial - Other (Rural) 83 72 64 57 52

6-Minor Arterial (Rural) 119 113 106 100 91

7-Major Collector (Rural) 148 143 144 140 137

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 20 19 20 17 17

9-Local (Rural) 117 107 99 96 94

11-Principal Arterial - Interstate 

(Urban)

78 71 70 69 69

12-Principal Arterial - Other Freeway 

(Urban)

27 28 29 30 29

14-Principal Arterial - Other (Urban) 196 193 183 179 174

16-Minor Arterial (Urban) 153 142 141 137 140

17-Collector (Urban) 55 55 50 48 45

19-Local (Urban) 62 58 56 49 42

National Functional Class

5 Year Rolling Average Serious 

Injuries

2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012

1-Principal Arterial - Interstate (Rural) 189 178 166 162 152

2-Principal Arterial - Other (Rural) 477 441 381 348 305

6-Minor Arterial (Rural) 658 614 578 545 517

7-Major Collector (Rural) 958 901 855 806 778

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 132 125 111 104 92

9-Local (Rural) 725 685 645 599 559

11-Principal Arterial - Interstate 

(Urban)

487 456 425 394 367

12-Principal Arterial - Other Freeway 

(Urban)

162 152 138 129 137

14-Principal Arterial - Other (Urban) 1,662 1,554 1,468 1,387 1,318

16-Minor Arterial (Urban) 1,384 1,269 1,184 1,136 1,078

17-Collector (Urban) 435 398 356 337 310

19-Local (Urban) 596 536 501 463 426
Attachment D

Overview of General Highway Safety Trends

Table 2 (continued)

National Functional Class

5 Year Rolling Average Fatality Rate 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012

1-Principal Arterial - Interstate (Rural) 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.42

2-Principal Arterial - Other (Rural) 1.15 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.01

6-Minor Arterial (Rural) 1.75 1.62 1.50 1.44 1.33

7-Major Collector (Rural) 1.79 1.71 1.72 1.68 1.67

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 1.96 1.92 2.11 1.76 1.83

9-Local (Rural) 4.91 4.55 4.19 4.02 3.93

11-Principal Arterial - Interstate 

(Urban)

0.48 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.45

12-Principal Arterial - Other Freeway 

(Urban)

0.46 0.49 0.52 0.54 0.52

14-Principal Arterial - Other (Urban) 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00

16-Minor Arterial (Urban) 0.91 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.89

17-Collector (Urban) 0.92 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.90

19-Local (Urban) 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.72 0.61

National Functional Class

5 Year Rolling Average Serious 

Injury Rate

2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012

1-Principal Arterial - Interstate (Rural) 3.37 3.25 3.01 2.99 2.83

2-Principal Arterial - Other (Rural) 6.68 6.29 5.96 6.03 5.85

6-Minor Arterial (Rural) 9.78 8.82 8.22 7.84 7.56

7-Major Collector (Rural) 11.60 10.83 10.17 9.66 9.48

8-Minor Collector (Rural) 12.59 12.82 11.55 10.93 9.70

9-Local (Rural) 30.54 29.03 27.20 25.17 23.44

11-Principal Arterial - Interstate 

(Urban)

2.98 2.83 2.68 2.53 2.38

12-Principal Arterial - Other Freeway 

(Urban)

2.81 2.67 2.48 2.33 2.48

14-Principal Arterial - Other (Urban) 8.48 8.11 7.91 7.71 7.59

16-Minor Arterial (Urban) 8.27 7.41 7.00 6.91 6.83

17-Collector (Urban) 7.19 6.90 6.27 6.25 6.18

19-Local (Urban) 8.45 7.87 7.32 6.75 6.21
Attachment E

SHSP Emphasis Areas

SHSP Emphasis Areas Intersection

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 283 273 267 251 242 14.75%

Serious Injuries 2,666 2,472 2,310 2,183 2,077 22.11%

Fatality Rate 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 9.28%

Serious Injury Rate 2.59 2.43 2.29 2.21 2.15 17.12%

SHSP Emphasis Areas

Lane Departure

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 542 509 485 465 450 17.04%

Serious Injuries 3035 2,849 2,681 2,539 2,380 21.56%

Fatality Rate 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.47 11.74%

Serious Injury Rate 2.95 2.80 2.66 2.57 2.46 16.62%

SHSP Emphasis Areas

Ped and Bike

5 Year Rolling Average 2004_2008 2005_2009 2006_2010 2007_2011 2008_2012 % Diff

Fatalities 158 155 154 154 154 2.41%

Serious Injuries 757 709 664 633 600 20.77%

Fatality Rate 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 -4.06%

Serious Injury Rate 0.74 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.62 15.75%
Attachment F

Application of Special Rules – Older Drivers

Occupants/people/parties for 1/1/2005 through 12/31/2012 in the state of Michigan filtered by Party Type 

 (Motor vehicle driver or Pedestrian) and Person Age (65 years old and older)

v Party Type | Accident Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Motor vehicle driver K&A 510 460 528 543 594 579 535 627

Motor vehicle driver K only 121 105 111 111 125 131 110 126

Motor vehicle driver A only 389 355 417 432 469 448 425 501

Injured passenger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uninjured passenger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bicyclist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pedestrian K&A 46 46 53 44 55 63 59 49

Pedestrian K only 17 20 26 14 22 24 20 21

Pedestrian A only 29 26 27 30 33 39 39 28

Train engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total KA 556 506 581 587 649 642 594 676

Total Fatalities 138 125 137 125 147 155 130 147

Total Serious Injuries 418 381 444 462 502 487 464 529

*Population 141 138 134 130 127 125 121

fatality & serious injury rate 3.59 4.21 4.38 4.99 5.06 4.75 5.59

fatality rate 0.89 0.99 0.93 1.13 1.22 1.04 1.21

serious injury rate 2.70 3.22 3.45 3.86 3.83 3.71 4.37

K&A Rates 2005-2009 4.95

2007-2011 4.45

K Rates 2005-2009 1.11

2007-2011 1.03

A Rates 2005-2009 3.85

2007-2011 3.41

Special rule does NOT apply to Michigan

* Number of people in Michigan age 65 + per 1000 population as provided by FHWA
Attachment G

Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) Analysis on the Impact of Wider Edge Lines

Crash Type Percent Crash Reduction

MI (Analysis 1) MI (Analysis 2)

Total 27.4 19.4

Fatal and Injury 15.4 16.1

PDO 30.5 19.6

Day 20.3 12.0

Night 30.7 18.8

Daytime Fatal and Injury 8.2 23.0

Nighttime Fatal and Injury 22.6 -5.8

Wet 67.2 62.6

Wet Night 76.9 79.2

Single Vehicle 30.0 18.7

Single Vehicle Wet 73.8 65.9

Single Vehicle Night 29.4 18.0

Single Vehicle Fatal and Injury 10.0 -1.9

Single Vehicle Night Fatal Injury 9.7

Older Driver

Fixed Object

Bolded entries are findings with statistical significance.