Page 1 of 43

MINNESOTA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 43

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................10

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................10

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................12

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................23

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................23

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................29

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................30

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................32

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................32

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................32

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................39

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................42

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................43
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 43

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. 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.”
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 43

Executive Summary

Minnesota has a consistent history of reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries through the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program. The program is structured to (1) encourage widespread deployment of safety 

countermeasures, (2) engage local and state agencies, and (3) emphasize effective treatments through 

countermeasure evaluation.

While Minnesota funds sustained high crash locations, the program emphasizes systemic projects. These 

systemic projects identify locations based on factors associated with fatal and serious injury crashes to treat 

locations with higher risk before these severe crash occurs.

Furthermore, fatal and serious injury crashes are widely distributed across public roads. Thus, Minnesota HSIP 

has emphasized low-cost, high-benefit safety countermeasures that can be deployed over many miles or sites.

Minnesota HSIP funding is divided between state and local agencies based on distribution of fatal and serious 

injury crashes. The Office of Traffic Engineering (OTE) at MnDOT solicits for applications annually to approve 

high quality safety projects. Furthermore, OTE and State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) provide local 

traffic safety resources including systemic planning documents. These County Road Safety Plans identify high 

risk locations and provide project recommendations to streamline the local HSIP project development process. 

Currently, MnDOT is in the process of updating these safety plans with new data and projects beyond lowhanging fruit.

In recent years, Minnesota has demonstrated a commitment to proven, effective countermeasures by 

reemphasizing evaluation of projects. A statewide structure for project tracking, evaluation contracts, and 

report repository is in development to support these efforts.

Collaboration between internal and external, state and local partners has been key to current successes. Over 

the last 16 years, the Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) program has been instrumental in coordinating 

engagement with partners and facilitating relationships. These regional partnerships help connect stakeholders 

to state agencies without derailing local grassroots safety organizing.

Minnesota has experienced consistent decreases in traffic fatalities and serious injuries since 2003. After a 

revision to the state crash reporting system in 2016, Minnesota experienced a 77 percent increase in serious 

injuries reported. As the years have passed, we have seen reductions of 8 to 9 percent annually; while the new 

levels are higher, Minnesota now sees continued successes in serious injury reduction.

Recently the consistent reductions in fatalities have been less than previous years. While decreasing, this may 

suggest a plateau. Minnesota will continue to emphasize these successful elements of HSIP while looking for 

new opportunity to bend the curve.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 43

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

(OTE)--formerly Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology (OTST)--solicits projects from local governing units for 

the next four years; a parallel solicitation for State projects is issued to the districts. These solicitations aim to 

fully program safety projects in the next two years, but projects three to four years out are awarded to ensure 

planning. A parallel process is conducted within the Minneapolis-St Paul Metro that is coordinated through the 

MPO. Funding is distributed between Local and State based on fatal and serious injury crashes; distribution 

between each district or Area Transportation Partnership is based on the location of these fatal and serious 

injury crashes. 

OTE approves all State and Local HSIP projects before they are entered in the STIP: the award memo 

received is the basis for being allowed to enter the STIP. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

• Formula via Districts/Regions 

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

MnDOT distributes funds to local roads through the Greater Minnesota Combined Solicitation. OTE with 

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

Area Transportation Partnership (ATP). Districts are given the opportunity to comment on the prioritization of 

projects. 

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

follows: 

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

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

After the new crash reporting system was implemented in 2016, Minnesota experienced an increase in 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 43

Suspected Serious Injury (A) crashes. This change was not uniform across all roadway jurisdictions. MnDOT is 

in the process of updating the HSIP targets based on the updated crash data. Current HSIP targets are 

approximately 40% state agency, 60% local agencies; revised targets would change the HSIP targets to 

approximately 30% state agency, 70% local agencies. While the methodology has been outlined, MnDOT is 

working to finalize the targets by beginning of 2021 for future safety project solicitations. 

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

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

rather than countermeasures within larger projects are given priority. 

A subset of counties has opted to join OTE in updating the County Road Safety Plan. This phased update is 

continuing. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Districts/Regions 

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

• Planning 

• Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

MnDOT's Office of Traffic Engineering (OTE) works closely with the State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) 

office as well as district traffic engineers in the distribution of HSIP funds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

district traffic engineer is aware of and supportive of their prospective project if it impacts MnDOT roadways. 

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

additional HSIP coordination occurs.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA 

• Governors Highway Safety Office 

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

• Other-City Engineer Safety Committee 

• Other-County Engineer Safety Committee 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

subset of Minnesota's 87 counties have opted in to updating these plans. 

MnDOT recognizes the current HSIP process has a limited role for MPOs. Currently, MPOs review the 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 43

priorities of the HSIP selection committees to ensure compliance with long range goals. The annual HSIP 

solicitation briefings provide an overview of the process; however OTE and State Aid have had limited success 

in outreach to the MPOs. 

MnDOT planning staff and FHWA recently completed a review of coordination with MPOs across all programs. 

The report highlighted HSIP coordination in Greater Minnesota (i.e. outside Twin Cities metro) needs 

improvement. The HSIP funding guide will be updated to place greater emphasis on early coordination with 

MPOs. Process charts currently do not highlight these efforts and has been reflected in safety project 

solicitations. 

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

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

workshops helping to direct action among local partners. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

See attachment "HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf" 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HSIP (no subprograms) 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:8/1/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Volume

• Lane miles

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 43

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Competitive application process

• selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:5

Available funding:5

Cost Effectiveness:5

Other-Treatment Effectiveness:5

Other-Site Selection: planning or spot location:5

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 40

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Horizontal curve signs 

• Install/Improve Lighting 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

• Rumble Strips 

• Safety Edge 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis 

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

• Road Safety Assessment 

• SHSP/Local road safety plan 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 43

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

investigations in Minnesota have been funded outside of HSIP. MnDOT has created a standalone Connected 

Autonomous Vehicle (CAV-X) office to advance connected and automated vehicle and other advanced ITS 

technologies in Minnesota; a minimal amount of Section 164 funds will help support safety investigations in 

these areas. www.mndot.gov/automated/index.html 

The Minnesota CAV-X office is funded separate from HSIP with state money set aside by the Legislature. ITS 

projects will continue to be competitive in HSIP solicitation rather than program support.

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

Yes

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

Minnesota does not use the more advanced, predictive methods in the HSM. However, CMFs are used to rank 

and select reactive safety projects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prediction of total crashes.

Currently the full HSM predictive models and IHSDM software be used outside the scope of HSIP. Corridor 

studies and larger MnDOT projects use the models to evaluate alternatives and predicted crash outcomes for 

each.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 43

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $47,331,328 $13,543,825 28.61%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$10,491,746 $9,984,424 95.16%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $57,823,074 $23,528,249 40.69%

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

safety projects?

$23,346,117

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

$3,052,529

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

$1,759,475

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

$1,754,475

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

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

$49,800,000
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 43

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

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

$0

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

the future.

MnDOT now programs HSIP funds to 100% apportionment and will monitor for effects on obligation rate. We 

expect this over-programming of safety to cause obligation rates to rise. OTE continues to have on-going 

discussions with MnDOT Districts on creating shelf ready safety projects to better capitalize on any costsavings in the HSIP projects.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 43

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#0012317) US 12: 

FROM REARDON 

AVE SW TO 0.5 MI E 

(WRIGHT CO)-

SHOULDERS, TURN 

LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$750000 $833333 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

rear-ends

(#0023324) MN 23: 0.1 

MI N OF CSAH 24 TO 

US 212 - BIT MILL, 

CONC & BIT PAVING, 

RWIS, SIGNAL, 

LIGHTING, TURN 

LN'S, TENSION 

CABLE GUARDRAIL

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 Intersection

s

$1528058 $1697842 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

High 

tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

(#0052342) US 52: 

CANNON RIVER IN 

CANNON FALLS TO 

CSAH 86 -

UNBONDED 

CONCRETE 

OVERLAY, HTCB

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.9 Miles $286780 $318644 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

High 

tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

(#0212325) 

TH5/CR131 -

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3217700 $4493892 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

skew

(#0212325) 

TH5/CR131 -

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1850000 $1850000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#0221010) CSAH 

8/OSBORNE RD NE: 

MN 47 TO MN 65 -

ROAD DIET (4 TO 3 

LN RDWY), TURN 

LN'S, MEDIANS, 

PEDESTRIAN 

ISLANDS & REPLC 

TRAIL

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road diet, 

roadway reconfiguration)

1 Miles $1782290 $2245000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Enhanced 

crossings

(#0221011) MN 65 AT 

MSAS 103/KLONDIKE 

DR - CONSTRUCT 

REDUCED CONFLICT 

INTERSECTION

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersection

s

$1354986 $1505539 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#0420056) US 10 AT 

INTERSECTIONS OF 

CSAH 54/E SHORE 

DRIVE & KRIS ST - 

INTERSECTION & 

SIGNAL REVISIONS & 

ACCELERATION 

LANE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

2 Intersection

s

$2167156 $2270547 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Signal 

revisions

(#0520072) MN 23: 

FROM 0.1 MI W OF CR 

1 TO 0.12 MI E OF MN 

95 - MILL & OVLY, 

SIGNALS, ADA, 

LIGHTING, 

CONSTRUCT RCI AT 

CSAH 8

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$601245 $668050 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#0520195) CSAH 

8/CSAH 4: RUMBLE 

STRIPS, 

RECLAMATION

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

1.5 Miles $12906 $14340 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#1120199) CASS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL EDGELINE 

RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

43.6 Miles $89173 $99081 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

(#1120200) CASS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" WR 

GOUND IN EDGE 

LINE STRIPING

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

29.7 Miles $129085 $143427 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#1320044) CSAH 26 

AT US 8 - 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$2000000 $2928470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#1420201) CSAH 14: 

FROM MN 336 TO 

CSAH 17 RUMBLE 

STRIPS & PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS, M&O 

AND SHOULDER 

PAVING

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.6 Miles $238214 $629683 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#1720122) 

COTTONWOOD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

CONTINUOUS 

SINUSOIDAL 

RUMBLE STRIPS 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

74 Miles $532800 $592000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

WITH GROUND-IN 

WR STRIPING

(#1820160) CROW 

WING COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6-INCH 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

31.7 Miles $100875 $112084 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#1820252) CROW 

WING COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

CENTERLINE 

SINUSOIDAL 

RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips - center 40.8 Miles $119925 $133250 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Centerline 

rumble 

stripEs

(#1920099) MN 3: 

FROM 

CHESTERFIELD WAY 

TO 170TH ST - 

ACCESS CLOSURE, 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT & 

LEFT TURN LANES

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$2824057 $3642841 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#1920183) CSAH 9 

(DODD BLVD): FROM 

CSAH 50 TO IDEAL 

WAY & ICENIC TRL: 

FROM ICENIC WAY 

TO 0.06 MI E OF 

DODD BLVD - 

RECONSTRUCT 

INTERSECTION

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$388800 $505000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#2420143) CSAH 46: 

COUNTY LN TO CSAH 

6 - 2' SHOULDER 

WIDENING WITH 

SAFETY WEDGE & 

RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3.5 Miles $172800 $196185 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#2520121) MN 57 AT 

MN 60 - CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT, 

MILLING, BIT & 

CONCRETE 

SURFACING, ADA & 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$945000 $1050000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#2520147) 

GOODHUE 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

INTERSECTION 

LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection lighting 11 Intersection

s

$79200 $88000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Intersection 

lighting

(#2520167) 

GOODHUE 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALLTION OF 

CHEVRONS, ARROW 

BOARDS, CURVE 

WARNINGS & 

DELINEATORS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

27 Curves $86922 $96580 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Delineate 

curves

(#2720090) 

HENNEPIN 

COUNTYWIDE: 

CONST DURABLE 

HIGH-VISIBILITY 

CROSSWALKS, 

CURB EXT, RAISED 

MEDIANS, ADA, 

FLASHING BEACONS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and pedestrian refuge 

areas

4 Intersection

s

$1008000 $1261000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Enhanced 

crossings

(#3020202) ISANTI 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6 " GROUND 

IN WET REFELCTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

15.8 Miles $76572 $85080 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#3120196) US 169 AT 

MN 65 - CONSTRUCT 

REDUCED CONFLICT 

INTERSECTION

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$638820 $709800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#3220124) JACKSON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

ENHANCED CURVE 

SIGNING AND 

IMPROVE RURAL 

STOP/THRU 

INTERSECTIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

57 Curves $152053 $168948 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Delineate 

curves

(#3220161) JACKSON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

REALIGNMENT & 

RECONSTRUCTION 

OF VARIOUS 

SKEWED/CURVE 

INTERSECTIONS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 5 Intersection

s

$451274 $501416 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

skew
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#3420216) 

KANDIYOHI 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" GROUND 

IN WET-REFLECTIVE 

SOLID LINE 

EDGELINE STRIPES

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

56.1 Miles $221483 $246092 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#3720231) CSAH 20: 

FROM MN 40 TO 0.24 

MI E OF CSAH 31 - 2' 

SHOULDERS, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, 6" 

EDGELINES, MILL & 

OVERLAY

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7.9 Miles $307800 $2237055 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#4320210) MN 7: 

FROM E JCT OF MN 

22 TO CSAH 33 - 

CORRIDOR STUDY 

SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $92000 $97000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Safety 

studies

(#4320212) CSAHS 

3/CSAH 15: INSTALL 

GROUND-IN WET 

REFLECTIVE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS & 

RUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

19.6 Miles $250624 $278471 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#4320213) CSAH 7: 

FROM US 212 IN 

STEWART TO SOUTH 

GRADE ROAD/MSAS 

130 - BIT SHOULDER 

PAVING, RUMBLE 

STRIPS & GROUND 

IN WET-REFLECTIVE 

STRIPING

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

13.5 Miles $521470 $579411 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#4720224) MEEKER 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

169.6 Miles $221080 $245645 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#4720225) MEEKER 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND IN 

WET-REFLECTIVE 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

127.2 Miles $0 $0 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

(#4820008) US 169: IN 

MILLE LACS COUNTY 

AT JCT OF CSAH 11 , 

CSAH 12, & CSAH 13 - 

CONSTRUCT RCIS

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$75609 $84010 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#4820008) US 169: IN 

MILLE LACS COUNTY 

AT JCT OF CSAH 11 , 

CSAH 12, & CSAH 13 - 

CONSTRUCT RCIS

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$75609 $84010 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#4820008) US 169: IN 

MILLE LACS COUNTY 

AT JCT OF CSAH 11, 

CSAH 12, & CSAH 13 - 

CONSTRUCT RCIS

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

3 Intersection

s

$3007595 $3380361 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#4821027) MN 23: 

CORRIDOR STUDY IN 

MILACA- PROVIDE 

ANALYSIS OF 

EXISTING & FUTURE 

CONDITIONS, 

GUIDANCE FOR 

ACCESS CONTROL 

RECOMMENDATION

S & PROPOSED

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $140000 $140000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Safety 

studies

(#4920154) CSAH 34: 

FROM US 10 TO MN 

25 (EAST OF 

BUCKMAN) - MILL & 

OVERLAY, 

SHOULDER PAVING, 

MUMBLE STRIPS, 

AND SAFETY 

WEDGES

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

11 Miles $372458 $413843 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Shoulder 

paving & 

rumble 

stripEs

(#4920197) 

MORRISON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 

SINUSOIDAL 

EDGELINE RUMBLE 

STRIPS, 4" MULTICOMP CENTERLINE 

MARKINGS & 

GROUND IN 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

36.5 Miles $124764 $138626 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

(#4920198) 

MORRISON 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" LATEX 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

45.2 Miles $155519 $211853 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#5720146) MN 1 AT W 

JCT US 59/CSAH 16, 

AT BROOKS AVE & 

AT BARZEN AVECONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1356198 $1506886 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#6220228) I-35E: AT 

CR J/ASH STREET: 

EAST & WEST 

RAMPS - INSTALL 

TEMPORARY 

TRAFFIC CONTROL 

SIGNAL SYSTEMS & 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

2 Intersection

s

$131276 $131276 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Clarify 

turning 

maneuvers

(#6620133) CSAH 48: 

CONSTRUCT 3/4 

INTERSECTIONCURB & GUTTER, 

ADA IMP, STORM 

SEWER & LIGHTING

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersection

s

$279000 $503703 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

(#6920052) US 53: AT 

THE 

INTERSECTIONS OF 

12TH AVE W & 2ND 

AVE W - SIGNAL 

SYSTEM, OFFSET 

LEFT TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

2 Intersection

s

$2696637 $2697167 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Clarify 

turning 

maneuvers

(#6920176) ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL HIGH 

SURFACE FRICTION 

TREATMENT ON 

CURVES (CSAHS 15, 

16, AND 23)

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

19 Curves $431556 $479506 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Research 

surface 

treatments

(#6920177) ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL HIGH 

SURFACE FRICTION 

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

15 Curves $494864 $549849 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Research 

surface 

treatments
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

TREATMENT ON 

CURVES (CSAHS 5, 

26, 65 AND 94)

(#6920190) ST. LOUIS 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL 6" SOLID 

PAINT EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

58 Miles $37270 $41411 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#7020120) CSAH 2 

AT CSAH 91 - 

CONSTRUCT 

ROUNABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1792800 $2839000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#7720159) TODD 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL GROUND IN 

WET-REFLECTIVE 

MULTI-COMPONENT 

EDGELINES & LATEX 

EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

215.9 Miles $294744 $327494 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#7920142) CSAH 

4/CSAH 27: AT 

INTERSECTION WITH 

MN 42 - 

INTERSECTION 

GEOMETRICS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Intersection

s

$450000 $1850000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

skew

(#7920144) 

WABASHA 

COUNTYWIDE: 

INSTALL ENHANCED 

EDGELINE 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

208.8 Miles $265204 $294671 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#8020219) WADENA 

COUNTYWIDE: 

CHEVRON SIGN 

REPLACEMENT & 

INSTALLATION

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

36 Curves $38880 $43200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Delineate 

curves

(#8220097) TH 97 AT 

NORTH SHORE 

TRAIL/KESWICH AVE 

- LEFT TURN LANES, 

LIGHTING

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersection

s

$1182688 $1314097 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

rear-ends
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#8220113) MN 97 AT 

GOODVIEW AVE/8TH 

ST - CONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT, 

INCLUDES 

RECTANGULAR 

RAPID FLASH 

BEACON (RRFB), 

LIGHTING, TRAIL & 

ADA

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1485000 $2992420 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#8220113) MN 97 AT 

GOODVIEW AVE/8TH 

ST IN FOREST LAKECONSTRUCT 

ROUNDABOUT, 

INCLUDES 

RECTANGULAR 

RAPID FLASH 

BEACON (RRFB), 

LIGHTING, TRAIL & 

ADA

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - traffic signal to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$390000 $390000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabou

t

(#8220187) I-694: 

FROM US 61 TO 

CSAH 10 - INSTALL 

CONTINUOUS 

FREEWAY LIGHTING

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 8.6 Miles $1583100 $1759000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Older 

Drivers

Improve 

visibility

(#8319189) CSAH 21: 

FROM W CO LINE TO 

CSAH 5 - SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersection

s

$20095 $22328 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Intersection 

lighting

(#8621039) MN 25: 

CORRIDOR STUDY 

FROM BUFFALO TO 

MONTICELLO

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $182938 $182938 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Safety 

studies

(#8820014) D-1 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

INSTALL 

COUNTDOWN TIMER 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL 

HEADS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

20 Intersection

s

$76708 $85231 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Signal 

revisions

(#8820101) 

STATEWIDE: MNGEO 

& MNIT SERVICES TO 

PROVIDE 

COMPUTER & 

SOFTWARE 

ENHANCEMENTS TO 

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Crash data 

system

$200000 $200000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 Other State 

Agency

Systemic Data Crash data 

usability
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

THE ESRI INSIGHTS 

MAPPING & DATA 

SYSTEM & 

CrashMART TOOL

(#8820101) 

STATEWIDE: MNGEO 

& MNIT SERVICES TO 

PROVIDE 

COMPUTER & 

SOFTWARE 

ENHANCEMENTS TO 

THE ESRI INSIGHTS 

MAPPING & DATA 

SYSTEM & 

CrashMART TOOL

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Crash data 

system

$0 $0 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Other State 

Agency

Systemic Data Crash data 

usability

(#8820105) 

STATEWIDE: DESIGN 

& DEVELOPMENT OF 

CAV-X ICE SENSORS 

& ACTIVE WARNING 

SYSTEM (AWS) FOR 

THE US 61 

CORRIDOR 

BETWEEN CSAH 9 & 

CSAH 7

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

1 System $99736 $99736 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Connected 

Autonomou

s Vehicles

ITS

(#8820191) 

DISTRICTWIDE - 

INSTALL 6" 

EDGELINE AND 

CENTERLINE 

STRIPNG ON 

VARIOUS CSAH'S

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

374.6 Miles $163360 $187678 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

(#8820214) 

INTERSECTION 

CONTROL 

EVALUATION (ICE) 

STUDIES IN ATP 3 AT 

VARIOUS 

INTERSECTIONS ON 

US 169 & US 10

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 4 Locations $100000 $100000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Safety 

studies

(#8820227) MN 55 

FROM S JCT OF US 

52 TO THE HASTINGS 

CITY LIMITS - ROAD 

SAFETY AUDIT

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Locations $40000 $40000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Safety 

studies
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 43

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AAD

T

SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

(#8820229) METRO 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

ENHANCED 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS AND CATTRACKS

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement markings - add 

dashed edge line along 

mainline

30 Intersection

s

$1129272 $1129272 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Clarify 

turning 

maneuvers

(#8820237) D-2 

DISTRICTWIDE: 

UPGRADE 

PEDESTRIAN 

COUNTDOWN 

INDICATORS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

15 Intersection

s

$180000 $180000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Signal 

revisions

(#8820239) 

STATEWIDE: 

PEDESTRIAN CRASH 

STUDY, DATA-BASED 

APPROACH TO 

SYSTEMIC SAFETY 

AND 

FATALITIES/INJURIE

S

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Safety plan $99801 $99801 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Safety 

studies

(#8821043) 

STATEWIDE: SFY 

2021 TZD REGIONAL 

COORDINATORSSALARIES & 

EXPENSES FROM 

7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning 9 Regional 

coordinators

$800000 $800000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Traffic 

Safety 

Culture & 

Awareness

Improve 

traffic safety 

culture
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 43

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 368 395 387 361 411 392 358 381 365

Serious Injuries 1,159 1,268 1,216 1,044 1,127 1,992 1,849 1,660 1,520

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.649 0.693 0.679 0.629 0.707 0.666 0.597 0.630 0.601

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.045 2.224 2.134 1.819 1.939 3.385 3.083 2.747 2.503

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

45 47 41 22 51 67 48 52 60

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

153 155 146 126 158 291 279 221 202
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 43

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 43

0.54

0.56

0.58

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 43

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2015

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

12.4 28.4

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

64.4 116.4

Rural Minor Arterial 64.6 124.2

Rural Minor Collector 21.6 52.6

Rural Major Collector 63 149.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 43

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 Local Road or 

Street

31.4 84.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

15 51.2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

6 20.4

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

23.4 84.8

Urban Minor Arterial 49.6 253.6

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector 12.4 83.4

Urban Local Road or 

Street

15.6 98
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 43

Year 2019

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

184.8 462.4 0.54 1.35

County Highway 

Agency

134.2 626 0.93 4.34

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

21.2 105 1.79 8.83

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

41 436.2 0.42 4.52

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

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

displayed to the officer added "Suspected," i.e. "Suspected Serious Injury (A)". With the revised phrasing, we 

have seen A injuries reported at higher numbers than previously seen (2,299 serious injuries reported in 2016 

versus an average of 955 over the prior five years). Part of this may be due to the new definition but part also 

concerns training of officers: Minnesota plans to review training material for crash data collection. 

Modeling serious injuries provides estimates of annual reductions in serious injuries. In the 10 years prior to 

the definition change (2005-2015), serious injuries were reduced 6% annually; since the definition change, 

serious injuries were reduced 9% annually. The definition change appears to have increased the number of 

serious injuries reported, but the trends appear consistent.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 43

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:352.4

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

The forthcoming SHSP has established a mid-term goal of no more than 225 fatalities by 2025. A linear trend 

was derived from 2019 fatalities to the 2025 goal. The 2021 target was established by averaging the outcomes 

from 2017 through 2019 with the computed trend for 2020-2021. As a result, the target measures Minnesota's 

progress toward the SHSP goal.

Number of Serious Injuries:1579.8

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

The forthcoming SHSP has established a mid-term goal of no more than 980 serious injuries by 2025. A linear 

trend was derived from 2019 serious injuries to the 2025 goal. The 2021 target was established by averaging 

the outcomes from 2017 through 2019 with the computed trend for 2020-2021. As a result, the target 

measures Minnesota's progress toward the SHSP goal.

Fatality Rate:0.582

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

The number of fatalities used the outcomes from 2017-2019 and the computed 2020-2021 trend; a 

conservative estimate of +0.5% vehicle miles traveled was used for the annual rates.

Serious Injury Rate:2.606

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

The number of serious injuries used the outcomes from 2017-2019 and the computed 2020-2021 trend; a 

conservative estimate of +0.5% vehicle miles traveled was used for the annual rates.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:281.2

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

The derived fatality linear trends for 2020-2021 were scaled by the percent of fatalities involving a non-motorist 

for the prior five years (i.e. 2014-2018). Similarly, the serious injury trends for 2020-2021 were scaled by the 

percent of serious injuries involving a non-motorist. The target measures Minnesota's progress toward the 

SHSP goal if the prevalence of non-motorists in traffic fatalities and serious injuries remains unchanged.

Minnesota recognized that by using simple projections from prior years, the targets may increase: this was not 

acceptable. A new methodology for establishing safety targets was necessary to track progress towards our 

SHSP goals. This method utilizes quality data from the State Crash Database and current outcomes from 2019 

to establish meaningful targets.

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

safety performance targets. 

Minnesota's 2025 goals in the SHSP were developed through extensive input from regional stakeholders, 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) statewide conference, and TZD leadership. The TZD program is co-chaired by 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 43

Department of Health, MnDOT, and Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). 

In discussion with MPO analysts and leadership, MnDOT identified issues with celebrating meeting a target 

that is set higher than prior years. Our safety plans do not support stagnation in traffic safety. The new process 

of trending toward our 2025 goals coupled with current crash trends achieved this end. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 372.0 381.4

Number of Serious Injuries 1711.0 1629.6

Fatality Rate 0.620 0.640

Serious Injury Rate 2.850 2.731

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

267.5 285.8

Based on preliminary analysis, Minnesota anticipates meeting two of the five 2019 targets: 

• Number of serious injuries 

• Serious injury rate 

The number of traffic fatalities in Minnesota has flattened in recent years; despite missing two targets, the state 

anticipates significant progress when compared to prior baselines: 

• Number of fatalities 

• Fatality rate 

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

64 53 79 77 68 59 68
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 43

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

89 105 88 160 164 150 174
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 43

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

• Other-Change in fatal and serious injury crashes 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

Over the prior five years, Minnesota has seen reductions in both fatalities and fatal crashes; modeling results in 

a 3% annual reduction from 2015 to 2019. In 2019, there was a 4.5% reduction in fatalities: this is consistent 

with prior trends. 

Over the prior four years (i.e. after the implementation of the revised "Suspected Serious Injury (A)" definition), 

Minnesota has seen reductions in both serious injuries and A injury crashes; modeling results in a 9% annual 

reduction from 2016 to 2019. In 2019, there was a 8.4% annual reduction in serious injuries. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Other-Under consideration 

At this time MnDOT assess effectiveness based on crash data analysis. However, there have been 

discussions as to "leading indicators," i.e. metrics associated with reductions in fatal and serious injury 

crashes, to document progress. While no metrics have been agreed upon, these measures will be discussed 

further in future SHSP working groups.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure Single Vehicle 

Run Off Road + 

Head On Crashes

183 687.4

Intersections Intersections 156.2 811.8

Pedestrians Vehicle/pedestrian 47.4 169.4

Bicyclists Vehicle/bicycle 8 59.8
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 43

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)

Older Drivers Crashes with at 

least one driver 

involved age 65+

92.8 283.2

Motorcyclists Crashes with at 

least one 

motorcycle 

involved

54 256.4

Work Zones Crashes occurring 

within a work zone

9.2 35.2
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 43

0

50

100

150

200

250

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older DriversMotorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 43

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

Yes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane

Departure

Intersections Pedestrians Bicyclists Older Drivers Motorcyclists Work Zones

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 43

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Rumble Strips 

Description: 

Safety effect of rumble strips: centerline 

ONLY, shoulder ONLY, and centerline + 

shoulder on Total and K+A crashes. 

Insufficient data for evaluation of nonmotorist crashes. 

Target Crash Type: Run-off-road 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 1200 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

Rural 2-lane roads with shoulder rumble 

strips on average have 32% fewer total 

crashes; average 24% fewer singlevehicle run-off-road crashes (SVROR). 

Rural 2-lane roads with centerline AND 

shoulder rumble strips on average have 

27% fewer total crashes; average 32% 

fewer SVROR and 36% fewer head-on 

crashes. Rural 4-lane divided roads with 

shoulder rumble strips have on average 

34% fewer total crashes; average 60% 

fewer SVROR crashes. 

File Name: 2020_Rectangular-Rumble-Strip.pdf

CounterMeasures: Posted Speed Limit on Rural 2-lane 

Highways 

Description: 

Safety effect of increasing posted speed 

limit from 55 MPH to 60 MPH on 2-lane, 

rural trunk highways 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 1909.1 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Before/after using empirical Bayes or Full 

Bayes 

Results: 

Increasing the speeds from 55mph to 

60mph had minor impacts on segment 

crashes. Aggregate CMFs on both 

segment and intersection crash outcomes 

were 3% increase in total crashes, 3% 

increase in injury crashes (not signiciant at 

95% confidence). The total crashes show 
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 43

a statstically significant increase of 7%; 

there was a 5% increase in injury crashes, 

4% increase in run-off-road crashes, and 

3% decrease in head-on crashes (none 

signficant). At intersections, there was a 

significant impacts to angle crashes 

depending on lighting and geometrics. 

File Name: 2020_PSL-Change.pdf

CounterMeasures: Sinusoidal Rumble Strips 

Description: Safety effect of changes in sinusoidal 

rumble strip design. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 118.2 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Regression cross-section 

Results: 

Sinusoidal centerline with rectangular 

shoulder rumble strips on rural 2-lane 

highways, average CMF for total crashes 

= 0.48 

File Name: SinusoidaRumbleStripEval_TechMemo_FINAL.pdf
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 43

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)

None at this 

time.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 43

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/01/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2019

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

 2020

Due to competing crises, the current 2020-2024 SHSP is awaiting signature from the Governor at this time. The final, approved document is anticipated the end of Summer 2020.

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 90

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 80

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 90

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 90

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 90
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 43

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 90

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

95 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

95 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

95 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

95 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

95 100

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

95 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 95 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

95 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

95 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 43

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

95 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

70 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 96.36 100.00 100.00 97.78 100.00 90.00

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

MnDOT OTE completed a database project identifying the locations and characteristics of intersections on all public roadways. All state highway intersections were manually reviewed for consistency; select counties have opted to edit 

characteristics of intersections in their respective jurisdictions. This internal database is designed to regularly update based on changes in the linear referencing system. 

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

MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management (OTSM) collects and maintains MIRE fundamental element data and quality. Minnesota has highly reliable data elements on state highways in compliance with MIRE; on the local 

systems, work is on going to update default "legacy values" with more accurate data. A source accuracy field denotes these default values at this time to cull data which has not been verified through another method. Currently local 

roadway data comes to OTSM in various formats where it is translated by linear referencing system (LRS) editors into the required formatting. OTSM estimates that all characteristics are updated at least annually. 

All route data and MIRE elements maintained by MnDOT OTSM are published weekly to the State of Minnesota GeoCommons website for consumption by partners and the general public. 

Non-local Paved Roads are defined here as trunk highways: in Minnesota, all of these roads are owned by the State. MnDOT has maintained an inventory of intersections and interchanges with trunk highways. OTSM will continue to 

maintain reasonable estimates and make avenues available for local agencies to enter and maintain additional fields.
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 43

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

2020_Rectangular-Rumble-Strip.pdf

2020_PSL-Change.pdf

SinusoidaRumbleStripEval_TechMemo_FINAL.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 43

Glossary

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

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

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

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

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

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

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

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

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

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