Page 1 of 39

MINNESOTA 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 39

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 ............................................................................................................................19

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................19

Safety Performance Targets ............................................................................................................24

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................26

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................28

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................28

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................28

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................34

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................35

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................38

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................39
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 39

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data.” 

23 U.S.C. 407 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data 

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

accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, 

and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project 

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or data.” 
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

Executive Summary

Many of the challenges Minnesota saw in 2020 have persisted and further developed in 2021. From 2015-

2019, statewide traffic fatalities decreased 6% annually. In 2020, there was a 3% increase from 2019; last year 

in 2021, there was a 24% increase from these already elevated traffic fatalities of 2020! Minnesota has been 

monitoring these trends for fears of a “plateau” in the traffic safety successes we have historically seen. We are 

now firmly on the plateau. Furthermore, while vehicle miles traveled in 2021 are still below 2019 we have seen 

a 11% increase from 2020. More exposure will continue to compound any dangerous changes to traffic and 

behavior patterns. Many of those patterns seen in 2020 confirm that Minnesota should continue to support our 

HSIP initiatives while committing to innovative strategies that will get Minnesota off the plateau in traffic safety. 

Minnesota uses a Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) approach to coordinate regional, grassroots safety efforts. This 

inter-agency, inter-disciplinary approach has consistently focused on improving traffic safety culture and driver 

behaviors including impairment, speeding, distraction, and seat belt use. Minnesota is leveraging this structure 

to develop Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) action teams that will drive changes across the state. The 

Department of Transportation distributes HSIP funds geographically across all regions, setting aside funds for 

local agencies. These funds are allocated based on the number of fatal and serious injury crashes by region 

and roadway jurisdiction. Beginning in 2026, new revised targets have recognized the shift in severe crashes 

onto the local systems and have adapted to allocate more funds to these jurisdictions. Proactive safety and 

local planning have allowed wide-deployment of traffic safety countermeasures across all public roads, 

particularly the state and county systems. 
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 39

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. 
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

After the new crash reporting system was implemented in 2016, Minnesota experienced an increase in 

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. These new revised distribution targets begin in 2026.

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.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

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

annual HSIP solicitation briefings provide an overview of the process. 

MnDOT planning staff and FHWA 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 solicitation guidance has been updated to place greater emphasis on early coordination with MPOs. 

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" for current guidance. Minnesota anticipates updating the 

HSIP manual to better reflect the process for how applicants will coordinate and solicit approval from our eight 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations. This document is anticipated in late 2021 or early 2022. 

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
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

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?

 59

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Lighting

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing

• 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
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

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. HSIP funds are no longer directly funding this program as it is supported by other 

state funds. 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 are used for corridor studies and larger MnDOT 

projects to evaluate alternatives.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

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) $46,439,145 $18,927,029 40.76%

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)

$14,717,019 $9,867,018 67.04%

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 $61,156,164 $28,794,047 47.08%

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

safety projects? 

46%

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

25%

The distribution of HSIP funds is based on fatal and serious injury crashes by district and split based on 

percent occurring on state vs. local roads. MnDOT has updated the distribution formula to better reflect the 

new MNCRASH system: beginning in 2026, this results in a shift of more money to the local system (from 60% 

of program target to 70% of program target). 

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

5%

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

7%
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

Non-infrastructure projects in Minnesota tend to support statewide, or multiple district priorities--e.g., Toward 

Zero Deaths initiative, crash data support, countermeasure evaluations and/or communications plans), or 

systemic safety planning.

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

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

0%

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

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

0%

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

the future.

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

expect this over-programming of safety will continue to raise the obligation rate. OTE continues to have ongoing discussions with MnDOT Districts on creating shelf ready safety projects to better capitalize on any costsavings in the HSIP projects.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 39

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#0014345 (SP 0702-131) D-7 : US-14 

RCIS

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

3 Intersection

s

$800000 $888889 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#0043304 (SP 7904-44S) D-6 : US14/US-61/MN-43 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control –

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3150000 $3500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#0053328 (SP 6932-14S) D-1 : MN194/US-53 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

1 Intersection

s

$675000 $750000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#0055316 (SP 1909-99S) D-M : MN-55 

HTCB

Roadside Barrier – cable 4.5 Miles $1788270 $1986967 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

High tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

#0061344 (SP 7904-44S) D-6 : US61/MN-42 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$1220000 $1220000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#0061344 (SP 7904-44S) D-6 : US61/MN-42 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$140126 $140126 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#0071332 (SP 0410-50) D-2 : US71/CSAH-59 AND CSAH-52 RCISIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

2 Intersection

s

$2611000 $2895088 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#0077306 (SP 2758-77S) D-M : MN-77 

HIGH TENSION CABLE BARRIER

Roadside Barrier – cable 4.6 Miles $112185 $124650 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

High tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

#0122229 (SP 001-070-007) AITKIN 

CO : ENHANCED EDGELINES 

COUNTYWIDE

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

35.4 Miles $207090 $230100 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#0222161 (SP 002-601-056) ANOKA 

CO : CSAH-1/MSAS-119 INSTALL 

SIGNAL HEADS/FYA

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal – add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

1 Intersection

s

$405000 $486000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

signal 

operations
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#0322238 (SP 003-070-015) BECKER 

CO : COUNTYWIDE RUMBLE 

STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

45.8 Miles $88623 $98470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#0422097 (SP 004-070-033) 

BELTRAMI CO : CSAH-5 2-FT 

SHOULDER, RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

5.4 Miles $161591 $179545 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#0422099 (SP 004-070-034) 

BELTRAMI CO : MULTIROUTE, 

INSTALL LED STOP SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

7 Intersection

s

$19498 $21664 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Improve 

visibility

#0422100 (SP 004-070-035) 

BELTRAMI CO : CSAH-12/CSAH-19 

6-INCH GIWR EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

8.3 Miles $37768 $41964 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#0422126 (SP 004-070-036) 

BELTRAMI CO : MULTIROUTE, 

UPGRADE SIGNS/PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement 

markings

11 Intersection

s

$44632 $49591 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Delineate 

intersection 

maneuvers

#0422127 (SP 004-070-037) 

BELTRAMI CO : CHEVRON SIGNING

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

2 Curves $6723 $7470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Delinate 

curves

#0522110 (SP 0504-20S) D-3 : MN-23 

ROUNDABOUT IN FOLEY

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$907349 $1107349 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Roundabout

#1322128 (SP 013-623-010) 

CHISAGO CO : CSAH-23/-24 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1512000 $2567605 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#1722069 (SP 017-070-010) 

COTTONWOOD CO : CSAH-2 2-

FOOT SHOULDER, RUMBLE 

STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

13.9 Miles $407423 $452693 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#1722087 (SP 017-070-012) 

COTTONWOOD CO : COUNTYWIDE 

STOP BAR/STOP AHEAD 

MARKINGS

Intersection 

traffic control

Pavement 

markings

87 Intersection

s

$349001 $387779 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Delineate 

intersection 

maneuvers

#1822045 (SP 1810-99) D-3 : MN371/CR-125 AND CR-126 RCISIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

2 Intersection

s

$3297705 $3664116 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#1822146 (SP 018-070-021) CROW 

WING CO : COUNTYWIDE 

CENTERLINE MUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

35.7 Miles $69750 $77500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#1822207 (SP 018-070-019/-020) 

CROW WING CO : COUNTYWIDE 

LEFT TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

4 Intersection

s

$1130400 $1707188 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

rear-ends

#1922055 (SP 1901-192S) D-M : MN13/CSAH-26 SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

0.5 Intersection

s

$37306 $82902 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Improve 

signal 

operations

#1922055 (SP 1901-192S) D-M : MN13/CSAH-26 SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

0.5 Intersection

s

$287100 $813000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Improve 

signal 

operations

#1922089 (SP 1921-90S) D-M : MN3/CSAH-66 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

0.5 Intersection

s

$34267 $38075 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#1922089 (SP 1921-90S) D-M : MN3/CSAH-66 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

0.5 Intersection

s

$1713000 $2787797 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#1923004 (SP 1910-56S) D-M : MN55/DOYLE PATH SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersection

s

$1276800 $1501004 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Improve 

signal 

operations

#2422159 (SP 024-070-030) 

FREEBORN CO : CSAH-10 2-FT 

SHOULDER, RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

5.5 Miles $239400 $1866147 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#2422160 (SP 024-070-031) 

FREEBORN CO : CSAH-35 2-FT 

SHOULDER, RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

4.9 Miles $232965 $2058607 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#2522059 (SP 2514-125) D-6 : US61/MN-316 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3100000 $3704037 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#2522059 (SP 2514-126) D-6 : US61/CSAH-18 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

1 Intersection

s

$783000 $1179127 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#2622039 (SP 026-070-010/-011) 

GRANT CO : CSAH-10 CURVE 

REALIGNMENTS, PAVED 

SHOULDER, RUMBLE STRIPE

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

9 Curves $1614459 $1974032 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#2622225 (SP 026-070-013) GRANT 

CO : PAVE OUTSIDE SHOULDERS 

ON CURVES

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve

18 Curves $315000 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Recoverabl

e roadside

#2722062 (SP 027-030-050) 

HENNEPIN CO : 42ND ST 

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian 

refuge areas

5 Intersection

s

$828000 $1030000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Improve 

midblock 

crossings
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#2722156 (SP 027-605-030; 027-030-

050) HENNEPIN CO : D LINE PED 

SAFETY (CURB EXTENSIONS, 

LIGHTING, ADA, MARKINGS)

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian 

refuge areas

5 Intersection

s

$3825000 $7523189 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Improve 

midblock 

crossings

#2722163 (SP 107-020-071; 027-634-

010) HENNEPIN CO : CSAH-34/98TH 

ST PED IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island – 

remove from one 

or more 

approaches

1 Intersection

s

$1170000 $1404000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

intersection 

crossings

#2722165 (SP 107-409-010) 

BLOOMINGTON : MSAS-409/CSAH-1 

LEFT TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

1 Intersection

s

$563213 $850000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

rear-ends

#2722166 (SP 027-635-038) 

HENNEPIN CO : PED COUNTDOWN 

TIMERS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- other

5 Intersection

s

$846000 $1650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

signal 

operations

#2723007 (SP 2750-97) D-M : US-169 

HIGH TENSION CABLE BARRIER

Roadside Barrier – cable 5.5 Miles $2070000 $2300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

High tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

#3022228 (SP 030-070-015) ISANTI 

CO : 6-INCH GIWR EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

22.4 Miles $161280 $179200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#3422211 (SP 034-070-013) 

KANDIYOHI CO : COUNTYWIDE 

GIWR EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

73.7 Miles $239826 $266474 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#4222241 (SP 042-070-014) LYON 

CO : COUNTYWIDE EPOXY 

MARKINGS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

91.8 Miles $350000 $388889 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Delineate 

roadway

#4322058 (SP 4310-93) D-8 : US212/CSAH-1 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$618587 $687719 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#4322058 (SP 4310-93) D-8 : US212/CSAH-1 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$1550301 $1722556 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#4322217 (SP 043-070-017) MCLEOD 

CO : COUNTYWIDE 6-INCH 

EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

61.5 Miles $45415 $50461 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#4722213 (SP 047-070-012) MEEKER 

CO : COUNTYWIDE 6-INCH 

EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

127.2 Miles $94131 $104590 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#4722214 (SP 047-070-011) MEEKER 

CO : COUNTYWIDE GIWR 

EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

42.4 Miles $276604 $307338 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#4922176 (SP 049-070-028) 

MORRISON CO : CSAH-15 2-FT 

SHOULDER, RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

8.8 Miles $414363 $2464016 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#5523036 (SP 5501-40) D-6 : US-14 

HIGH TENSION CABLE BARRIER

Roadside Barrier – cable 7.1 Miles $2232000 $2480000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

High tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

#6222017 (SP 062-678-018) RAMSEY 

CO : CSAH-78/CSAH-51 

INTERSECTION REVISIONS

Intersection 

traffic control

Systemic 

improvements – 

signal-controlled

1 Intersection

s

$746690 $1355849 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

signal 

operations

#6222018 (SP 6285-160S) D-M : 

CSAH-44/I-694 RAMPS SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island – 

remove from one 

or more 

approaches

1 Interchange

s

$141614 $839371 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

intersection 

crossings

#6222019 (SP 6216-141S) D-M : MN51 HIGH TENSION CABLE BARRIERRoadside Barrier – cable 2.7 Miles $1374023 $1559361 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

High tension 

cable 

median 

barrier

#6222091 (SP 062-634-005S) 

RAMSEY CO : UNIVERSITY AVE 

RRFB

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Rapid 

Rectangular 

Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

4 Intersection

s

$504000 $560000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

midblock 

crossings

#6222175 (SP 164-010-078) D-M : 

MN-51/ENGLEWOOD SIGNAL 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- other

1 Intersection

s

$200000 $400000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Improve 

intersection 

crossings

#6622170 (SP 066-070-024) RICE CO 

: CSAH-15 2-FT SHOULDER, 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

8.1 Miles $529429 $4498397 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#6622180 (SP 066-070-025) RICE CO 

: CSAH-38 2-FT SHOULDER, 

RUMBLE STRIPES

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

2.1 Miles $173328 $1474933 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#6922011 (SP 6947-55) D-1 : MN37/CSAH-7 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$2117007 $2357179 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Roundabout

#6922076 (SP 069-070-046) D-1 : US169/CSAH-137 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$350000 $388889 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#6922076 (SP 6935-93) D-1 : US169/CSAH-137 RCIIntersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

0.5 Intersection

s

$350000 $388889 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#6922085 (SP 069-070-044) ST. 

LOUIS CO : MN-33/CSAH-7 RCI

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

1 Intersection

s

$467115 $519017 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#6922182 (SP 069-070-043) ST. 

LOUIS CO : COUNTYWIDE 

ENHANCED EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

57.6 Miles $43983 $48870 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#7022040 (SP 7001-123S) D-M : MN13/CSAH-8 ROUNDABOUTIntersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1408730 $2822326 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Roundabout

#7022186 (SP 7009-85S) SHAKOPEE 

: US-169 RCIS

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

4 Intersection

s

$964800 $1072000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#7122208 (SP 071-070-043) 

SHERBURNE CO : COUNTYWIDE 

MUMBLE STRIPS

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

37.1 Miles $135000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Rumble 

stripEs

#7322190 (SP 073-070-024) 

STEARNS CO : COUNTYWIDE 

RURAL INTERSECTION LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

6 Intersection

s

$86400 $96000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Intersection 

lighting

#7322221 (SP 073-070-023) 

STEARNS CO : COUNTYWIDE 

CHEVRONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

67 Curves $216000 $240000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Delinate 

curves

#7422172 (SP 074-070-005) STEELE 

CO : COUNTYWIDE CHEVRONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs 

and flashers

62 Curves $184140 $204600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Delinate 

curves

#7722200 (SP 077-070-015) TODD 

CO : CSAH-14 GIWR EDGELINES

Roadway 

delineation

Wider Edge 

Lines (6 inch 

markings)

30.6 Miles $192000 $214055 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Enhanced 

edgelines

#8222188 (SP 192-108-028) 

WOODBURY : MSAS-108 4-TO-3 

CONVERSION

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists – other

1.8 Miles $1620000 $2100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

midblock 

crossings

#8622202 (SP 086-070-021) WRIGHT 

CO : CSAH-35/DAGUE AVE 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control – 

Modern 

Roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$400000 $2044863 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Roundabout
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

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 

STRATEGY

#8622206 (SP 086-070-019/-020) 

WRIGHT CO : COUNTYWIDE LEFT 

TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3 Intersection

s

$675000 $1136478 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

rear-ends

#8822008 (SP 8825-701) 

HENNEPIN/SCOTT CO : HIGH 

FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENTS

Roadway Pavement 

surface – high 

friction surface

7 Ramps $601637 $668486 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keep 

vehicles on 

road

#8822036 (SP 8816-3151) D-1,-3,-M : 

PED COUNTDOWN TIMERS PHASE 

2

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- other

69 Intersection

s

$245950 $245950 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Improve 

signal 

operations

#8822044 (SP 088-070-078) 

GRANT/DOUGLAS CO : 

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

26 Intersection

s

$63167 $70186 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Intersection 

lighting

#8822071 (SP 8816-3243) 

STATEWIDE : RRFB STANDARDS

Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

1 Program $75000 $75000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureSystemic Traffic 

Safety 

Culture & 

Awareness

Safety 

studies

#8822072 (SP 8816-3244) 

STATEWIDE : RCI 

COMMUNICATIONS AND 

ENGAGEMENT PLAN

Intersection 

geometry

Innovative 

Intersection (e.g. 

MUT, RCUT, 

QR)

1 Program $75000 $75000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureSystemic Intersection

s

Reduced 

conflict 

intersection

#8822073 (SP 8816-3241) 

STATEWIDE : STATEWIDE SPEED 

LIMIT SPATIAL DATABASE

Miscellaneous Data collection 1 Speed limit 

geodatabas

e

$50000 $50000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Safety 

studies

#8822102 (SP 088-070-066) 

STATEWIDE : DISTRICT SAFETY 

PLAN UPDATES

Miscellaneous Local road safety 

plans

8 Safety plans $1200000 $1200000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Safety 

studies

#8822205 (SP 880CSEC164CDI-22) 

STATEWIDE : ENHANCE CRASH 

MAPPING (MNGEO)

Miscellaneous Data analysis 1 Crash 

geodatabas

e

$107000 $107000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Safety 

studies

#8822234 (SP 8816-3299) 

STATEWIDE : SAFETY ANALYSIS 

SOFTWARE 

CONFIGURATION/IMPLEMENTATIO

N

Miscellaneous Data analysis 1 Program $900000 $900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureSystemic Data Safety 

studies

#8823041 (SP 880C-TZDC-21) 

STATEWIDE : TOWARD ZERO 

DEATHS COORDINATORS

Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

9 Regional 

coordinators

$900000 $900000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

N/A N/A 0 0 NoninfrastructureSystemic Traffic 

Safety 

Culture & 

Awareness

Improve 

outreach 

and 

coordination 

with safety 

partners
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 387 361 411 392 358 381 364 394 488

Serious Injuries 1,216 1,044 1,127 1,992 1,849 1,660 1,520 1,569 1,722

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.679 0.633 0.695 0.666 0.626 0.631 0.600 0.765 0.853

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

2.133 1.832 1.907 3.382 3.233 2.748 2.504 3.047 3.010

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

41 22 51 67 48 52 60 55 64

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

146 126 158 291 279 221 202 203 220
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 21 of 39

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

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

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 22 of 39

Describe fatality data source. 

State Motor Vehicle Crash Database

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

ownership. 

Year 2020

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

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 23 of 39

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

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 39

Year 2021

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

181.2 443.4 0.55 1.33

County Highway 

Agency

143 676.4 1.04 4.89

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

23.8 123.4 1.96 10.19

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

49 420.8 0.52 4.44

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

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:352.4

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 39

Based on the recent uptick in fatalities, it was not considered feasible to maintain the prior method marking 

progress toward the 2025 SHSP goal. This would require a 55% annual reduction in fatalities for 2 years; from 

2017-2021 there was a 7% annual increase in traffic fatalities statewide. Minnesota does not find it acceptable 

set safety targets greater than prior years: as such the 2023 Target is set equal to the 2022 Target. To achieve 

this target, it is estimated that traffic fatalities must be reduced by 36% annually for 2 years.

Number of Serious Injuries:1463.4

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

Based on the recent outcomes, it was not considered feasible to maintain the prior method marking progress 

toward the 2025 SHSP goal. This would require a 34% annual reduction in serious injuries for 2 years; from 

2017-2021 there was a 2% annual reduction in traffic fatalities statewide. Minnesota does not find it acceptable 

set safety targets greater than prior years: as such the 2023 Target is set equal to the 2022 Target. To achieve 

this target, it is estimated that serious injuries must be reduced by 19% annually for 2 years.

Fatality Rate:0.582

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

Based on the recent uptick in fatalities, it was not considered feasible to maintain the prior method marking 

progress toward the 2025 SHSP goal. This would require a 64% annual reduction in fatality rate for 2 years; 

from 2017-2021 there was a 8% annual increase in statewide fatality rate. Minnesota does not find it 

acceptable set safety targets greater than prior years: as such the 2023 Target is set equal to the 2022 Target. 

To achieve this target, it is estimated that the statewide fatality rate must be reduced by 44% annually for 2 

years.

Serious Injury Rate:2.470

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

Based on the recent outcomes, it was not considered feasible to maintain the prior method marking progress 

toward the 2025 SHSP goal. This would require a 43% annual reduction in serious injury rate for 2 years; from 

2017-2021 there was a 1% annual reduction in statewide serious injury rate. Minnesota does not find it 

acceptable set safety targets greater than prior years: as such the 2023 Target is set equal to the 2022 Target. 

To achieve this target, it is estimated that the statewide serious injury rate must be reduced by 22% annually 

for 2 years.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:258.4

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

Based on the recent outcomes, it was not considered feasible to maintain the prior method marking progress 

toward the 2025 SHSP goal (i.e., scaled by the involvement of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously 

injured). This would require a 25% annual reduction in bicyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously injured for 2 

years; from 2017-2021 there was a 3% annual reduction. Minnesota does not find it acceptable set safety 

targets greater than prior years: as such the 2023 Target is set equal to the 2022 Target. To achieve this 

target, it is estimated that bicyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously injured statewide must be reduced by 

10% annually for 2 years.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 39

While Minnesota supports setting aspirational safety targets, these must be achievable. Given the outcomes of 

2020 and 2021, a large sustained reduction would be necessary in all measures to maintain our prior 

methodology. Given the short timeframe on these targets--and limited ability to make programmatic changes in 

this period--Minnesota supports setting all 2023 Targets equal to 2022 Targets. This will require innovative 

thinking and sustained support to achieve these goals.

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

safety performance targets. 

Methodologies were coordinated between MnDOT and Department of Public Safety based on input from 

respective stakeholders. Given the recent safety challenges, it was recognized the targets should (1) take into 

account the pandemic spike in fatalities; (2) measure progress toward Strategic Highway Safety Plan goal 

rather than prior trends alone; and (3) not be set higher than prior years. This last point was particularly 

important to our MPO partners. Furthermore, we heard from stakeholders and leadership that targets should 

be set to inspire action but not be unachievable.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2022 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 352.4 397.0

Number of Serious Injuries 1579.8 1664.0

Fatality Rate 0.582 0.695

Serious Injury Rate 2.606 2.908

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

281.2 280.8

Traffic safety in Minnesota was a significant challenge in 2020. Unexpected changes in behaviors (i.e. 

increases in higher risk strategic focus areas) coupled with unintuitive increases in fatalities while decreases in 

vehicle miles traveled significantly impacted safety performance metrics. Historically, Minnesota has seen 

approximately 10% annual reductions in fatalities and 9% annual reductions in serious injuries; in 2020, 

fatalities increased 24% while serious injuries increased 10%.

Minnesota does not anticipate meeting the 2021 Targets: given the changes in traffic and behavior patterns, 

we continue to strive for any reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. Despite increases in fatalities and 

serious injuries overall, non-motorized outcomes have been able to sustain a downward trend toward our 2025 

SHSP goals. Sustained focus on this area will be important.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

79 77 68 59 68 61 92

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

88 160 164 150 174 130 166
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

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. 

Prior trends in Minnesota were consistent downward trends in fatal and serious injury crashes on all systems. 

Beginning in 2020 and persisting into 2021, we see a rise in fatalities on the local system (with slight uptick on 

the state system). This year, we also have an increase in serious injuries. As of the writing of this report, 2021 

traffic fatalities and fatality rates have not been this high in 14 years (i.e., since 2007). This suggests that there 

may be behavior changes and/or safety challenges that may not be currently addressed in HSIP. Furthermore, 

this pattern suggests that Minnesota is on a clear plateau of traffic safety successes. The new "TZD 2.0" 

initiative was developed to address this plateau by analyzing where traffic safety programming statewide can 

coordinate, reallocate, and pivot toward new strategies. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• Other-Under consideration 

Minnesota has developed Action Teams around key SHSP focus areas: these teams hope to develop leading 

indicators on how to measure progress toward implementing SHSP strategies. These action teams fall under 

the umbrella of the Toward Zero Deaths stakeholder initiatives. 

Furthermore, Minnesota has initiated was has been termed a "TZD 2.0" program evaluation of the Toward 

Zero Deaths program to analyze where challenges persist and resources can be better coordinated. 

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period.

Minnesota was required to submit an HSIP Implementation Plan for failing to meet or make significant progress 

in 2020 performance targets. The attached document outlines not only the HSIP Implementation Plan but also 

provides an overview of the MnDOT traffic safety program. With this enhanced transparency and streamlined 

documentation, Minnesota and the HSIP can better communicate our safety programming. 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2021
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

SHSP Emphasis Area

Targete

d Crash 

Type

Number 

of 

Fatalitie

s

(5-yr 

avg)

Numbe

r of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr 

avg)

Fatality 

Rate

 (per 

HMVMT

)

(5-yr 

avg)

Serious 

Injury 

Rate

 (per 

HMVMT

)

(5-yr 

avg)

NUMBER 

OF K 

CRASHE

S

NUMBER 

OF A 

CRASHE

S

NUMBER 

OF K AND 

A 

CRASHE

S

Younger Drivers 52.4 304 0 0 47.2 239.2 286.4

Older Drivers 94 293.8 0 0 86.2 236.4 322.6

Speed 112.8 392.8 0 0 102.4 309.8 412.2

Impaired 133.4 462.4 0 0 123.8 370.4 494.2

Unbelted Occupant 92.6 215.2 0 0 92.6 177.8 270.4

Inattentive 28.4 171 0 0 26.8 138.8 165.6

Pedestrian 47.4 169.6 0 0 47.2 165 212.2

Bicyclist 8.4 55.4 0 0 8.6 54.8 63.4

Motorcycle 57.6 260.2 0 0 56.8 239.4 296.2

Single Vehicle Run-offroad136.8 503.4 0 0 131 437.2 568.2

Head-on 63.8 211.8 0 0 54 144.6 198.6

Intersection/Interchang

e

162.6 838.8 0 0 152.4 709.6 862

Work Zone 8 36.8 0 0 7.8 32.4 40.2

Commercial Vehicle 62.8 123.8 0 0 58 99.2 157.2
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 39

Metrics tracked include (1) number of fatalities in that crash type, (2) number of serious injuries in that crash 

type, (3) number of fatal (i.e., K) crashes, (4) number of serious injury (i.e., A) crashes, and (5) number of fatal 

and serious injury crashes combined. NOTE: for unbelted occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists 

the number of fatalities and serious injuries are for those specific person types only; for all other crash types, 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 39

the number of fatalities and serious injuries corresponds to any person killed or seriously injured in that type of 

crash. 

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Install reduced conflict intersection 

Description: 

The RCI is an alternative intersection 

layout that is intended to provide safety 

benefits by limiting the number of points 

within an intersection that two or more 

vehicle paths might intersect. Specifically, 

the design of the intersection is intended 

to reduce the likelihood that vehicles 

travelling in different directions will collide 

at various angles thereby reducing the 

number of crashes that result in fatalities 

or serious injuries. This report includes the 

results of both a before-after an 

Target Crash Type: Angle 

Number of Installations: 45 

Number of Installations: 45 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Non-regression cross-section 

Results: 

The before-after analysis yielded the 

following significant results: 69% decrease 

in KA crashes, 70% decrease in angle 

crashes (100% decrease in KA angle 

crashes), 103% increase in rear-ends. No 

significant changes in sideswipe or total 

crashes. The cross-sectional analysis 

delivered similar results. Severity shift in 

crashes has been seen at Minnesota 

RCIs. A comparison between RCI to rural 

signals and low-volume interchanges 

shows fewer crashes than interchanges 

and fewer angle crashes than signals. 

File Name: evaluation_rci.pdf

CounterMeasures: Install auxiliary buffer lanes 

Description: 

The RCI is an alternative intersection 

layout that is intended to provide safety 

benefits by limiting the number of points 

within an intersection that two or more 

vehicle paths might intersect. Specifically, 

the design of the intersection is intended 
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 39

to reduce the likelihood that vehicles 

travelling in different directions will collide 

at various angles thereby reducing the 

number of crashes that result in fatalities 

or serious injuries. This report includes the 

results of both a before-after an 

Target Crash Type: Other (define) 

Number of Installations: 13 

Number of Installations: 13 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 

Years After: 

Methodology: Case-control 

Results: 

The before-after analysis yielded the 

following significant results: 69% decrease 

in KA crashes, 70% decrease in angle 

crashes (100% decrease in KA angle 

crashes), 103% increase in rear-ends. No 

significant changes in sideswipe or total 

crashes. The cross-sectional analysis 

delivered similar results. Severity shift in 

crashes has been seen at Minnesota 

RCIs. A comparison between RCI to rural 

signals and low-volume interchanges 

shows fewer crashes than interchanges 

and fewer angle crashes than signals. 

File Name: evaluation_buffer-lanes.pdf
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 39

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/01/2020

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2020 To: 2024

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

 2024

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
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 39

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
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

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]

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. 

Minnesota has made great strides in achieving complete MIRE FDE access: based on a recent FHWA review, Minnesota is collecting 84.5% of the MIRE FDEs. Going forward, a process for cataloging metadata and documenting in a 

data dictionary is the priority. While the fields are available, the Office of Transportation System Management is reviewing to ensure that every element has a corresponding source that is reliably updated. This will improve clarity and data 

quality for further safety analysis and to meet the requirement of full access by September 30, 2026.
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP funding guide FINAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

analysis_statewide-pedestrian-safety.pdf

Evaluation:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Implementation Plan-CY2020.pdf

evaluation_rci.pdf

evaluation_buffer-lanes.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Minnesota Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 39

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.