michigan highway safety improvement program

MICHIGAN HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

FY 2021

MICHIGAN HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FY 2021

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.0 DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 FATALITY AND SERIOUS INJURIES ......................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 TOTAL FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES .......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY TRUNKLINE AND NON-TRUNKLINE .................................................... 12 2.1.3 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY LOCATION ............................................................................................. 15 2.1.4 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY EMPHASIS AREA .................................................................................. 17 2.1.5 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS......................................................... 19 2.1.6 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 22

2.2 HSIP EXPENDITURES................................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 TOTAL HSIP EXPENDITURES .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY SITE SELECTION METHOD .................................................................................................. 23 2.2.3 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY LOCATION ............................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.4 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY EMPHASIS AREA .................................................................................................................. 27 2.2.5 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS ........................................................................................ 29 2.2.6 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................. 30 2.2.7 HSIP EXPENDITURES SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 32

2.3 HSIP HISTORICAL PROJECT PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................................................... 33 2.4 HSIP GAPS AND DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................................................... 37 2.5 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 2.6 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 3.0 AVAILABLE FUNDING .............................................................................................................................................................. 40 4.0 FUNDING ALLOCATION GOALS .............................................................................................................................................. 41 5.0 HSIP PROGRAMS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 43 5.1 SELECTION PROCESS .............................................................................................................................................................. 43

5.1.1 TRUNKLINE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43 5.1.2 NON-TRUNKLINE .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

5.2 LIST OF PROGRAMS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 44 6.0 PROJECT LIST .......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 7.0 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX A – MICHIGAN SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGET ACHIEVEMENT DETERMINATION ................................................ 50 APPENDIX B – FY 2021 HSIP PROJECT LIST ...................................................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX C – HSIP SAFETY NEWSLETTER TARGET SETTING ...................................................................................................... 58


PAGE 3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Michigan Safety Performance Target Achievement Determination Summary ............................................................................. 9 Table 2: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Percentage by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average 2014–2018 ....................................... 19 Table 3: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Percentage by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Avg, 2014–2018 ........................... 22 Table 4: HSIP Project Expenditures by Emphasis Area, FY 2014-2018 .................................................................................................. 28 Table 5: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Functional Class, FY 2014–2018 ............................................................................... 29 Table 6: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Improvement, FY 2014-2018 ..................................................................................... 31 Table 7: Distribution of Total HSIP Projects by Implemented Countermeasure, FY 2014-2018 .............................................................. 33 Table 8: Trunkline Annual Reduction in Fatalities and Serious Injuries for Implemented Countermeasures ........................................... 35 Table 9: Non-Trunkline Annual Reduction in Fatalities and Serious Injuries for Implemented Countermeasures ................................... 36 Table 10: Noteworthy Practices that may be Implemented in Michigan .................................................................................................. 38 Table 11: Michigan HSIP Project List Summary Table for FY 2021 ........................................................................................................ 47


PAGE 4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Fatal Crashes, 2014–2018 ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Fatal Crash Rate, 2014–2018 .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3: Serious Injury Crashes, 2014–2018 ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Serious Injury Crash Rate, 2014–2018 .................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Fatal Crashes for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018 .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Fatal Crash Rate for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018 ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Serious Injury Crashes for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018 ...................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Serious Injury Crash Rate for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018 ................................................................................. 14 Figure 9: Fatal Crashes by Location, 2014–2018 .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Fatal Crash Rate by Location, 2014–2018 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Serious Injury Crashes by Location, 2014–2018 .................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12: Serious Injury Crash Rate by Location, 2014–2018 ............................................................................................................... 17 Figure 13: Fatal Crashes by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018 ................................................................................ 18 Figure 14: Serious Injury Crashes by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018 .................................................................. 18 Figure 15: Fatal Crashes by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018 .............................................................. 20 Figure 16: Fatal Crash Rate by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014-2018 .......................................................... 20 Figure 17: Serious Injury Crashes by Roadway Functional Class,5-Year Rolling Average, 2014-2018 .................................................. 21 Figure 18: Serious Injury Crash Rate by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average 2014–2018 ............................................ 21 Figure 19: Total HSIP Project Expenditures, FY 2014–2018................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 20: Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014–2018 ................................................................... 24 Figure 21: Non-Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014-2018 ............................................................ 24 Figure 22: HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014-2018 .................................................................................... 25 Figure 23: Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018 ......................................................................................... 26 Figure 24: Non-Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018.................................................................................. 26 Figure 25: HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018 ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 26: HSIP Project Expenditures by Emphasis Area, FY 2014-2018 .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 27: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Functional Class, FY 2014-2018 ............................................................................ 30 Figure 28: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Improvement, FY 2014-2018 .................................................................................. 32 Figure 29: Michigan HSIP Trunkline Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021 ........................................................................................... 41 Figure 30: Michigan HSIP Non-Trunkline Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021 .................................................................................... 41 Figure 31: Michigan HSIP Total Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021 .................................................................................................. 42 Figure 32: Michigan HSIP General Funding Allocation Goals ................................................................................................................. 42


PAGE 5

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ACUB Adjusted Census Urban Boundary

BCA Benefit Cost Analysis

CFP Call for Projects

CMF Crash Modification Factor

CRA County Road Association

CRF Crash Reduction Factor

FFY Federal Fiscal Year

FY Fiscal Year

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GTSAC Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission

HRRR High Risk Rural Roads

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

HMVMT Hundred Million Vehicle Miles Traveled

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

ITE Institute for Transportation Engineers

LSI Local Safety Initiative

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSP Michigan State Police

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

OHSP Office of Highway Safety Planning

PSC Project Screening Committee

RHCP Railway Highway Crossing Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

RTSP Regional Traffic Safety Plan

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF Safety Performance Functions

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan

SWA Safety Work Authorizations

TAP Transportation Alternative Program

TIP Transportation Improvement Plan

TOR Time of Return

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

TZD Toward Zero Deaths

UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled


PAGE 6

DISCLAIMER Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

for any purpose relating to this section[HSIP], shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court

proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed

in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”

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

purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or

railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety

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

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

any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”


PAGE 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Michigan Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Implementation Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 was developed by the

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to address the safety performance target measures for number of serious injuries,

serious injury rate, and number of non-motorized fatalities & serious injuries which were not met per the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) 2018 determination. The development of this HSIP Implementation Plan is data driven and is based on a review of Michigan’s

2014 – 2018 fatal and serious injury crashes, historical HSIP project expenditures and project performance, literature review, and

stakeholder outreach.

Per 23 U.S.C. 148 (i)(1), for FY 2021, Michigan must obligate the FY 2017 HSIP apportionment in the amount of at least $58,162,180.

In agreement with this requirement, Michigan currently has $70,407,070, a 21% increase over the minimum requirement programed for

FY 2021.This amount is outlined in section 6.0 below.

HSIP funding allocation and projects based on the FY 2021 apportionment amount are already programmed for FY 2021. These projects

are based on a total of seven programs, strategies, and activities, and are established to help reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in

Michigan. For trunkline routes these include Safety, Signs (not funded by HSIP but part of the overall safety program), Pavement

Markings, and Delineation. For non-trunkline routes these include the HSIP Safety Program, HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program,

and High-Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Program.

As part of the development of the HSIP Implementation Plan, several actions were identified which the State of Michigan will undertake

to achieve or make significant progress towards Michigan’s safety performance targets in subsequent years. These include:

• Because projects in Michigan are programmed up to five years out, FY 2021 HSIP funding is fully programmed including $3.5 million in discretionary funds. MDOT will monitor the funding allocation alignment with the location, type, and severity of crashes per the identified gaps and deficiencies annually to determine if and where adjustments are necessary for the next Call for Projects (CFP).

• Emphasis should be placed on countermeasures which are underrepresented, have a high potential for crash reduction, and greater cost-to-benefit ratio.

• Continue to work with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) across Michigan to promote Michigan’s goals for crash and injury reductions.

• Continue to promote the Local Safety Program application process through presentation to partner organizations, including the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE), Michigan County Road Association (CRA) Highway Conference & Road Show, CRA Safety Committee, and Michigan Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP).

• Increase emphasis on the Local Safety Initiative (LSI) to assist local agencies of Michigan by analyzing crash data, countermeasure identification, and promote low cost proven countermeasures to improve the safety of local roads.

• Provide outreach and training to local agencies and MDOT staff in the use of safety analysis tools such as the Time of Return (TOR) form and Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Spreadsheet to assist in safety project selection.

• Continue to promote Michigan’s Streamlined Systemic Safety Program to promote the availability of HSIP funding to local agencies which traditionally have not participated in the CFP.

• Continue to investigate outreach to tribal organizations to promote HSIP funding availability. • Continue to promote Toward Zero Death (TZD) within the department and with statewide partners. • Continue to seek and develop data driven safety analysis tools. • Increase emphasis on non-motorized safety within the department and with statewide partners. • Seek additional funding to address crashes, in particular fatalities and serious injuries on Michigan’s roadways. Funding sources

could include but are not limited to Tribal Grants, other MDOT funding templates, and Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) grants.

• MDOT Safety Programs and Local Agency Programs will diligently work with MDOT Planning and Finance to make sure the correct amount of appropriation is obligated in FY 2021 based on the FY 2017 appropriation specifically for HSIP Funds.


PAGE 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND

The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all

public roads, including non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving

highway safety on all public roads with a focus on performance. The HSIP consists of three main components which include the Strategic

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), State HSIP or program of highway safety improvement projects, and the Railway-Highway Crossing

Program (RHCP). The State of Michigan also implements a High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) program when there is an increasing fatality

rate on non-trunkline rural roads per FHWA Special Rule1.

Within the HSIP, each State is required to establish annual safety performance targets for five measurements2:

• Number of fatalities • Number of serious injuries • Fatality rate (per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (HMVMT)) • Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) • Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries

If the State does not meet or make significant progress towards meeting its annual safety performance targets, the State must comply

with the provisions set forth in 23 U.S.C. 148(i) for the subsequent fiscal year. Within these provisions, the State must2:

• Use obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment for the year prior to the year for which the targets were not met or significant progress was not made (only for HSIP projects)

• Submit an annual HSIP Implementation Plan that describes actions the State will take to meet or make significant progress towards meeting its subsequent targets (HSIP Implementation Plan framework requirements are listed under 23 U.S.C. 148(i))

• Meet HSIP planning requirements under 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B) & (E) and 23 CFR Part 924.9 and consider those requirements as part of its HSIP Implementation Plan development efforts.

The FHWA reviewed and provided comments for the State of Michigan 2018 safety performance targets in April 2020. The review, which

was based on 5-year averages for 2014 to 2018, indicated that Michigan has not met or made significant progress towards achieving its

safety performance targets. The targets were not met for three performance measurements, which include:

• Number of serious injuries • Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) • Number of non-motorized fatalities & serious injuries

Table 1 below provides a summary of FHWA’s Michigan target achievement determination as presented to MDOT. This determination

is attached in its entirety in Appendix A.


PAGE 9

Table 1: Michigan Safety Performance Target Achievement Determination Summary

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2014–2018 TARGET

2014–2018 OUTCOME

2012–2016 BASELINE

MET TARGET?

BETTER THAN

BASELINE?

MET OR MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS

Number of Fatalities 1,003.2 987.6 964.0 Yes N/A

No

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 1.020 0.990 0.996 Yes N/A

Number of Serious Injuries 5,136.4 5,415.6 5,273.4 No No

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 5.230 5.424 5.446 No Yes

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

743.6 746.0 725.2 No No

FHWA’s review indicated that Michigan performed better than the target for number of fatalities and fatality rate by 1.56% and 2.94%

respectively. However, the state did not meet the target for number of serious injuries, serious injury rate, and numbers of non-motorized

fatalities and serious injuries by 5.44%, 3.71%, and 0.33% respectively.

1.2 PURPOSE

FHWA’s determination that Michigan has not met or made significant progress in 2018 towards achieving its safety performance targets

requires the development of an HSIP Implementation Plan. The HSIP Implementation Plan is a formal document which describes the

actions that the State will take to meet or make significant progress toward meeting its subsequent targets. Among other elements, the

HSIP Implementation Plan includes the following2:

• Identifies roadway features that constitute a hazard to road users • Identifies highway safety improvement projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, or other data-supported means • Describes how HSIP funds will be allocated, including projects, activities, and strategies to be implemented • Describes how proposed projects, activities, and strategies funded under the State HSIP will allow the State to make progress

towards achieving the safety performance targets • Describes actions the State will undertake to achieve the performance goals

This document represents the HSIP Implementation Plan developed by the State of Michigan in addressing the missed safety

performance target measures as identified by the FHWA 2018 determination. The structure of this HSIP Implementation Plan follows the

requirements listed under FHWA’s HSIP Implementation Plan Guidance issued by the FHWA Office of Safety on October 13, 2017. Per

these requirements, this plan is data driven and provides a wholistic view of Michigan’s HSIP program. Emphasis has been placed on

those performance measures which were not met for the 5-year averages of 2014-2018. The plan is being submitted for Federal Fiscal

Year (FFY) 2021.


PAGE 10

2.0 DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK The first step in the development of the HSIP Implementation Plan is understanding the reasons as to why the safety target performance

measures were not met. This requires a review of fatal and injury trends in the State, HSIP expenditures, and HSIP project performances

to help identify any potential gaps and deficiencies in the program. Analysis of these elements supplemented with stakeholder input, can

assist in identifying potential areas of opportunity and improvement to achieve the established safety performance measures in the future.

2.1 FATALITY AND SERIOUS INJURIES

A review of fatal and serious injury crashes was conducted to identify current crash trends and understand any potential highway safety

needs. Crashes were analyzed for the five-year time period of 2014 through 2018. The data was assessed for several crash categories

to better inform in the development of this HSIP Implementation Plan. These categories included:

• Total fatal and serious injury crashes • Fatal and serious injury crashes by trunkline and non-trunkline • Fatal and serious injury crashes by location (i.e., urban, rural) • Fatal and serious injury crashes by emphasis area • Fatal and serious injury crashes by roadway functional class

Crash data is presented in terms of crash frequencies and/or crash rate (per HMVMT) and expressed as a five-year rolling average. The

five-year rolling average is preferred as opposed to raw crashes to smooth out variations in the data to better determine overall trends.

This information is presented in the following subsequent chapter sections.

2.1.1 TOTAL FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES

Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 below illustrate the total fatal and serious injury crashes for the State of Michig5an between 2014 through 2018.

Figure 1: Fatal Crashes, 2014–2018

876963

1064 1028974

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Crash Frequency 5-Year Rolling Avg


PAGE 11

Figure 2: Fatal Crash Rate, 2014–2018

Figure 3: Serious Injury Crashes, 2014–2018

0.900.98

1.071.01

0.95

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T

Crash Rate 5-Year Rolling Avg

4909 48655634

60845586

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Crash Frequency 5-Year Rolling Avg


PAGE 12

Figure 4: Serious Injury Crash Rate, 2014–2018

Fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan have experienced a slight increase in frequencies between 2014 and 2018. This trend is

also reflected in the crash rate and the 5-year rolling average for crash frequencies. The largest increase occurred in 2016 and 2017 and

declined again in 2018 and is more emphasized for fatalities as opposed to serious injury crashes. The 5-year rolling average for crash

rates however indicates a possible stabilization for both fatal and serious injury crashes in the later years.

2.1.2 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY TRUNKLINE AND NON-TRUNKLINE

Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 below illustrate the fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on trunkline and non-trunkline routes between 2014

and 2018. According to the 2018 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 53% of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Michigan

occur on the state trunkline system and 47% occur on the non-trunkline system3.

5.04 4.975.68 5.98

5.46

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T

Crash Rate 5-Year Rolling Avg


PAGE 13

Figure 5: Fatal Crashes for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018

Figure 6: Fatal Crash Rate for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018

382 384454 432 440

494

579610 596

534

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Trunkline Non-Trunkline 5-Year Rolling Avg (Trunkline) 5-Year Rolling Avg (Non-Trunkline)

0.75 0.750.86

0.80 0.81

1.07

1.251.32

1.261.11

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T



PAGE 14

Figure 7: Serious Injury Crashes for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018

Figure 8: Serious Injury Crash Rate for Trunkline and Non-Trunkline, 2014–2018

Fatal and serious injury crashes on Michigan’s roadway network occur disproportionally on the state’s non-trunkline system. While non-

trunkline routes accommodate on average 47% of vehicle miles traveled, they account for approximately 58% of all fatal and serious

2084 20022360

25642410

2796 2849

32623499

3163

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es


4.08 3.894.46 4.72 4.44

6.04 6.15

7.06 7.386.57

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T



PAGE 15

injury crashes in Michigan. In line with this distribution, as fatal crashes have trended slightly upward across the state, they have increased

so at a higher rate on the non-trunkline system. Comparatively, serious injury crashes have trended similarly on both trunkline and non-

trunkline routes and have generally remained unchanged as indicated by the 5-year rolling average, despite experiencing an increase in

both frequencies and crash rate in 2016 and 2017.

2.1.3 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY LOCATION

Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 below illustrate the fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in urban and rural areas across the state between

2014 and 2018. For definition purposes, crashes are considered to occur within an urban area if located within an adjusted census urban

boundary (ACUB).

The ACUB is an area that determines the official urban designation for a road. The ACUB is subject to FHWA approval. Once approved,

it is used to declare a road urban for the federal HPMS and state Act 51 urban county road designation. Any road within or on the ACUB

border is urban. For roads on the ACUB border, both sides of the road are considered urban4. In Michigan approximately 70% of VMTs

occur within an urban area and 30% occur in a rural area5.

Figure 9: Fatal Crashes by Location, 2014–2018

523579

641 620562

373 373417 405 406

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

Urban Rural 5-Year Rolling Avg (Urban) 5-Year Rolling Avg (Rural)


PAGE 16

Figure 10: Fatal Crash Rate by Location, 2014–2018

Figure 11: Serious Injury Crashes by Location, 2014–2018

0.760.85

0.92 0.880.79

1.29 1.261.40

1.30 1.30

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T


3118 31883580

38263507

1753 16231998

21882011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es



PAGE 17

Figure 12: Serious Injury Crash Rate by Location, 2014–2018

Nearly 2 in 3 fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occur within an urban area. This composition has been largely consistent

annually between 2014 and 2018. Annual trends have also been similar between both urban and rural areas with crashes increasing

noticeably in 2016 and 2017 before declining again in 2018. It should be noted however that when accounting for traffic volume exposure,

rural areas remain less safe than urban area. One positive aspect in the data is that it appears that both fatal and serious injury crash

frequencies and crash rates in rural areas have trended downwards in recent years. Whereas trends for urban areas indicate a slight

upward trend for these crashes.

2.1.4 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY EMPHASIS AREA

Figures 13 and 14 below illustrate the fatal and serious injury crashes by emphasis areas between 2014 through 2018. Whereas Table

2 summarizes this data in tabular form. These emphasis areas are based on the Michigan SHSP and include:

• Intersection • Lane Departure • Pedestrian and Bicyclist • Commercial Vehicle • Drivers Age 16-24

• Drivers Age 65+ • Impaired Driving • Motorcycle • Work Zone

It should be noted that emphasis area crashes are only presented by crash frequencies as trends between crash frequency and crash

rate do not indicate significant differences between the two.

4.55 4.685.16 5.43

4.93

6.065.46

6.70 7.006.44

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T



PAGE 18

Figure 13: Fatal Crashes by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018

Figure 14: Serious Injury Crashes by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500N

um

ber

of

Cra

shes

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018


PAGE 19

Table 2: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Percentage by Emphasis Area, 5-Year Rolling Average 2014–2018

EMPHASIS AREA FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASH PERCENTAGES

2010–2014 2011–2015 2012–2016 2013–2017 2014–2018 AVERAGE

Intersection 32.9% 32.5% 33.8% 34.7% 35.4% 33.9%

Lane Departure 39.9% 39.8% 38.8% 38.2% 37.4% 38.8%

Pedestrian and Bicyclist 11.3% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8% 11.7% 11.6%

Commercial Vehicle 5.8% 5.9% 6.1% 6.4% 6.6% 6.2%

Drivers Age 16-24 35.4% 34.7% 33.9% 33.2% 32.1% 33.9%

Drivers Age 65+ 17.1% 17.4% 17.9% 18.3% 18.5% 17.8%

Impaired Driving 21.4% 21.9% 22.3% 23.2% 23.8% 22.5%

Motorcycle 11.2% 11.3% 11.6% 11.6% 11.7% 11.5%

Work Zone 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Note: Percentages do not total 100% as crashes may overlap between different emphasis areas

Fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan have been categorized in nine separate emphasis areas, closely reflecting the Michigan

SHSP. An emphasis area can be defined as an area of opportunity to improve safety through comprehensive strategies which include

engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services. While all emphasis areas listed represent an important focus for safety

improvements in Michigan, fatal and serious injury crashes in the state fall primarily under the intersection, lane departure, and drivers

age 16-24 emphasis areas. Approximately 1 in 3 fatal and serious injury crashes can be categorized as either an intersection, lane

departure, or driver age 16-24 related crash. This is followed by impaired driving, drivers age 65+, pedestrian and bicyclists, motorcycle,

commercial vehicle, and work zone. With regards to non-motorized users, nearly 1 in 10 fatal and serious injury crashes can be

categorized as a pedestrian or bicycle related crash. Examination of annual trends further indicates that crashes within the emphasis

areas of intersections, pedestrian and bicyclists, commercial vehicles, drivers age 65+, impaired driving, and motorcycle have trended

upwards in recent years. Whereas crashes within the emphasis area of lane departures and work zones have experienced a decline in

fatal and serious injury crashes.

2.1.5 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS

Figures 15, 16, 17 and 18 below illustrate the fatal and serious injury crashes by roadway functional class between 2014 and 2018. Table 3 summarize this data in tabular format. Roadways are grouped five functional classes5:

• Interstate – 23.1% VMT • Principal arterial (includes other freeways and principal arterial-other) – 30.7% VMT • Minor arterial – 22.4% VMT • Collector (includes major collectors and minor collectors) – 14.1% VMT • Local – 9.7% VMT


PAGE 20

Figure 15: Fatal Crashes by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014–2018

Figure 16: Fatal Crash Rate by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average, 2014-2018

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local

Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60


Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018


PAGE 21

Figure 17: Serious Injury Crashes by Roadway Functional Class,5-Year Rolling Average, 2014-2018

Figure 18: Serious Injury Crash Rate by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Average 2014–2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800


Nu

mb

er o

f C

rash

es

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00


Cra

sh R

ate

per

HM

VM

T

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018


PAGE 22

Table 3: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Percentage by Roadway Functional Class, 5-Year Rolling Avg, 2014–2018

ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASH PERCENTAGES

2010–2014 2011–2015 2012–2016 2013–2017 2014–2018 AVERAGE

Interstate 9.7% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.4% 9.7%

Principal Arterial 29.6% 29.8% 29.9% 30.3% 30.3% 30.0%

Minor Arterial 25.9% 26.2% 26.3% 26.0% 26.1% 26.1%

Collector 19.2% 18.7% 18.6% 18.4% 18.5% 18.7%

Local 15.3% 15.0% 14.8% 14.7% 14.7% 14.9%

Note: Percentages do not total 100% as some crashes may occur on other non-listed routes

Fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occur primarily on principal arterial and minor arterial routes. Together these two roadway

classes account for approximately 56% of all fatal and serious crashes in the state. This is followed by collector, local, and interstate

routes. Examination of crash rates however indicates that local and collector routes tend to be less safe than arterials and the interstate

system. The latter reported the lowest crash frequencies and crash rates among roadway classes This characterization is similar between

both fatal and serious injury crashes. Examination of annual trends further indicate that fatal and serious injury crashes have increased

on principal arterials.

2.1.6 FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES SUMMARY

The analysis and review of fatal injury and serious crashes in Michigan for 2014-2018 is summarized below to highlight the key findings

of the data as presented above. These findings are listed in order of analysis:

• Michigan has experienced a slight increase in fatal and serious injury crashes between 2014 and 2018. The largest increase occurred in 2016 and 2017 and declined again in 2018.

• Fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occur disproportionally on the non-trunkline system. While non-trunkline routes accommodate 47% of vehicle miles traveled, they account for 58% of all fatal and serious injury crashes in the state.

• Nearly 2 in 3 fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occur in an urban area. When accounting for vehicle miles traveled, rural areas remain less safe than urban areas.

• Nearly 1 in 3 fatal and serious injury crashes fall within the emphasis areas of either intersection, lane departure, or drivers age 16-24. Nearly 1 in 10 fatal and serious injury crashes can be categorized as pedestrian or bicycle related.

• Approximately 56% of all fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occur on principal or minor arterial routes. However crash rates for local and collector routes are higher than arterials and the interstate system. Examination of annual trends indicate an increase in fatal and serious injury crashes on principal arterials in recent years.

2.2 HSIP EXPENDITURES

Historical HSIP projects expenditures were analyzed for FY 2014 through FY 2018 for the State of Michigan. The purpose of this analysis

was to determine whether the project expenditures align with the State’s fatal and serious injury trends and to identify any potential areas

of opportunity for improvement. The data was analyzed for six separate categories to obtain a wholistic view of historical HSIP project

expenditures. These included:

• Total HSIP project expenditures • HSIP project expenditures by site selection method (i.e. systemic improvements, spot improvements) • HSIP project expenditures by location (i.e. urban, rural) • HSIP project expenditures by emphasis area • HSIP project expenditures by roadway functional class • HSIP project expenditures by roadway improvement category

Moreover, data is presented on a FY and aggregate basis, and is split between trunkline and non-trunkline expenditures to adequately

understand the historical distribution of the HSIP expenditures in the State. This information is presented below in the subsequent chapter

sections.


PAGE 23

2.2.1 TOTAL HSIP EXPENDITURES

Figure 19 below presents the total HSIP project expenditures for FY 2014 through 2018. Data is presented for both trunkline and non-

trunkline route expenditures. Funding between trunkline and non-trunkline routes in Michigan is governed by the Public Act 51 of 1951

also known as Act 51. This act governs state appropriations for most Michigan transportation programs, including federal highway

programs. On most federal programs, Act 51 requires that an average of 75% of federal highway funds be allocated to MDOT and 25%

to local road agencies. HSIP expenditures in the state fall under this 75:25 funding distribution requirement.

Figure 19: Total HSIP Project Expenditures, FY 2014–2018

Expenditures for the FYs analyzed have generally trended upward with an average of approximately $53,000,000 spent on an annual

basis between FY 2014 and 2018. Approximately 73% of this cost has been allocated towards trunkline routes. This rate has generally

remained similar and with some fluctuation on an annual basis.

2.2.2 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY SITE SELECTION METHOD

Figures 20, 21, and 22 below illustrate HSIP project expenditures by site selection method (i.e. spot and systemic improvements) for FY

2014 through 2018. By definition, systemic improvements may include any project that involves the use of countermeasures which are

widely implemented based on similar roadway or intersection features that correlate with particular fatal and serious injury crash types.

These can include but are not limited to horizontal curve signing, centerline and/or shoulder rumble strips, edgeline pavement markings,

dual stop and/or stop ahead signs, signal backplates, pedestrian countdown timers etc. Whereas spot improvements are treatments

specific to a location. It should be noted that projects for FY 2014 and 2015 were assumed to be spot or systemic in nature based on the

project description and location, as the category for the site selection method was not pre-identified in the available datasets. Projects

categorized as other are non-infrastructure projects related to the data driven approach, research, and before and after studies.

$36,367,375 78%

$37,445,830 72%

$34,611,210 (72%)

$40,589,854 (67%)

$43,878,290 (77%)

$10,279,885 22%

$14,610,690 28% $13,588,405

(28%)

$20,278,031 (33%)

$13,299,570 (23%)

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Trunkline Non-Trunkline


PAGE 24

Figure 20: Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014–2018

Figure 21: Non-Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014-2018

$18,887,350 (52%)

$19,891,679 (53%)

$21,660,687 (63%)

$20,636,650 (51%)

$22,462,417 (51%)

$17,480,025 (48%)

$17,554,151 (47%)

$12,950,523 (37%)

$18,652,204 (46%)

$21,415,873 (49%)

$1,301,000 (3%)

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Systemic Spot Other

$17,656 (1%) $3,326,965

(23%)$2,693,239

(20%)

$3,859,285 (19%)

$967,277 (7%)

$10,262,229 (99%)

$11,283,725 (77%) $10,850,166

(80%)

$16,418,746 (81%)

$12,332,293 (93%)

$45,000 (0%)

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Systemic Spot Other


PAGE 25

Figure 22: HSIP Project Expenditures by Site Selection Method, FY 2014-2018

HSIP expenditures have focused on spot improvements with an annual average distribution of 56% to 44% for systemic improvements

between FY 2014 and 2018. This distribution however varies significantly between trunkline and non-trunkline routes. HSIP expenditures

on trunkline routes have focused primarily on systemic improvements with an annual average of approximately 54%. Whereas HSIP

expenditures on non-trunkline routes have predominantly focused on spot improvements with an annual average of approximately 85%.

Annual fluctuations for both trunkline and non-trunkline routes are minimal, although the trend has been towards an increase in

expenditures relative to spot improvements.

2.2.3 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY LOCATION

Figures 23, 24, and 25 below illustrate HSIP project expenditures by location (i.e. urban and rural areas) for FY 2014 through 2018. A project was defined to occur within an urban area if all or part of the project was located within an ACUB boundary.

$18,905,006 (41%)

$23,218,644 (45%)

$24,353,926 (51%)

$24,495,935 (40%)

$23,429,694 (41%)

$27,742,254 (59%)

$28,837,876 (55%)

$23,800,689 (49%)

$35,070,950 (58%)

$33,748,166 (59%)

$45,000 (0%)

$1,301,000 (2%)

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Systemic Spot Other


PAGE 26

Figure 23: Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018

Figure 24: Non-Trunkline HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018

$20,958,900 (52%)

$35,480,461 (95%)

$25,883,994 (75%)

$27,965,743 (69%)

$43,878,290 (100%)

$15,408,475 (42%)

$1,965,369 (5%)

$8,727,216 (25%)

$12,624,111 (31%)

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

$50,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Urban Rural

$7,459,101 (73%)

$8,696,219 (60%)

$9,446,046 (70%)

$8,685,354 (43%)

$7,193,527 (54%)

$2,820,784 (27%)

$5,914,471 (40%)

$4,142,359 (30%)

$11,592,677 (57%)

$6,106,042 (46%)

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Urban Rural


PAGE 27

Figure 25: HSIP Project Expenditures by Location, FY 2014-2018

As expected, the majority of HSIP expenditures have occurred in urban areas with an annual average of approximately 74%. The

proportion of expenditures however varies significantly between trunkline and non-trunkline routes and on an annual basis. For trunkline

routes, most expenditures have occurred in urban areas with an annual average of approximately 80%. In comparison, HSIP expenditures

for non-trunkline routes are more evenly distributed between urban and rural areas with an annual average of 58% and 42% respectively.

2.2.4 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY EMPHASIS AREA

Table 4 below summarizes the distribution of HSIP project expenditures by emphasis area for FY 2014 through 2018 for both trunkline and non-trunkline routes. Figure 26 presents the total distribution of these expenditures in graphical form. The emphasis area categories included in this analysis are:

• Data (i.e. training and workforce development, traffic studies etc.) • Intersection • Lane Departure • Roadway Departure • Pedestrian • Bicycle • Work Zone

$28,418,001 (61%)

$44,176,680 (85%) $35,330,040

(73%)

$36,651,097 (60%)

$51,071,817 (89%)

$18,229,259 (39%)

$7,879,840 (15%)

$12,869,575 (27%)

$24,216,788 (40%)

$6,106,042 (11%)

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

HS

IP P

roje

ct E

xpen

dit

ure

($)

Urban Rural


PAGE 28

Table 4: HSIP Project Expenditures by Emphasis Area, FY 2014-2018

TYPE EMPHASIS AREA FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2014–2018

Trunkline

Data 1.1% 1.5% 10.8% 3.0% 0.1% 3.1%

Intersection 22.7% 44.5% 38.5% 34.1% 41.9% 36.5%

Lane Departure 65.4% 53.1% 48.4% 39.3% 56.7% 52.5%

Roadway Departure 7.9% 0.9% 2.2% 22.2% 0.2% 6.8%

Pedestrian 2.9% 0.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0%

Bicyclist 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Work Zone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Non-Trunkline

Data 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Intersection 64.5% 48.6% 50.4% 30.7% 43.2% 45.2%

Lane Departure 7.0% 27.2% 16.1% 34.0% 27.0% 24.1%


Pedestrian 0.3% 2.8% 1.6% 0.9% 7.0% 2.5%

Bicyclist 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Work Zone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total

Data 0.9% 1.1% 7.9% 2.0% 0.1% 2.3%

Intersection 31.9% 45.6% 41.8% 33.0% 42.2% 38.9%

Lane Departure 52.5% 45.9% 39.3% 37.5% 49.8% 44.8%


Pedestrian 2.3% 0.8% 0.5% 1.1% 2.4% 1.4%

Bicyclist 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Work Zone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Figure 26: HSIP Project Expenditures by Emphasis Area, FY 2014-2018

0.9%

1.1%

7.9%

2.0%

0.1%

31.9%

45.6%

41.8%

33.0%

42.2%

52.5%

45.9%

39.3%

37.5%

49.8%

12.3%

6.6%

10.5%

26.3%

5.3%

2.3%

0.8%

0.5%

1.1%

2.4% 0.1%

0.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

HSIP Project Expenditure Proportion (%)

Data Intersection Lane Departure Roadway Departures Pedestrians Bicyclist Work Zones


PAGE 29

Analysis of HSIP expenditures by emphasis areas indicates that project costs are separated among seven overall emphasis areas. For

FY 2014-2018, lane departure HSIP expenditures comprised the highest amount of spending with an annual average of approximately

44.8% of total expenditures. This was followed by Intersections at 38.9% and roadway departures at 12.6%. Non-motorized users (i.e.

pedestrians and bicyclist) comprised 1.4% of total annual average expenditures. The emphasis areas of lane departures, intersections,

and roadway departures remained the predominant HSIP expenditures with some annual variation but no clear trend from a year-to-year

perspective. Whereas pedestrian HSIP expenditures have experienced a steady increase annually since FY 2015. Expenditures for

bicyclist have remained low annually. Only one project in FY 2017 was targeted directly for bicyclists.

Expenditures among trunkline and non-trunkline routes have some commonalities and differences as well among them. In both cases,

lane departures, intersections, and roadway departures comprise most of the expenditures with more than 95% of annual average HSIP

expenditures. Lane departures comprise more than half of HSIP expenditures for trunkline routes and approximately a quarter for non-

trunkline routes. Whereas roadway departures comprise a larger portion of the annual share for non-trunkline routes and less so for

trunkline routes. A similar comparison can be made for non-motorized users, in particular pedestrians, which comprise a greater portion

of the annual HSIP expenditures for non-trunkline routes as opposed to trunkline routes.

2.2.5 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS

Table 5 below summarizes the distribution of HSIP project expenditures by roadway functional class for FY 2014 through 2018 for both

trunkline and non-trunkline routes. Figure 27 presents the total distribution of these expenditures in graphical form. Similar to the crash

analysis, project expenditures are grouped among six roadway functional classes. These include:

• Interstate • Principal arterial • Minor arterial • Collector (includes major collectors and minor collectors) • Local • Various (included a combination of functional classes)

Table 5: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Functional Class, FY 2014–2018

TYPE FUNCTIONAL CLASS FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2014–2018

Trunkline

Interstate 22.1% 1.3% 5.9% 4.3% 9.2% 6.6%


Minor Arterial 6.9% 4.6% 21.5% 20.8% 9.7% 16.9%

Collector 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.3% 1.9%

Local 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Various 51.9% 53.1% 62.3% 54.0% 43.9% 52.7%

Non-Trunkline

Interstate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Minor Arterial 36.8% 46.9% 44.0% 34.2% 23.6% 34.0%

Collector 16.8% 31.2% 21.9% 44.2% 48.4% 39.0%

Local 8.9% 4.8% 4.6% 5.4% 2.0% 4.2%

Various 0.2% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 12.9% 3.7%

Total

Interstate 17.2% 0.9% 4.3% 2.9% 7.0% 4.7%


Minor Arterial 13.5% 16.4% 27.9% 25.3% 12.9% 21.8%

Collector 3.7% 8.8% 6.2% 18.3% 11.5% 12.4%

Local 2.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 0.5% 1.2%

Various 40.5% 38.5% 44.8% 36.0% 36.7% 38.8%


PAGE 30

Figure 27: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Functional Class, FY 2014-2018

HSIP expenditures are distributed at various proportions depending on the roadway functional class. Overall, the majority of HSIP costs

are spent on principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector roads. Interstate and local roads comprise a small portion of total HSIP

expenditures. It should be noted that a significant proportion of HSIP expenditures for trunkline routes fall under the various category

which represents a combination of different functional classes per project. These are expected to be predominantly a combination of

principal arterial and minor arterial roadways.

On a comparative perspective, there is significant difference in HSIP expenditures between trunkline and non-trunkline routes given the

typical design and use characteristics of the two. For trunkline routes, the majority of the HSIP funds are spent on projects containing a

combination of roadway functional classes, followed by minor arterial, principal arterial, and interstate routes. HSIP expenditures on

collectors are minimal and there are no HSIP projects on local routes. For non-trunkline routes, HSIP funds are spent predominantly on

collector, minor arterial, principal arterial, and local routes.

2.2.6 HSIP EXPENDITURES BY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT

Table 6 below summarizes the distribution of HSIP project expenditures by roadway improvement for FY 2014 through 2018 for both

trunkline and non-trunkline routes. Figure 28 presents the total distribution of these expenditures in graphical form. The projects were

grouped among 14 total improvement categories. These categories along with typical projects included under category are as follows:

• Non-infrastructure – training and workforce development, traffic studies, data analysis • Advance technology and ITS – ITS • Alignment – horizontal and vertical alignment • Interchange design – interchange improvements • Intersection geometry – auxiliary lanes, geometry improvements • Intersection traffic control – flasher install, conversion to roundabout, signal modernization, intersection upgrades • Pedestrian and bicyclist – median and refuge areas, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal improvements • Railroad grade crossings – widen crossing • Roadside – barrier install (cable, concrete, metal), drainage and grading improvements, roadside object removal

17.2%

0.9%

4.3%

2.9%

7.0%

23.1%

34.1%

15.6%

15.8%

31.4%

13.5%

16.4%

27.9%

25.3%

12.9%

3.7%

8.8%

6.2%

18.3%

11.5%

2.0%

1.3%

1.3%

1.8%

0.5%

40.5%

38.5%

44.8%

36.0%

36.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018


Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Various


PAGE 31

• Roadway – access management, high friction pavement surface, roadway narrowing/widening, rumble strips • Roadway delineation – delineators, pavement markings, retroreflectivity improvements • Roadway signs and traffic control – curve warning signs, signing upgrades and/or replacement • Shoulder treatments – shoulder paving, shoulder widening • Speed management – radar speed signs

Table 6: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Improvement, FY 2014-2018

TYPE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2014-2018

Trunkline

Non-infrastructure 1.1% 1.5% 2.0% 3.2% 0.0% 1.7%

Advanced technology and ITS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Alignment 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Interchange design 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 11.6% 4.4%

Intersection geometry 16.6% 32.1% 32.8% 11.5% 14.9% 19.0%

Intersection traffic control 5.4% 9.1% 14.5% 4.9% 12.5% 10.5%

Pedestrians and bicyclists 1.5% 0.0% 0.1% 1.2% 3.0% 1.5%

Railroad grade crossings 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Roadside 22.1% 6.4% 0.0% 3.8% 4.7% 3.0%

Roadway 7.9% 1.6% 0.9% 24.6% 4.1% 10.2%

Roadway delineation 45.4% 42.5% 49.0% 50.4% 46.5% 48.6%

Roadway signs and traffic control 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 2.2% 1.0%

Shoulder treatments 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Speed management 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Non-Trunkline



Alignment 7.6% 3.0% 5.0% 9.7% 8.7% 8.1%






Roadside 7.0% 14.8% 13.4% 18.9% 8.0% 14.2%

Roadway 17.3% 27.6% 42.8% 33.2% 19.3% 32.1%





Total



Alignment 1.7% 3.2% 1.4% 3.2% 2.0% 2.3%






Roadside 18.8% 8.7% 3.8% 8.8% 5.5% 6.2%

Roadway 10.0% 8.9% 12.7% 27.5% 7.7% 16.4%




PAGE 32



Figure 28: HSIP Project Expenditures by Roadway Improvement, FY 2014-2018

HSIP expenditures between FY 2014-2018 have focused primarily on roadway delineation, followed by intersection geometry, roadway,

and intersection control improvements. These four categories comprise approximately 82% of total HSIP expenditures. In comparison,

categories such as pedestrian and bicyclist improvements comprise 1.9% of total HSIP expenditures. The distribution of funds has varied

on an annual basis. One noticeable trend has been the increase in expenditures for pedestrian and bicyclist activities year-to-year which

on FY 2018 comprised 4.1% of total expenditures

HSIP expenditures between trunkline and non-trunkline routes indicate some key differences between each other. The most noticeable

difference is with regards to roadway delineation. This category comprises approximately 49% of all expenditures for trunkline routes,

and less than 1% of expenditures for non-trunkline routes. For the latter, these funds have been used primarily for roadway, intersection

traffic control, and roadside improvements. Pedestrian and bicyclist related improvements have been relatively comparable between

trunkline and non-trunkline expenditure proportions and have trended upward for both.

2.2.7 HSIP EXPENDITURES SUMMARY

The analysis of HSIP project expenditures for FY 2014-2018 is summarized below to indicate the key findings of the data presented in

this chapter. These findings are presented in order of analysis:

• HSIP expenditures have generally trended upward with an annual average of $53,000,000 spent annually. • Approximately 73% of HSIP expenditures have been allocated towards trunkline routes.

0.9%

1.1%

1.5%

2.1%

0.2%

1.7%

3.2%

1.4%

3.2%

2.0%

0.3%

8.9%

16.7%

32.1%

25.9%

10.1%

16.0%

14.7%

10.7%

17.3%

11.1%

14.9%

1.2%

0.1%

0.5%

1.1%

4.1%

18.8%

8.7%

3.8%

8.8%

5.5%

10.0%

8.9%

12.7%

27.5%

7.7%

35.4%

30.8%

35.2%

33.8%

35.7%

0.8%

0.8%

0.4%

2.1%

0.7%

3.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.9%

0.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018



PAGE 33

• HSIP funds are generally spent on spot improvements rather systemic improvements with a 56% to 44% split, with significant differences between trunkline and non-trunkline routes. For trunkline routes, 46% of funds are spent on spot improvements as opposed to 54% on systemic improvements, whereas for non-trunkline routes 85% of funds are spent on spot improvements as opposed to 15% on systemic improvements.

• Approximately 74% of HSIP expenditures have been allocated to urban areas. • The majority of HSIP expenditures are allocated to the emphasis area for lane departures, intersection, and roadway departures.

These comprise approximately 96% of total expenditures. • HSIP expenditures for the emphasis areas of pedestrians and bicyclists have trended upwards and comprise approximately 1.4% of

total expenditures. • HSIP expenditures are generally spent on principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector roads. Differences are observed between

trunkline and non-trunkline routes given the typical differences in design and use characteristics of the two. • Projects involving roadway delineation, intersection geometry, roadway, and intersection traffic control improvements comprise

approximately 82% of total HSIP expenditures. This distribution varies between trunkline and non-trunkline routes, in particular for roadway delineation. Expenditures for roadway delineation on trunkline routes comprise approximately 49% of total expenditures and less than 1% of total expenditures for non-trunkline routes.

• Pedestrian and bicyclist related improvements have seen an increase in expenditure amounts year-to-year.

2.3 HSIP HISTORICAL PROJECT PERFORMANCE

MDOT has been one of the first stakeholders to embrace and adopt the TZD strategy to improve safety on Michigan’s roads. This has

been implemented into the State’s SHSP as Michigan’s vision of “Toward Zero Deaths on Michigan Roadways”. In line with this vision,

MDOT has implemented at scale several proven safety strategies which represent both systemic and spot improvements across its

network. Similarly MDOT has sponsored several research projects to develop various local safety performance functions (SPF) and

assess the State’s highway safety programs to better improve safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Michigan’s roadways.

A review of HSIP project lists for both trunkline and non-trunkline projects for FY 2014 through 2018 indicated that Michigan has

implemented a variety of countermeasures which can be characterized as both systemic and spot improvements. Table 7 below lists

these countermeasures. The percentages provided are based on the HSIP cost of projects incorporating a particular roadway

countermeasure. All countermeasures listed have been implemented with the objective of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and

are attached to at least one emphasis area as identified in the Michigan SHSP. It should also be noted that a single project may

incorporate several safety countermeasures. In addition, some projects did not specify the countermeasure. These projects are

characterized as other.

Table 7: Distribution of Total HSIP Projects by Implemented Countermeasure, FY 2014-2018

COUNTERMEASURE TRUNKLINE NON-TRUNKLINE TOTAL

Access Management 0.6% 0.0% 0.5%

Add Travel Lanes 2.6% 5.1% 3.3%

Add Turn Lanes 7.4% 8.1% 7.6%

Add TWLTL 3.9% 0.4% 2.9%

Barrier 6.4% 6.2% 6.3%

Cable Barrier 0.9% 0.0% 0.7%

Curve Warning 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Delineation 6.0% 0.2% 4.4%

Fixed Object Removal 0.0% 6.3% 1.7%

High Friction Surface Treatment 1.1% 1.8% 1.3%

Horizontal Alignment 0.0% 0.9% 0.2%

Interchange Improvement 2.7% 0.0% 2.0%

Intersection Flashers 0.0% 0.7% 0.2%

Intersection Geometrics 9.7% 7.5% 9.1%


PAGE 34

COUNTERMEASURE TRUNKLINE NON-TRUNKLINE TOTAL

ITS 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Lighting 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Pavement Markings 45.6% 0.2% 33.2%

Pedestrian & Bicyclist 1.2% 2.1% 1.5%

Roadside Improvement 0.0% 0.8% 0.2%

Roadway Reconfiguration 1.5% 13.3% 4.7%

Roundabout 2.6% 6.0% 3.5%

Rumble Strips 0.4% 5.7% 1.8%

Shoulder Treatments 0.7% 1.1% 0.8%

Sign Upgrades 0.6% 0.7% 0.7%

Signal Timing 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Superelevation 2.5% 1.1% 2.1%

Systemic Signal Improvements 0.0% 3.4% 0.9%

Traffic Signal Improvements 0.7% 13.0% 4.0%

Vertical Alignment 0.0% 6.1% 1.6%

Widen Roadway 0.0% 2.7% 0.7%

Widen Shoulder 0.0% 4.2% 1.1%

Unknown/Other/Misc. 2.7% 2.0% 2.5%

Note: Improvements comprising more than 5% of HSIP expenditures are highlighted.

Data from MDOT’s research study entitled Evaluation of the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Programs

published in 2019 was used to determine to effectiveness of implemented projects listed in the table above. The study provides a

synthesis of crash reduction factors (CRF) for countermeasures implemented in Michigan and their expected impact on fatal and serious

injury crashes. It should be noted that several of these CRFs can also apply to all crash severities. The CRFs were obtained from the

MDOT TOR Form and MDOT HSM spreadsheet. Both of these forms are safety processes used in the selection of safety projects and

assist local agencies and MDOT in identifying expected safety benefits from a given project. The countermeasures and CRFs included

in these forms are Michigan specific. If Michigan specific CRF values were not available, data from other published research or the FHWA

Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse was utilized. The expected reduction on fatal and serious injury crashes was further

refined by combining the CRFs with the historical HSIP implemented projects and a sample of Michigan segments and intersections

along with the fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on these networks6. Table 8 and Table 9 lists the countermeasure CRF and

expected reduction in fatal and serious injuries for trunkline and non-trunkline routes after the implementation of safety projects.

Countermeasure with unreported fatal and serious injury reductions are indicated by “na”. The data is further split between trunkline and

non-trunkline routes to account for the differing roadway characteristics, project types, and funding levels applicable to the two.


PAGE 35

Table 8: Trunkline Annual Reduction in Fatalities and Serious Injuries for Implemented Countermeasures

COUNTERMEASURE CRF Fatality Reduction Serious Injury Reduction

Access Management 15% 0.000 0.000

Add Travel Lanes 5% 0.000 0.000

Add Turn Lanes 12% 0.006 0.066

Add TWLTL 20% 0.026 0.133

Barrier 55% 0.046 0.234

Cable Barrier 33% 0.265 1.336

Curve Warning 20% 0.000 0.000

Delineation 20% 1.535 7.738

Fixed Object Removal 38% 0.017 0.086

High Friction Surface Treatment 20% 0.007 0.037

Horizontal Alignment 30% 0.000 0.000

Interchange Improvement 18% 0.000 0.001

Intersection Flashers 20% N/A N/A

Intersection Geometrics 18% 0.004 0.045

ITS 5% 0.000 0.000

Lighting 5% 0.000 0.000

Pavement Markings (restripe) 1% 1.193 6.013

Pedestrian & Bicyclist 5% 0.006 0.048

Roadside Improvement 15% 0.000 0.000

Roadway Reconfiguration 30% N/A N/A

Roundabout 78% 0.020 0.222

Rumble Strips 32% 0.000 0.000

Shoulder Treatments 15% 0.003 0.016

Sign Upgrades 5% 0.041 0.318

Signal Timing 10% 0.000 0.000

Superelevation 30% 0.004 0.020

Systemic Signal Improvements 10% 0.006 0.063

Traffic Signal Improvements 10% 0.006 0.069

Vertical Alignment 20% N/A N/A

Widen Roadway 5% N/A N/A

Widen Shoulder 5% 0.000 0.000

Unknown/Other/Misc. 5% 0.002 0.018

Note: Data obtained from the 2019 study on the Evaluation of the MDOT’s Highway Safety Programs.


PAGE 36

Table 9: Non-Trunkline Annual Reduction in Fatalities and Serious Injuries for Implemented Countermeasures

COUNTERMEASURE CRF Fatality Reduction Serious Injury Reduction

Access Management 15% na na

Add Travel Lanes 5% 0.002 0.012

Add Turn Lanes 12% 0.006 0.069

Add TWLTL 20% na na

Barrier 55% 0.220 1.354

Cable Barrier 33% na na

Curve Warning 20% 0.020 0.123

Delineation 20% 0.000 0.000

Fixed Object Removal 38% 0.266 1.636

High Friction Surface Treatment 20% 0.002 0.014

Horizontal Alignment 30% 0.001 0.009

Interchange Improvement 18% na na

Intersection Flashers 20% 0.014 0.154

Intersection Geometrics 18% 0.007 0.083

ITS 5% 0.000 0.000

Lighting 5% 0.001 0.010

Pavement Markings (restripe) 1% 0.002 0.013

Pedestrian & Bicyclist 5% 0.002 0.021

Roadside Improvement 15% 0.000 0.003

Roadway Reconfiguration 30% 0.008 0.048

Roundabout 78% 0.007 0.075

Rumble Strips 32% 0.601 3.693

Shoulder Treatments 15% 0.000 0.000

Sign Upgrades 5% 0.083 0.727

Signal Timing 10% 0.002 0.019

Superelevation 30% 0.001 0.005

Systemic Signal Improvements 10% 0.039 0.443

Traffic Signal Improvements 10% 0.034 0.391

Vertical Alignment 20% 0.004 0.026

Widen Roadway 5% 0.000 0.002

Widen Shoulder 5% 0.005 0.031

Unknown/Other/Misc. 5% na na


Data presented in Table 8 and 9 indicate that the greatest crash reduction factors can be expected from countermeasures such as

roundabouts, installation of barriers, removal of fixed objects, rumble strips, horizontal alignment, and various roadway configurations. It

should be noted however that this does not reflect a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) based on per-unit cost. Thus, benefits from these projects

may vary.

Given the various funding levels associated with these countermeasures, the reductions in fatal and serious injury crashes vary from the

CRFs. These differences are evident between trunkline and non-trunkline routes. For trunkline, the greatest reductions in fatal and serious

injury crashes have been obtained from delineation, pavement marking (considers restriping only), barrier (cable and other), and signing


PAGE 37

projects. For non-trunkline, the greatest reductions have been obtained from rumble strips, fixed object removals, barrier, signing, and

signal improvement projects.

It should be noted that with regards to pavement markings, the CRFs presented on Table 8 and 9 do not capture expected crash

reductions from countermeasures such as wider pavement lines and/or edge lines. Thus, benefits from pavement marking projects are

expected to be higher. A recent study from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) found that, in Michigan, 6 inch wide edge line markings

produced reduction for all crashes, including a 24.6% reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes, a 39.5% reduction for crashes at night,

and a 33.2% reduction in wet crashes at night on rural two-lane trunklines. In addition, the research indicated overall total crash reductions

of 19% to 27%, and reductions in single vehicle wet crashes of 66% to 74%. These benefits were associated with a benefit-cost ratio of

$33 to $55 for each $1 spent, where an estimated increased cost of $840,000 per year could yield safety benefits ranging from $27.8 to

46.2 million per year7.

2.4 HSIP GAPS AND DEFICIENCIES

Findings obtained from the crash analysis, review of historical HSIP expenditures, and HSIP project performance were utilized to inform

in the identification of potential gaps and deficiencies in the HSIP. These findings are listed below and are in line with prior MDOT’s study

on the Evaluation of MDOT’s Highway Safety Programs:

• Changes in fatal and serious injury crashes can be associated with VMT and risks as identified by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). Funding levels should reflect these changes to ensure Michigan continues to successfully pursue its goal towards zero deaths. This aspect is also relevant for non-motorized users. While there is insufficient data to determine trends for non-motorize users, anecdotal knowledge suggests an increase of pedestrian and bicyclist activities statewide.

• Fatal and serious injury crashes occur disproportionally on Michigan’s non-trunkline system. Recent trends have also indicated a greater increase of fatalities on non-trunkline roadways. The state’s distribution of HSIP funds is currently governed by Act 51 which dictates a 75:25 funding allocation between MDOT and local agencies. A review of the funding split and/or increase in funding for local agencies that more closely reflect the current distribution of fatal and serious injury crashes is recommended but would require a change in state law. Until it is possible to change state law, additional resources from the trunkline system could be directed to the LSI program to aid local agencies in crash analysis and countermeasure identification.

• Approximately 85% of HSIP funds spent on the non-trunkline system are allocated towards spot improvements. Local agency outreach that promotes the implementation of proven systemic countermeasures may help provide a higher safety benefit across the non-trunkline system. Outreach focused for those local agencies who traditionally have not invested on systemic improvements may be preferred.

• Nearly 1 in 10 fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan can be categorized as pedestrian or bicycle related. Funding levels between FY 2014-2018 for pedestrian and bicycle emphasis areas have amounted to approximately 1.4% of total HSIP funding. While the proportion of HSIP funding addressing non-motorized users has increased in recent years, additional funding levels may be required to improve safety for this vulnerable group.

• Nearly 1 in 3 fatal and serious injury crashes in Michigan occurs on collector and local roads. These roadways tend to be less safe than other road functional classes when accounting for VMTs. Review of historical HSIP funding indicates that project expenditures currently do not reflect this crash distribution and additional funding may be required to help improve safety conditions on collector and local roads.

2.5 NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

As part of their evaluation of Michigan’s highway safety programs, MDOT researched extensively noteworthy practices which can assist

in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on its transportation system. The research reviewed national, state, and local strategies which

are implemented at various levels across Michigan’s highway safety programs. Table 10 below list those strategies which are not currently

implemented in Michigan but that may provide safety benefits to existing safety programs if implemented. The complete results of this

research, including noteworthy practices currently implemented and partially implemented in the state are published in MDOT’s study on

the Evaluation of the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Program6.


PAGE 38

Table 10: Noteworthy Practices that may be Implemented in Michigan

SOURCE NOTEWORTHY PRACTICE STRATEGY

National TZD Consider exclusive truck lanes Exclusive truck lanes employed appropriately have been shown to improve

safety performance

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

Tailoring safety audits for rail-highway

crossings

Incorporate RSA’s specific to highway crossings, particularly those with

unique geometry, non-motorized road users, or other atypical conditions

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

Developing long-term HSIP Investment

Plans to maximize use of HSIP funds

A long-term planning approach which considers multiple fiscal years may

yield benefits that the annual call process currently does not

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

Design-build push button contract

significantly reduces the time it takes to

implement safety improvements

Other states have successfully implemented specific treatment types using

a design-build process, resulting in an accelerated delivery of

countermeasures

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

SHSP operations manager Other states have funded a specific position for coordinating SHSP

activities with all stakeholders, a position which may benefit Michigan

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

Local safety coordinators adopt SHSP

strategies and actions

While Michigan has the Traffic Safety Network, other states have had

success with formal local safety coordinators which facilitate SHSP

strategies and actions

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

Colorado implements continuous green T-

intersections to reduce angle crashes

Other states have implemented continuous green T-intersections in specific

locations to improve safety

FHWA Noteworthy

Practices

SHSP newsletter Other states have circulated a regular SHSP newsletter which has provided

an effective means to communicate recent accomplishments and

disseminate ongoing safety activities with stakeholders

FHWA CMF

Clearinghouse

Install drowsy driving signs Utah has experimented with the installation of signs designed to reduce

frequency of drowsy driving crashes; identification of locations where such

treatments could be implemented may offer safety benefits

FHWA CMF

Clearinghouse

Installation of lane narrowing through

rumble strips and painted median at rural

stop-controlled approaches; installation of

channelizing separator islands on side road

approaches with supplemental stop signs

Low-cost improvements to rural stop-controlled intersections were

evaluated by FHWA and showed positive initial findings; implementation at

select locations could be considered if these countermeasures are effective

in Michigan

Alabama SHSP Provide electronic ball bank equipment

training to reduce road departure crashes

Alabama has distributed electronic ball bank equipment and training to

identify horizontal curve speeds and reduce road departure crashes

Alaska SHSP Conduct research on Alaska-specific issues

related to roadway collisions

Research specific to Michigan's unique safety issues may identify

engineering treatments or strategies which can be beneficial

Iowa SHSP Complete a web-based analytical tool While MDOT does provide network screening results via SafetyAnalyst and

Roadsoft, a web-based tool for network screening or EB-method analysis

may be useful for practitioners and local agency staff

Kansas SHSP Develop formal process to account for

recommendations from traffic studies to

generate projects within existing safety

As part of both HSIP and other highway management activities, a variety of

safety issues or recommendations may be developed for specific locations

along both the trunkline and non-trunkline highway network; a formal


PAGE 39

SOURCE NOTEWORTHY PRACTICE STRATEGY

programs and contribute new and future

projects in other programs

process to aggregate these findings and recommendations may help to

generate potential safety projects


2.6 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

As part of the development of this HSIP Implementation Plan, MDOT conducted various internal meetings with safety practitioners to

determine program needs and possible solutions. These meetings were conducted throughout the development of this plan. One key

topic of discussion was future engagement and outreach of tribal and local agencies in promoting HSIP funding availability and providing

assistance in project selection.

The development of this plan was also informed by the continuous annual outreach which MDOT conducts with various stakeholders

and practitioners across the state. As an example, at the most base level, the safety performance targets for Michigan are established

through collaboration between MDOT, the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), and UMTRI. This partnership includes

meeting with the analysis team along with input from MPO in the state and FHWA. The OHSP is a division under the Michigan State

Police (MSP). The director of OHSP serves as chair to the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) in Michigan10.

Overall MDOT is vigilant on coordination with external partners in promoting safety across the state and in achieving the TZD vision as

a member of the GTSAC. This coordination extends to agencies such as the CRA MPOs, and local governmental agencies with the

objective of communicating safety initiatives and safety countermeasures. As an example, MDOT assists OHSP and the GTSAC in

planning engineering sessions for the annual Michigan Traffic Safety Summit. MDOT provides scholarship opportunities to local agencies

to attend the summit to help promote the TZD vision and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on Michigan’s roadways10.

From the local perspective, MDOT assists local agencies in the identification of safety projects by providing resources such as traffic

crash maps, safety guides, locally calibrated HSM spreadsheet, and Local/Regional Road Safety Plans. Through its LSI, MDOT helps

local agencies analyze their crash data and provides recommendations on countermeasures. The LSI is a free, voluntary program that

emphasizes low cost fixes to improve safety on local roads.

MDOT also coordinates with various colleges and universities by providing research opportunities on various safety topics such as

evaluation of programs and countermeasures, and development of safety performance metrics. Several of this research was utilized in

informing the development of this HSIP Implementation Plan.


PAGE 40

3.0 AVAILABLE FUNDING Michigan did not meet or make significant progress towards its 2014–2018 safety performance targets for number of serious injuries, serious injury rate, and number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Per 23 U.S.C. 148(i)(1), the FFY 2017 HSIP apportionment in the amount of at least $58,162,180 must be obligated in FFY 2021. Currently for FFY 2021, Michigan has $70,407,070 of programed projects. This amount includes templates outlined in Section 6.0. The total amount of estimated project budgets currently exceeds the amount needed to be obligated based on FFY 2017 in FFY 2021. This amount will allow Michigan to meet or exceed the apportionment needed for this implementation plan. MDOT Safety Programs is currently overprogrammed in 2021 due to bid letting balancing and projects that include additional funds from templates outside of HSIP funds. MDOT LAP is currently overprogrammed in 2021 due to the program sharing obligational authority with local-urban (non-safety) projects. The MDOT Safety Programs and LAP obligation balancing occurs throughout the FY in order for the appropriate amount of HSIP funds to be obligated in Michigan. MDOT Safety Programs and Local Agency Programs will diligently work with MDOT Planning and Finance to make sure the correct amount of appropriation is obligated in FFY 2021 based on the FFY 2017 appropriation specifically for HSIP Funds.


PAGE 41

4.0 FUNDING ALLOCATION GOALS Funding allocation goals for Michigan for FY 2021 are based on the objective of reducing fatalities on Michigan roadways and are in

support of the Michigan’s SHSP and MDOT’s efforts in achieving the vision of TZD. Selected projects include cost effective improvements

for addressing correctable fatality and serious injury crashes and in support of key emphasis areas of the SHSP. The SHSP identifies

four comprehensive emphasis areas which include high-risk behaviors, at-risk road users, engineering infrastructure, and system

administration. HSIP funds are utilized primarily for addressing engineering infrastructure through intersection safety and lane departure

projects, and at-risk road users which include pedestrian and bicycle safety projects. Although improvements in these areas are expected

to indirectly address the crashes in the other emphasis areas.

Project selection is data driven and utilizes a variety of resources including TOR and HSM analysis, safety studies, Road Safety Audit

(RSA) reports etc. For trunkline routes, MDOT has established funding targets by MDOT region which are based on exposure variables

of VMT and lane miles and their relationship to fatal and serious injury crashes for each particular MDOT region. For non-trunkline routes,

MDOT funding targets consider the ability of the project with scopes which directly correct areas with a concentration of fatal and serious

injury crashes, projects identified in the Regional Traffic Safety Plan (RTSP), safety edge implementation, non-motorized

facility/pedestrian improvements, high friction surface improvements, RSA’s, guardrail upgrades and clear zone improvements, and

general safety funds. In both cases, approved systemic projects which support Michigan’s SHSP are preferred8,9.

Based on these criteria the HSIP funding allocation goals for Michigan for FY 2021 are illustrated below in Figure 29, 30, and 31. The

data is based on the programmed project list for FY 2021. This project list is a result of the funding allocation criteria described above.

Funding distribution information below is presented for trunkline – non-trunkline – combined, and by site selection method and emphasis

area.

Figure 29: Michigan HSIP Trunkline Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021

Figure 30: Michigan HSIP Non-Trunkline Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021

Trunkline (74%)

Spot (39%)

Data (0%)

Intersection (31%)

Lane Departures

(31%)

Roadway Departures

(38%)

Pedestrians (0%)

Systemic (61%)

Data (1%)

Intersection (4%)

Lane Departure

(74%)

Roadway Departure

(18%)

Pedestrians (3%)

Non-Trunkline (26%)

Spot (61%)

Data (0%)

Intersection (49%)

Lane Departures

(46%)

Roadway Departures

(4%)

Pedestrians (1%)

Systemic (39%)

Data (1%)

Intersection (4%)

Lane Departure

(74%)

Roadway Departure

(18%)

Pedestrians (3%)


PAGE 42

Figure 31: Michigan HSIP Total Funding Allocation Goals for FY 2021

Since funding and projects for FY 2021 in Michigan are already programmed, a target future funding allocation distribution goal is

presented based on the analysis provided in prior sections. This distribution is presented as guidance and data should be continuously

reviewed to address the changing safety needs. The information is presented in terms of spot vs systemic improvements and by emphasis

areas. The emphasis area categories are based on emphasis areas identified through historical HSIP funded projects and are not

necessarily encompassing of all emphasis areas. Figure 32 presents this information.

Figure 32: Michigan HSIP General Funding Allocation Goals

Spot (45%)

Data (0%)

Intersection (37%)

Lane Departures

(36%)

Roadway Departures

(26%)

Pedestrians (1%)

Systemic (55%)

Data (0%)

Intersection (13%)

Lane Departure

(63%)

Roadway Departure

(21%)

Pedestrians (3%)

Spot (45%)

Data (1%)

Intersection (35%)

Lane& Road

Departure (55%)

Pedestrian & Bicyclist

(8%)

Work Zone (1%)

Systemic (55%)

Data (1%)

Intersection (35%)

Lane & Road

Departure (55%)

Pedestrian & Bicyclist

(8%)

Work Zone (1%)


PAGE 43

5.0 HSIP PROGRAMS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES 5.1 SELECTION PROCESS

Identification of HSIP programs, strategies and activities in Michigan are guided with the objectives of a reduction in fatalities and serious

injury crashes, to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving established safety performance targets, and in line with the

Michigan SHSP. The identification of these strategies and corresponding project selection process in Michigan is formalized in a statewide

and local Call for Projects (CFP) process.

The MDOT Central Office manages a separate CFP process for both state owned (trunkline) and locally owned (non-trunkline) roadways.

There is also a funding set aside amount directly for state owned roadway pavement markings and delineation. The statewide trunkline

CFP specifies funding targets for each of the seven MDOT Regions. Funding targets are based on lane miles, traffic volumes, and fatality

and serious injury crashes that occur within each particular region. The state trunkline CFP cycles on a five-year CFP. The local agency

CFP is a competitive application process between all of the local agencies in Michigan and cycles on a two-year CFP. The subsections

below describe the two CFP’s in more detail8,9.

5.1.1 TRUNKLINE

For the state trunkline program, safety funds are administered by the Safety Template Program Manager in Traffic and Safety (Central

Office). For FY 2021, $21.5 M in safety funding was available, of which $16.6 M was allocated to the seven MDOT Regions as funding

targets. The allocations were based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries, lane miles and VMT in each Region. The goal is

that all Regions receive a minimum of five percent of the safety target. The funding was increased in March of 2018 from the original $19

M8.

Beyond the allocated $16.6 M, an additional $3.5 M of the safety funds was reserved by the Traffic and Safety area to apply to projects

in any Region at their discretion. The Regions were permitted to submit candidate projects with total costs exceeding their funding targets;

the central office review team then selected the projects to be funded in each Region, taking into account priorities expressed by the

Regional staffs, and use their discretionary funds to apply to worthy projects that exceeded a particular Region’s funding target. All project

phases; preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right of way and construction are eligible for safety funding8.

In addition to the $20.1 M of project funding described above, in which project selection was approved by central office staff, each Region

was given $200,000 for low-cost safety improvements to be chosen at the discretion of the Region staff. The Regions use this pot of

money for a variety of minor roadside safety improvements which can be performed in a timely manner by state forces or contract

agencies. Individual Safety Work Authorizations (SWA) are the most cost-effective method of funding these types of improvements and

can be initiated quickly throughout the fiscal year in response to safety needs. Federal funds are used for those improvements meeting

funding criteria8.

Once the FY 2021 program was developed, it was reviewed and approved by the Project Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC consists

of Region and Central Office Program Managers and Planning staff who help develop the MDOT’s Five Year Plan for approval by the

Transportation Commission. The PSC ensures coordination between Regions on various corridors and between the programs. In FY

2017 an additional delineator template was created containing $1.5 M per year. This template provided Regions with additional funding

used to install freeway and non-freeway types of delineation8.

In FY 2018, the use of HSIP funding continued in the administration of the pavement marking program. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(c),

HSIP funds may be obligated for any project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity of traffic signs and pavement markings, without

regard to whether that project is included in an applicable State SHSP. Prior to FY 2013 Surface Transportation Safety funding was used

in the placement of pavement markings in the Annual Pavement Marking Program8.


PAGE 44

5.1.2 NON-TRUNKLINE

For the local roadway network, HSIP funds (approximately $15.1 M) are administered by the Local Agency Programs Safety Engineer

located in the Central Office. Currently these funds are allocated to three separate CFPs for HSIP funds which include Streamlined

Systemic Safety, HRRR, and Local Safety. The funds for these calls are categorized as HSIP funds unless Michigan does not meet the

HRRR special rule, and if not, HRRR is used as a sub-category for HSIP projects.

All local agencies within MPO areas must coordinate with their MPO to ensure inclusion of their project in the area’s Transportation

Improvement Plan (TIP). Those agencies that are part of a rural task force are to notify their members that they applied for these funds.

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

projects are included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)9.

Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. Project types may include replacement, installation or elimination of guardrail,

removal of fixed objects from clear zones, traffic and pedestrian signal optimization, installation and upgrades of traffic signals, access

management, horizontal and vertical curve modifications, sight distance and drainage improvements, bridge railing replacement or

retrofit, roadway intersection improvements specifically to improve safety, mid-block pedestrian crossings, improvements to school zones,

shoulder and centerline rumble strips, and improved permanent signing and pavement markings9.

For the FY 2021 CFP, a greater emphasis was placed in the identification of correctable fatalities and serious injuries, both in the selection

and the prioritization of safety projects. In addition, in FY 2021, a small portion of the local safety funds were allocated to five sub-

programs which include safety edge ($500K), guardrail upgrades and clear zone improvements ($750K), high friction surface treatment

($500K), RSA ($50K), and non-motorized facility/pedestrian improvements ($500K). Local agencies were informed that these funds are

reserved for the listed strategic improvements and encouraged to submit conforming projects9.

Typically, only the construction phase is eligible for federal aid. Preliminary engineering costs are eligible for federal participation if they

are projects identified on the Transparency (5%) Report, by the LSI, in an RSA, or in a traffic signal optimization project. Otherwise,

preliminary engineering is not eligible for federal safety funds. Projects are funded at 80 or 90 percent up to an amount not to exceed

$600,000 of federal funding, with a 20 or 10 percent Local Agency match respectively9.

The planning and selection of projects for the local roadway system is similar to that of the state trunkline. The Local Safety CFP cycles

on a two-year call cycle, with the 2021 CFP being programmed in the spring of 2019. All local agencies (counties, cities, and villages)

are able to apply for the funds. Townships and tribal organizations are also eligible to receive the safety funds but must work with their

respective county for submittal of the application. The emphasis of the local FY 2021 CFP was to address those locations with correctable

fatality and injury crashes to support the department’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries striving for TZD. Per the CFP, the

local agency was to provide a TOR analysis showing how the proposed improvement would address fatalities and all injuries. In the TOR,

all crash types and severity levels correctable by the proposed improvement can be included. A maximum of five years of available crash

data is to be used in the TOR analysis. For FY 2021 projects, 2013 to 2017 (or the current availability) crash data was used9.

5.2 LIST OF PROGRAMS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES

The FY 2021 list of programs, strategies, and activities to be used for contributing to a reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes and

help achieve or make significant progress towards Michigan’s safety performance targets in subsequent years is presented below on a

trunkline and non-trunkline basis.

Trunkline FY 2021 list of programs, strategies and activities include:

• Safety – Purpose: Reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on Michigan’s trunkline routes in support of the SHSP. – Cost: $21,500,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Projects selection is based on the state trunkline CFP process for safety. Locations

are identified where safety improvements can be made in support of key focus areas in Michigan’s SHSP. Locations are identified through the latest Transparency Report, high crash lists and maps, safety reviews, customer concerns, and pavement friction analysis. Priority is given to those locations within each region with SHSP focus area improvements which have the


PAGE 45

lowest time of return to address correctable crash patterns. Target crash type, facility type, and improvement type vary by project. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Projects are expected to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on the trunkline system. Determination of these impacts are based on various resources such as the TOR analysis which incorporates project costs, historical crash data, and known crash reductions associated with specific countermeasures to determine the time of return in years. Projects which consists of improvements in the list of approved system-wide fixes do not require a TOR analysis.

• Sign (not funded by HSIP, but is part of the overall safety program) – Purpose: Replace traffic signs every 15 years to meet federal sign retroreflectivity and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices (MUTCD) placement requirements and ensure crash worthy supports are in place. Sign replacement can help reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on the trunkline in support of the SHSP.

– Cost: $16,000,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on signing replacement needs per MDOT region. Facility

types may vary depending on project. The countermeasure includes replacing traffic signs to meet federal sign retroreflectivity and MUTCD requirements. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Sign replacement has an expected overall crash reduction factor of 5% and help reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

• Pavement Markings – Purpose: Deliver cost efficient asset-managed delineation system on MDOT roadways that provide positive guidance to keep

motorists safely in their lane during normal driving conditions and strives to deliver delineation in severe weather conditions. Implementation of pavement markings are in support of the lane departure emphasis area as listed in the SHSP and per future marking retroreflectivity and MUTCD requirements.

– Cost: $23,500,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on pavement marking needs per MDOT region. Facility

types may vary depending on project. The countermeasure includes the installation of new pavement markings and updates to current standards. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Pavement markings such as 6 inch wide edge lines have an expected crash reduction factor of 24.6% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Wider markings, increased durability, and those with wet night-time retroreflectivity have higher crash reduction factors and benefit-to-cost ratios, in addition to supporting connected automated vehicle advancement.

• Delineation – Purpose: Support the strategy of the pavement markings program and support safety. Improved roadway delineation is in

support of the lane departure emphasis area as listed in the SHSP. – Cost: $1,500,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on roadway delineation needs and per MDOT region and

is implemented in conjunction with the pavement markings program. Facility types may vary depending on project. The countermeasures include improved roadway delineation and retroreflectivitiy. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Improved roadway delineation has an expected overall crash reduction factor of 20% and can help reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.

Non-Trunkline FY 2021 list of programs, strategies and activities include:

• HSIP Safety Program – Purpose: Reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on Michigan’s non-trunkline routes in support of the SHSP. – Cost: $7,500,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on the local agency non-trunkline CFP process for the

HSIP Safety Program. Priority is given to those projects and locations which address correctable fatal and serious injury crashes in support of Michigan’s efforts of reducing fatalities and serious injuries in line with TZD vision. The CFP list several financial goals under this strategy which includes projects that directly correct areas with concentration of fatal and serious injury crashes, project locations corresponding to high priority locations identified in Regional/Local Traffic Safety Plans, safety edge, non-motorized facilities/pedestrian improvements, high friction surface areas, RSAs, guardrail upgrades and clear zone improvements, and general safety funds per MDOT Region. Target crash type, facility type, and improvement type vary by project. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Projects are expected to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on the non-trunkline system. Determination of these impacts is based various resources such as the TOR analysis or MDOT HSM Spreadsheet. The TOR analysis incorporates project costs, historical crash data, and known crash reductions associated with specific countermeasures to determine the time


PAGE 46

of return in years. The HSM analysis can be used in lieu of the TOR analysis to predict crashes for locations where little to no crash history exists, for proposed systemic improvements, and locations where additional support of the TOR is desired.

• HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program – Purpose: Reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on Michigan’s non-trunkline routes in support of the SHSP. – Cost: $1,500,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on the local agency non-trunkline CFP process for the

HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program. This CFP is applicable for projects which incorporate proven low-cost countermeasures for addressing fatal and serious injury crashes. These include horizontal curve delineation, edgeline pavement markings, rumble strips, signal backplates, and stop controlled intersection sign upgrades projects. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Projects are expected to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on the non-trunkline system. Expected crash reduction factors are 20% for horizontal curve delineation (lane departure crashes), 15% for edgeline pavement markings (lane departure crashes), 32% for rumble strips (applicable crashes dependent application location i.e. shoulder vs centerline), 15% for signal backplates (intersection crashes), and 30% for sign upgrades at stop controlled intersections (angle and rear-end crashes).

• HRRR Program – Purpose: Reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on Michigan’s non-trunkline rural routes in support of the SHSP. – Cost: $6,000,000 – Methodology and Implementation Plan: Project selection is based on the local agency non-trunkline CFP process for the

HRRR Program. To qualify under this category the project location must be a high risk rural road defined where 1) segment is a rural collector or rural local road and the crash rate for fatalities and serious injuries exceed the statewide average for those functional classes, 2) rural collector or rural local roads that will likely have increase in traffic volumes that are likely to create a crash rate for fatalities and serious injuries that exceed the statewide average for those functional classes. The project must demonstrate a direct correlation to an area related to the fatal and serious injury crashes. Target crash type, facility type, and improvement type vary by project. All projects are programmed for FY 2021.

– Benefits: Projects are expected to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on the high-risk rural roads on the non-trunkline system. Determination of these impacts is based various resources such as the TOR analysis or MDOT HSM Spreadsheet. The TOR analysis incorporates project costs, historical crash data, and known crash reductions associated with specific countermeasures to determine the time of return in years. The HSM analysis can be used in lieu of or to supplement the TOR analysis.


PAGE 47

6.0 PROJECT LIST Table 11 below provides a summary of the projects that are currently programed for FY 2021. The complete detailed project list has been

included in Appendix B. The total amount of estimated project budgets currently exceeds the amount needed to be obligated based on

FFY 2017 in FFY 2021. This amount will allow Michigan to meet or exceed the appointment needed, $58,162,180, for this implementation

plan.

Table 11: Michigan HSIP Project List Summary Table for FY 2021

TYPE PROGRAM, STRATEGY OR ACTIVITY ESTIMATED # OF

PROJECTS ESTIMATED PROJECT

BUDGETS

Trunkline

Safety 24 $28,615,472

Sign 0 —

Pavement Markings 14 $23,210,000

Delineation 8 $329,068

Non-Trunkline

HSIP Safety Program 35 $10,007,939

HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program 12 $1,295,830

HRRR Program 27 $6,948,761

Note: Sign program is not part of HSIP but is part of the overall safety program, thus these projects are not listed.


PAGE 48

7.0 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS The following are the actions that the State of Michigan will undertake to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving the

State’s safety performance targets in subsequent years.

• Because projects in Michigan are programmed up to five years out, FY 2021 HSIP funding is fully programmed including $3.5 million in discretionary funds. MDOT will monitor the funding allocation alignment with the location, type, and severity of crashes per the identified gaps and deficiencies annually to determine if and where adjustments are necessary for the next CFP.

• Emphasis should be placed on countermeasures which are underrepresented, have a high potential for crash reduction, and greater cost-to-benefit ratio.

• Continue to work with MPOs across Michigan to promote Michigan’s goals for crash and injury reductions. • Continue to promote the Local Safety Program application process through presentation to partner organizations, including the ITE,

Michigan CRA Highway Conference & Road Show, CRA Safety Committee, and LTAP. • Increase emphasis on the LSI to assist local agencies by analyzing crash data, countermeasure identification, and to continue

promoting low cost proven countermeasures and improve the safety of local roads. • Provide outreach and training to local agencies and MDOT staff in the use of safety analysis tools such as the TOR form and HSM

Spreadsheet to assist in safety project selection. • Continue to promote Michigan’s Streamlined Systemic Safety Program to promote the availability of HSIP funding to local agencies

which traditionally have not participated in the CFP. • Continue to investigate outreach to tribal organizations to promote HSIP funding availability. • Continue to promote TZD within the department and with statewide partners. • Continue to seek and develop data driven safety analysis tools. • Increase emphasis on non-motorized safety within the department and with statewide partners. • Seek additional funding to address crashes, in particular fatalities and serious injuries on Michigan’s roadways. Funding sources

could include but are not limited to Tribal Grants, other MDOT funding templates, and TAP grants.


PAGE 49

REFERENCES 1. Michigan Department of Transportation. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Manual FY 2018. September 2017.

2. Federal Highway Administration. HSIP Implementation Plan Guidance.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/hsip_implementation_plan_guidance.cfm, Accessed June 2020.

3. Michigan Department of Transportation. 2018 HPMS Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (Thousands). https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_TOTALS_LENAVMT_372811_7.pdf, Accessed August 2020.

4. Michigan Department of Transportation. Asset Management Background: Understanding the Adjusted Census Urban Boundaries. November 2017.

5. Michigan Department of Transportation. 2018 HPMS Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (Thousands). https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_TOTALS_LENAVMTBYNFC_372812_7.PDF, Accessed August 2020.

6. Gates, T., Savolainen, P., Kay, J., and Ceifetz, A. Evaluation of the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Program. Michigan Department of Transportation, July 2019.

7. Carlson, P., and Wagner, J. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wider Edge Line Pavement Markings. Texas Transportation Institute, February 2012.

8. Michigan Department of Transportation. FY 2017-2021 Safety Call For Projects. 2015.

9. Michigan Department of Transportation. FY 2021 Federal Local Highway Safety Improvement Program. May 2019.

10. Michigan Department of Transportation. Highway Safety Improvement Program 2019 Annual Report. 2019.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/hsip_implementation_plan_guidance.cfm

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_TOTALS_LENAVMT_372811_7.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_TOTALS_LENAVMTBYNFC_372812_7.PDF

APPENDIX A – MICHIGAN SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGET ACHIEVEMENT DETERMINATION

OFFICIAL

Michigan Division 315 W. Allegan Street, Room 201 Lansing, MI 48933 April 24, 2020 517-377-1844 (office) 517-377-1804 (fax) [email protected] In Reply Refer To: HDA-MI Mr. Paul Ajegba, P.E. Director Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W Ottawa St Lansing, MI 48933

Michigan Safety Performance Target Achievement Determination Dear Director Ajegba: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has completed the target achievement assessment for the 2018 safety performance targets, based on the 5-year averages for 2014 to 2018. As per 23 CFR 490.211(c)(2), a State Department of Transportation (DOT) has met or made significant progress towards meeting its safety performance targets when at least four of the safety performance targets established under 23 CFR 490.209(a) have been met or the actual outcome is better than the baseline performance. The baseline performance is the 5-year average ending with the year prior to the establishment of the target, which is 2012 to 2016.

Based on the review of your safety performance targets and data, it appears that Michigan has not met or made significant progress towards achieving its safety performance targets. The below table provides a summary of the target achievement determination.

Table: Michigan Safety Performance Target Achievement Determination Summary

PERFORMANCE MEASURE

2014-2018 TARGET

2014-2018 OUTCOME

2012-2016 BASELINE

MET TARGET?

BETTER THAN

BASELINE?

MET OR MADE

SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS?

Number of Fatalities 1,003.2 987.6 964.0 Yes N/A

NO

Rate of Fatalities 1.020 0.990 0.996 Yes N/A

Number of Serious Injuries 5,136.4 5,415.6 5,273.4 No No

Rate of Serious Injuries 5.230 5.424 5.446 No Yes

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries

743.6 746.0 725.2 No No

MICHIGAN HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FY 2021 PAGE 51

If you believe this determination was made in error, additional compelling information may be submitted by May 8, 2020, to the FHWA Division Office for reconsideration.

For more information on the calculations and data used for computing the target achievement assessment, please refer to the guidance: FHWA Procedure for Safety Performance Measure Computation and State Target Achievement Assessment.

Thank you for your efforts in continuing to plan and program safety projects that aim to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on your State’s roadways.

If you have any questions, please contact either Brandy Solak at [email protected] , (517) 702-1855, or Mark Lewis at [email protected] , (517)702-1846.

Sincerely, Russell L. Jorgenson, P.E. Division Administrator


https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/guidance/safety_performance.pdf


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

RLJ By e-mail cc: Dr. Jonlee Anderle, NHTSA Regional Administrator

Jessi Hopkins, NHTSA Pat Muinch, FMCSA Division Administrator Michael Prince, Director Michigan State Police Anne Readett, OHSP Planning and Administration Section Chief Tony Kratofil, MDOT Laura Mester, MDOT Todd White, MDOT Brad Wieferich, MDOT Gregg Brunner, MDOT Mark Bott, Steve Shaughnessy, MDOT Elaine Poole, MDOT Office of Safety, FHWA John Rohlf, FHWA

Brandy Solak, FHWA Mike Ivey, FHWA

Mark Lewis, FHWA Mark Dionise, FHWA Russell Jorgenson, FHWA Theodore Burch, FHWA File Directory: O:\FHWA Records\SFTY Highway Safety\SFTY 10 Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Files File Name: Michigan 2020 Safety Performance Target Achievement Determination_MGL_APR242020


APPENDIX B – FY 2021 HSIP PROJECT LIST

PROJECT NAMEPROJECT

NUMBERIMPROVEMENT TYPE COUNTERMEASURE HSIP COST PROGRAM, STRATEGY OR ACTIVITY

SHSP EMPHASIS

AREA

FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATIONROADWAY OWNERSHIP

SITE SELECTION

METHODLOCATION

Farland Ave Passing Relief Lane 126117 Roadway Add Travel Lane $ 4,623,000 Safety Lane Departure Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Spot Rural

Metro Region Traffic Signal Backplates 128978 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvement $ 94,000 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Telegraph (US-24) Sidewalk Installation 128981 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ 449,560 Safety Pedestrians Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

M-43 (Gull Road) at 28th St Intersection Improvement 129071 Intersection Geometry Add TWLTL $ 1,650,000 Safety Intersections Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Spot Rural

M-156 and M-50 Sidewalk Installation 129137 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ 165,000 Safety Pedestrians Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

M-99 Median Opening Removal 129167 Access Management Access Management $ 1,201,000 Safety Intersections Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Spot Rural

I-96 Median Guardrail Installation 129168 Roadside Cable Barrier $ 651,000 Safety Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Interstate State Highway Agency Spot Urban

M-53 at Dryden Rd Signal Modernization and Dilemma Zone 129186 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvement $ 316,600 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Urban

M-47 at Tittabawassee Rd Signal Modernization 129228 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvement $ 317,000 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Urban

M-13 at Beaver Rd Signal Modernization and Intersection Improvements 129229 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvement $ 475,000 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Urban

Superior Region Sinusoidal Rumble Strips on Narrow HMA Shoulders 132465 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 1,314,160 Safety Roadway Departure Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Metro Region Installation of Sign Support Reflective Panels 132599 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvement $ 1,217,700 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

M-32 Lane Departure Mitigation 132601 Roadway Signs and Traffic Control Sign Upgrades $ 964,857 Safety Roadway Departure Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Metro Region Retrofit Shoulder Corrugations 132615 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 2,955,690 Safety Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

I-275 Median Cable Barrier Installation 201937 Roadside Cable Barrier $ 1,729,000 Safety Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Interstate State Highway Agency Spot Urban

M-55 and US-131 Delineation Installation 201952 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 209,068 Delineation Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Rural

M-53 Median Cable Barrier Installation 201987 Roadside Cable Barrier $ 2,849,000 Safety Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Urban

Clinton County Median Cable Barrier 204947 Roadside Cable Barrier $ 2,612,000 Safety Roadway Departure Principal Arterial-Interstate State Highway Agency Spot Urban

US-127 at US-223 Roundabout 204949 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 1,580,724 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Rural

M-17 Sidewalk Installation 205833 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ 255,306 Safety Pedestrians Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

M-43,I-69BL, and I-96BL Sidewalk Installation 206504 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ 178,000 Safety Pedestrians Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Holiday Rd Median Island Installation 207196 Roadway Roadway Reconfiguration $ 1,834,415 Safety Lane Departure Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Rural

Bay Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207279 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 3,210,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Bay Special Pavt Mrkg 207281 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 580,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Grand Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207283 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 3,050,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Grand Special Pavt Mrkg 207284 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 490,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Metro Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207286 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 2,880,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Metro Special Pavt Mrkg 207287 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 1,230,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

North Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207288 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 2,270,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

North Special Pavt Mrkg 207291 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 520,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Southwest Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207293 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 2,180,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Southwest Special Pavt Mrkg 207295 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 340,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Superior Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207296 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 2,360,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Superior Special Pavt Mrkg 207297 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 540,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

University Longitudinal Pavt Mrkg 207299 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 2,940,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

University Special Pavt Mrkg 207302 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 620,000 Pavement Markings Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Bay Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207305 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 22,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Grand Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207306 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 16,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Metro Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207311 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 25,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

North Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207312 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 16,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Southwest Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207313 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 11,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Superior Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207314 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 16,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

University Pavt Mrkg Retroreflectivity Readings and Condition Assessment 207315 Roadway Delineation Delineation $ 14,000 Delineation Lane Departure Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

M-64 Grading and 8 ft Wide HMA Shoulder Install 209385 Shoulder Treatments Widen Shoulder $ 389,668 Safety Roadway Departure Minor Arterial State Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Statewide Traffic Safety Engineering for Local Agency FY 2021-2023 210152 Non-infrastructure Training and workforce development $ 50,000 Safety Data Multiple/Varies State Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

US-31 at M-22 Roundabout 210154 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 742,792 Safety Intersections Principal Arterial-Other State Highway Agency Spot Rural

TRUNKLINE


PROJECT NAMEPROJECT

NUMBERIMPROVEMENT TYPE COUNTERMEASURE HSIP COST PROGRAM, STRATEGY OR ACTIVITY

SHSP EMPHASIS

AREA

FUNCTIONAL

CLASSIFICATIONROADWAY OWNERSHIP

SITE SELECTION

METHODLOCATION

Evergreen Rd 200117 Roadway Signs and Traffic Control Curve Warning $ 104,500 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

North Ave at Emmett St 207445 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Minor Arterial City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Colony Rd 209075 Access Management Access Management $ 475,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Spicerville Hwy 209942 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrians and Bicyclists $ 136,000 HSIP Safety Program Pedestrians Major Collector City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Wood St at Sam's Way 210234 Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment $ 145,962 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Sidney Rd 210236 Shoulder Treatments Widen Shoulder $ 429,115 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

County Rd 582 at Amy School Rd 210237 Intersection Geometry Intersection Geometrics $ 145,826 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Federal Rd 210243 Shoulder Treatments Widen Shoulder $ 315,350 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

County Rd 612 210245 Alignment Vertical Alignment $ 627,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Waldo Rd at Monroe Rd 210252 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 637,500 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Airport Rd 210306 Non-infrastructure Road Safety Audits $ 16,000 HSIP Safety Program Data Principal Arterial-Other County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Hinckley Blvd at Badgley Rd and Hinckley Blvd at Browns Lake Rd 210307 Non-infrastructure Road Safety Audits $ 16,000 HSIP Safety Program Data Minor Arterial County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Reynolds Rd at Cinder Rd and Grace Rd at Pond Rd 210314 Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Flashers $ 58,050 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

6 Mile Rd 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 101,508 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Local County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

8 Mile Rd 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 46,585 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Hutchinson Rd 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 160,262 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Local County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

K Dr S 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 70,513 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

McAllister Rd 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 51,178 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Meachem Rd (U Drive N) 210338 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 33,901 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Minor Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

County Rd 426 210339 Shoulder Treatments Widen Shoulder $ 361,221 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

County Rd 607 (Bass Lake Rd) 210341 Roadside Barrier $ 224,216 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

County Rd 581 210342 Alignment Vertical Alignment $ 477,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

South Dearing Rd at McCain Rd 210343 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 294,205 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Mayfield Rd 210344 Intersection Geometry Intersection Geometrics $ 150,888 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Local County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Horizontal Curve Signing 210349 Roadway Signs and Traffic Control Curve Warning $ 31,500 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural




Division Dr 210358 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 42,217 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Homer Rd (22 1/2 Mile / 23 Mile Rd) 210358 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 71,161 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

S County Line Rd 210358 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 8,954 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Minor Collector County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

H-33 (Manistique Lakes Rd) 210359 Shoulder Treatments Widen Shoulder $ 537,142 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Gratiot Rd at Palms Rd 210362 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Constantine Rd 210363 Roadway Add Travel Lanes $ 283,500 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Local County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Countywide 210364 Roadside Fixed Object Removal $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Dexter Townhall Rd 210365 Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment $ 281,329 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Horizontal Curve Signing 210372 Roadway Signs and Traffic Control Curve Warning $ 99,000 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Sinusoidal Centerline Rumble Strips 210375 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 187,258 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Signal Backplates 210378 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 176,040 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Dual Stop and Stop Ahead Signs 210382 Intersection Traffic Control Sign Upgrades $ 90,000 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Horizontal Curve Signing 210382 Roadway Signs and Traffic Control Curve Warning $ 176,400 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Edgeline Pavement Markings 210386 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 58,687 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Edgeline Pavement Markings 210386 Roadway Delineation Pavement Markings $ 139,899 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Dual Stop and Stop Ahead Signs 210388 Intersection Traffic Control Sign Upgrades $ 200,000 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Centerline Rumble Strips 210391 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 51,941 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Signal Backplates 210393 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 33,300 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Sinusoidal Shoulder Rumble Strips 210394 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 51,805 HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

Indian Rd 210414 Roadside Barrier $ 110,700 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Local County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Countywide Guardrail 210416 Roadside Barrier $ 477,888 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Rural

Countywide 210431 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 82,800 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Ballenger Hwyighway 210433 Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment $ 270,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Minor Arterial County Highway Agency Spot Urban

McCandlish Rd at Vassar Rd 210434 Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Flashers $ 20,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Major Collector County Highway Agency Spot Multiple/Varies

Wisner St at Argyle St, North St, and Ganson St 210435 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Principal Arterial-Other City or Municipal Highway Agency Systemic Urban

U Ave, Portage Rd 210438 Intersection Geometry Add Turn Lanes $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Minor Arterial County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Eastern Ave South (2) 210439 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 302,400 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies City or Municipal Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Eastern Ave North, Hall St at Madison Ave 210441 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 486,900 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Minor Arterial City or Municipal Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Pedestrian Improvements 210444 Pedestrians and Bicyclists Pedestrians and Bicyclists $ 261,855 HSIP Safety Program Pedestrians Multiple/Varies City or Municipal Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Grand River Ave at Dorr Rd 210445 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 148,500 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Latson Rd at Golf Club Rd 210471 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 180,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Urban

NON-TRUNKLINE


10 Mile Rd 210472 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Minor Arterial City or Municipal Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Countywide (Southern) - 8 Intersections 210473 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 508,540 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Countywide (Northern) - 6 Intersections 210474 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 464,584 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Urban

Clarkston Rd 210476 Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment $ 273,341 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Minor Arterial County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Baldwin Road Curve at Indianwood Rd 210477 Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment $ 166,675 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Minor Arterial County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Sashabaw Rd at Oakhilll Rd 210478 Intersection Traffic Control Roundabout $ 600,000 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Urban

Helmer Lake Rd 210479 Roadway Add Travel Lanes $ 240,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Local County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Kneeland Rd at Perry Creek and at Unnamed Tributary 210481 Roadside Barrier $ 80,000 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Local County Highway Agency Spot Rural

Old 27 South and Old 76 210482 Roadside Barrier $ 102,105 HSIP Safety Program Roadway Departure Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Systemic Multiple/Varies

E McNichols Rd / Schoenherr St 210483 Roadway Roadway Reconfiguration $ 297,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Plymouth Rd 210485 Roadway Rumble Strips $ 495,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Principal Arterial-Other City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Burt Rd 210492 Roadway Roadway Reconfiguration $ 270,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Multiple/Varies City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Cadieux Rd, Morang Ave 210494 Roadway Roadway Reconfiguration $ 459,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Minor Arterial City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

Hubbell Ave 210495 Roadway Roadway Reconfiguration $ 297,000 HSIP Safety Program Lane Departure Minor Arterial City or Municipal Highway Agency Spot Urban

McNichols Rd (6 Mile Rd) at Hubbell Rd 210496 Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Signal Improvements $ 180,463 HSIP Safety Program Intersections Multiple/Varies County Highway Agency Spot Urban


APPENDIX C – HSIP SAFETY NEWSLETTER TARGET SETTING

July 2020

TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In March 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published in the Federal Register (81 FR 13722) a final rule revising 23 CFR part 924 and 23 U.S.C. 148 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to incorporate new statutory requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The HSIP focuses on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through targeted investment in infrastructure programs and projects to improve safety.

On the same date, FHWA published a companion Safety Performance Management (Safety PM) final rule (81 FR 13881) to support national safety goals and carryout the HSIP. The safety PM final rule has been codified in a new regulation 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart B. The purpose of the Safety PM is to improve transparency through use of a public reporting system using common data standards and elements, and aggregating progress toward the national goal of reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The five safety performance measures identified in the regulation are applicable to all public roads regardless of jurisdiction.

In 2018, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the final Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grants Program (83 FR 3466) and updated Highway Safety Plan (HSP) requirements. The purpose of the safety grants is to focus investments on reducing fatalities, injuries, and economic loss resulting from vehicle crashes through behavioral traffic safety programs.

The FHWA and NHTSA coordinated the final rules to identify three common performance measures (1 through 3 below) for which the annual performance targets must be identical as reported in the HSIP and HSP. The measures/targets are reported as five-year rolling averages.

1. Number of Fatalities

2. Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

3. Number of Serious Injuries

4. Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT

5. Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

TARGET SETTING COORDINATION

The 23 CFR Part 490, Subpart B communicates the process for which State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are to establish and report on the five HSIP safety targets, and the criteria FHWA will use to assess whether State DOTs have met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety targets.

With three common safety performance measures that must have identical targets reported in the annual HSIP and HSP, establishing targets is a coordinated effort between the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), the Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety Planning (MSP-OHSP), and Michigan Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The coordination and target requirements promotes working collaboratively to achieve the targets.

The annual timeline for establishing and reporting targets is as follows:

April/May: One or more coordination sessions between MDOT and MTPA members to develop safety targets for the next calendar year.

July 1: MSP-OHSP reports targets for the next calendar year to NHTSA through the HSP, including “identical” targets for the three common performance measures.

August 31: MDOT reports targets for the next calendar year to FHWA through the HSIP.

February 27 (following year): MPOs report targets for the current calendar year to MDOT. Refer to the MPO section for details regarding MPO target elections and reporting. MDOT must provide FHWA MPO targets, upon request. [Regulation Timeline: August 31 + 180 Days]

Annual targets should support the Long-Range Transportation Plan and Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) goals.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/15/2016-05190/highway-safety-improvement-program


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/part-924

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/15/2016-05202/national-performance-management-measures-highway-safety-improvement-program

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/part-490/subpart-B

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/part-490/subpart-B

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/25/2018-01266/uniform-procedures-for-state-highway-safety-grant-programs

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

2

MPO TARGET SETTING

The MPO must report their safety targets to MDOT by February 27 of the year following MDOT reporting the State safety targets to FHWA (August 31 + 180 days). The target establishment and reporting process for MPOs was jointly developed, documented, and mutually agreed upon by the MPO and MDOT.

The MPO must establish annual targets for each of the five measures by either (1) agreeing to plan and program projects so that they contribute toward the accomplishment of the State safety target for that performance measure, or (2) committing to a quantifiable target for that performance measure for their metropolitan planning area. For each of the five measures, the MPO can make different elections to agree to support the State’s targets or establish a quantifiable target.

MPOs must also report safety targets in their System Performance Report.

TARGET ACHIEVEMENT, CONSEQUENCE/PENALTY

FHWA will determine whether a State has met or made significant progress at the end of the following calendar year when target-year data is available and will report findings to the State and the public. A State is considered to have met or made progress when at least four out of five safety targets are met, or the actual safety performance is better than the baseline performance for the period for four out of five measures.

If the State did not meet or make significant progress toward targets, the State (MDOT) must (1) submit an HSIP Implementation Plan (consequence) and (2) use obligation authority equal to or greater than the HSIP apportionment for the prior year only for highway safety improvement projects (penalty). There is no federal- or state-imposed consequence or penalty for an MPO that does not demonstrate they have met or made significant progress toward target achievement.

2021 MICHIGAN SAFETY TARGETS

Existing Trend The first step in developing annual safety targets is to establish the 5-year rolling average baseline trend. FHWA prescribes the calculation as follows: For each measure, sum the most recent five consecutive years actual performance, ending in the year the targets for the next year are being developed, divide by five, and round to the tenth decimal place. For each rate measure, first calculate the number of fatalities or serious injuries per 100 million VMT, then divide by five, and round to the thousandth decimal place. Data for calculation: The Fatalities Analysis Report System (FARS) is to be used for fatality related measures, and the State of Michigan Crash database is used for serious injury related measures. The VMT is calculated annually from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).

Exogenous Factors The next step in the target development process is to consider how exogenous factors influence/impact traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The respective parties have agreed to utilize a fatality prediction model developed and maintained by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The UMTRI model relies on results of a completed research report titled Identification of Factors Contributing to the Decline of Traffic Fatalities in the United States, which was completed as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program project 17-67 (presentation). The model, predicting the change in counts of fatalities, relies on the correlation between traffic crashes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and risk. UMTRI identified four factors that can influence the outcome: the economy, safety and capital expenditures, vehicle safety, and safety regulations. Within the model, economic factors such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, median annual income, the unemployment rate among 16 to 24-year old’s, and alcohol consumption had the greatest impact at approximately 85 percent. Preliminary findings indicate individual acceptance of

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25590/identification-of-factors-contributing-to-the-decline-of-traffic-fatalities-in-the-united-states-from-2008-to-2012



http://scohts.transportation.org/Documents/Wunderlich_17-67%20Briefing%20DRAFT%20final.pptx

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

3

risk appears to have a greater impact on the number of fatalities and serious injuries than fluctuations in traffic volume. In other words, the better the economy, the greater the level of risk individuals are willing to take.

2020-2021 Target Overview To determine a forecasted value for the five-year rolling average for the first four measures listed above, the decision was made to use the change model created by UMTRI used for establishing previous targets. UMTRI predicts 886 fatalities in CY 2020, and 967 in 2021. The change model predicts change in fatalities from the previous year based on several predictors. This log-change regression model is tied closely to whatever happened recently, so it cannot diverge very far from the current time unless we predict many years out into the future. The change model predicts a steady (slow) decrease in fatalities. The dataset is a collection of differences from one year to the next within the state, expressed as a percentage of the previous year. Thus, the predictors can influence exposure and/or risk. Alternatively, the count model directly predicts counts so it could diverge from observed by a lot if the patterns change in the real world. Based on known factors the count model shows a steady increase in fatalities through 2025. As this is not what is expected the change model was selected in developing the targets. While serious injuries have fluctuated over the past several years, the linear relationship of the ratio of serious injuries and fatalities (A/K) going back to 2003 is still evident. However, this trend suggests a greater reduction in serious injuries than being observed. Therefore, a linear model using the last eight years of data was used which projects a flattening pattern. The model predicts 4,960 serious injuries in CY 2020, and 5,409 in 2021. VMT values have been predicted for CYs 2019, 2020 and 2021. VMT estimates for CY 2020 are reduced due to COVID-19. Using the fatal and serious injury values, along with the respective predicted VMT, the forecasted fatality rates are 1.040 for CY 2020, and 0.945 for CY 2021, and annual serious injury rates of 5.822 for CY 2020, and 5.287 for CY 2021. Results

from the UMTRI model (the fatality and serious injury relationship) were also used to generate non-motorized forecasted annual values of 714 for CY 2020, and 799 for CY 2021. The above annual forecasted values for CY 2020 and CY 2021 along with the actual values from CY 2017 to 2019 to determine the 2021 Targets (five-year rolling average) are shown in the 2021 Target Summary table. In addition, actual values dating back to CY 2011 are included as part of the determination of the 2019 baseline condition.

2021 Predictions (Targets)

Number of Fatalities

968.6

Rate of Fatalities per 100M VMT

0.982

Number of Serious Injuries

5,533.6

Rate of Serious Injuries per 100M VMT

5.609

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

771.2

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

While MDOT and MSP are responsible for setting the targets in collaboration with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), traffic fatalities and serious injuries are a State of Michigan issue that requires awareness and intentional action from all levels of government and the public to change the overall safety culture. Over 90 percent of fatal crashes are the result of human behavior and the most effective safety feature is changing user behavior to be more risk adverse. Crashes are not accidents. Michigan’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the blueprint for addressing both fatalities and serious injuries. Under the guidance of the Governors Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) the SHSP has adopted the vision of Toward Zero Deaths. The strategy is a statewide campaign to positively enhance road user’s behavior and safety. Nearly 1,000 people do not return home in Michigan annually due to traffic crashes. The TZD strategy invokes enhancing driver

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/SHSP_2019-2022_22_web_no_draft_678858_7.pdf

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

4

education, emergency response, enforcement, engineering, policy, communications, and other efforts that will move Michigan closer to zero facilities. By incorporating safety into all facets of transportation, Michigan can achieve this vision. But to get there the GTSAC has adopted interim goals to reach every four years. To carry forth the SHSP is focused on four broad emphasis areas:

1. High-Risk Behaviors 2. At-Risk Road Users 3. Engineering Infrastructure 4. System Administration

Within these emphasis areas, 11 action teams provide more targeted guidance on area-specific safety issues. Structuring these action teams under the broad umbrella of these four emphasis areas creates efficiencies given the degree of overlap amongst the teams. Updated goals, strategies, objectives, and activities for each are based on current traffic crash data. More information on the GTSAC and the SHSP can be found at the GTSAC website. All citizens of Michigan are welcome and encouraged to participate in the action teams and attend the annual Safety Summit to learn more about the SHSP and what part they can play in changing the safety culture of Michigan. MDOT offers scholarships for local officials and MPOs to attend the summit. Michigan is committed to the goal of reducing traffic crashes and resulting injuries and fatalities. MDOT implements countermeasures such as intersection-related improvements including signalization and geometric changes by converting traditional intersections to roundabouts where feasible. Other improvements include converting four-lane roadways to three lanes, restriping improvements, the installation of centerline and shoulder rumble strips, guardrail upgrades, clear zone improvements, delineation, signing and other projects that target locations that have experienced fatal and incapacitating injury crashes. These projects, along with other research and systemic and systematic safety improvements, including safety funding for local agencies for road safety audits, have provided the foundation for deeper understanding of crash characteristics and prospective countermeasures.

Regarding the numbers, annual fatalities have decreased from 1,031 in 2017 to 985 in 2019 (as reported by FARS). This is reflected in the five-year average or target of 968.6 for 2021. For the same time serious injuries have decreased from 6,084 to 5,629 and is reflected in the five-year target of 5,533.6. Below is a chart comparing the targets since their inception. In addition, the crash data for 2014 to 2019 are shown. Imagine what these could be if all participated in driving the numbers down.

Targets as reported to FHWA for the respective year

Reference:

Safety Performance Measure Final Rule

HSIP Final Rule

Planning Final Rule

NHTSA Uniform Procedures for Safety Highway Safety Grants Program Final Rule

FHWA Procedure for Safety Performance Measure Computation and State Target Achievement Assessment

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

FARS

Michigan Traffic Crash Facts

Highway Safety Improvement Program/ Dashboard

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/15/2016-05202/national-performance-management-measures-highway-safety-improvement-program


https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11964/statewide-and-nonmetropolitan-transportation-planning-metropolitan-transportation-planning

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-01-25/pdf/2018-01266.pdf

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-01-25/pdf/2018-01266.pdf




https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/SHSP_2019-2022_22_web_no_draft_678858_7.pdf

https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars

https://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

5

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

6

SpanglerH

Text Box


JULY 2020

7

SpanglerH

Text Box
