Page 1 of 67

GEORGIA
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 67

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 26

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 26

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 29

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 39

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 39

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 52

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 54

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 56

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 56

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 57

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 61

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 62
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 67

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.” 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 67

Executive Summary

The purpose of the Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to provide for a continuous and 

systematic procedure that identifies and reviews specific traffic safety issues around the state to identify 

locations with potential for improvement. The ultimate goal of the HSIP process is to reduce the number of 

crashes, injuries and fatalities by eliminating certain predominant types of crashes through the implementation 

of engineering solutions. 

Each year, the Department sets aside safety funding to implement safety projects. The total Highway Safety 

Improvement Program allocated approximately $ 103,820,000 in highway safety funds during Fiscal Year 2017. 

This past year, 2016, represented the second consecutive year of rising fatalities following a nine year gradual 

decline. Georgia’s total number of fatalities increased 9.1% from the previous year out pacing the 3.1% rise in 

statewide travel. It is projected that Georgia’s statewide fatalities will continue to rise in 2017 and 2018. These 

trends are closely monitored by all highway safety professionals in Georgia and remain the focus of the state’s 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) develops and supports the SHSP. The plan has specific 

Emphasis Area Task Teams that are organized to develop specific emphasis area countermeasures. This past 

year, we launched two new task teams. The Distracted Driving and Impaired Driving teams were started at the 

June 2016 SHSP Safety Summit held at Georgia Tech. These teams have continued their work over the past 

year and remain a critical part of the SHSP and HSIP collaborative.

We have completed our first year of a three year contract with three engineering consulting firms. As part of 

the contract, we are aggressively identifying safety projects to meet our HSIP obligations. Projects that 

comprise the HSIP are usually moderately-sized projects that include intersection improvements, signal 

upgrades (LEDs), ramp improvements, corridor improvements, turn lanes, signage, corridor improvements and 

traffic engineering studies. All public roads are included in one or more of the various emphasis areas of the 

program. Safety projects may be nominated or identified from a large number of sources. One of the most

common methods is by an analysis of vehicle crash locations and types.

Locations reported by citizens, elected officials, local governments, city and county engineers, emergency 

agencies and metropolitan planning organizations are all accepted for analysis. A project may qualify as a safety 

project because of an existing safety problem, because of evidence that it will prevent a hazardous condition, or 

because, it falls into one of several pre-approved categories of improvements that are known to provide safety 

benefits. Examples of this last category include guardrail, traffic signals, railroad crossing warning devices, and 

most intersection improvements. Public pedestrian and bicycle facilities and traffic calming projects may also 

be eligible for hazard elimination projects. Once a project has been identified, a benefit/cost analysis is 

performed.

Every Georgia DOT project is designed and constructed to meet or exceed federal safety guidelines. GDOT 

continues to look for still more ways to improve safety. This past year’s implementation of ICE (Intersection 

Control Evaluation) is a highlight of these efforts. GDOT worked with FHWA using examples from other 

states to develop both a policy and the ICE tool to promote intersection safety as part of all projects. By 

working through the ICE process using the tool, safety is integrated into the intersection control selection. This 

new practice will provide significant safety benefits over time.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 67

Additionally, The Office of Traffic Operations is refining and utilizing our crash data to improve safety and 

reduce fatalities, injuries and crashes. This past year GDOT working with our safety partners updated the States 

Motor Vehicle Crash Report. The SHSP and TRCC Executive Board unanimously approved the proposed 

changes in October. The revised report includes the recommended injury definitions and codes along with the 

addition of latitude and longitude being required for all crashes. Several other items were revised to align with 

MMUCC and ensure proper coding of CMV crashes. 

Cumulatively, GDOT has advanced several initiatives to promote safety on our roads and highways. We are building 

roundabout intersections, increasing the use of cable barrier on divided roadways, raising center concrete median 

barriers, installing rumble strips, installing more retro-reflective signage, applying pavement markings, coordinating 

traffic signal timing, and installing pedestrian accommodations to make our roads safer.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 67

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the Reporting Guidance. Projects identified for 

the program are requested by our GDOT District Engineers, local governments and GDOT Central Office 

Engineers. All ideas are evaluated to determine if the proposed projects fit our HSIP program and support the 

SHSP. If a proposed project is determined to be a candidate for the HSIP it must compete with all other non 

systemic projects based upon its benefit cost ratio. Those projects with the highest b:c are advanced based on 

our available funding capacity. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

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

Within the Office of Traffic Operations the HSIP staff in in the Safety Section

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Other-systemic

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

All project ideas are accepted and scanned to ensure that that they are a reasonable HSIP safety 

project. Projects are ranked using the benefit cost ratio. This is how projects compete against each other within 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 67

the states HSIP program. The state also has specific pedestrian and HRRR projects along with our funding of 

systemic treatments.

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

The state is continuing the high risk rural roads program as part of the HSIP. Additionally the state has an 

established Off System Safety Program that works through the same program coordinators. The Department 

employs District Coordinators that work with the Department's District Traffic Operations and local 

government to identify a group of roads that are not part of the state highway system that have safety 

deficiencies. Once the roads are selected, the list is prioritized and selected by a review team. The cost of the 

planned safety improvements are taken into consideration as well as the effectiveness of each countermeasure. 

The Department dedicates $1 million annually for each of the state's seven construction districts. This money is 

solely used to fund our off-system safety program. Additionally, larger HRRR projects are individually 

programmed using HSIP funds. The work normally consists of installing retro-reflective signage, applying 

pavement markings, installing rumble strips or guardrail. GDOT has recently started programming HRRR 

roundabout projects and will be starting off system sharp curve projects in the coming year. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other-District traffic egnineers

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Georgia’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) involves a variety of internal and external partners at the 

federal, state and local levels as well as the private sector. The SHSP was updated and in place during FY 2015 

with Task Teams developing plans for the various Emphasis Areas. The task teams are comprised of a 

combination of engineering, emergency management, enforcement and education professionals who come from 

community organizations, private businesses, schools, and public institutions. The teams work together to 

establish measureable goal(s) that are designed to improve one or more of the established emphasis areas. 

Throughout the year, the teams track their progress against their goal(s). The teams report their progress to the 

participating groups and to the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS). Also, the GOHS holds quarterly 

Safety Program Leadership Meetings for the Executive Board and task team leaders. GDOT’s Safety Action 

Plan is executed to implement engineering solutions to address highway safety problems. GDOT’s Safety 

Action Plan is a key component of its HSIP and both are aligned with the goals of the state’s SHSP and a 

number of its Emphasis Areas.

Georgia’s SHSP Key Emphasis Areas are as follows:
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 67

Occupant Protection - Seatbelts and Air Bags

Serious Crash Type - Intersections, Keeping Vehicles on the Road - lane departure, Head-on and Cross Median 

Crashes, Minimizing

Consequences of Leaving Road, Work Zones

Aggressive Driving/Super Speeder

Impaired Driver

Age related issues - Graduated Driver's Licensing, Younger Adult Drivers, Older Drivers

Non-motorized User - Pedestrians, Bicyclists

Vehicle Type - Heavy Trucks, Motorcycles

Trauma System/Increasing EMS Capabilities

Traffic/Crash Records and Data Analysis

Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME)

New Team: Distracted Driving 

We also work closely with GDOT Maintenance and District Traffic Operations. As road maintenance plans are 

being developed the district TO teams review sites and plans to ensure signs and pavement marking meet 

current specifications. The TO teams and HSIP/Safety Section work with our Off System Coordinators to 

identify good project locations using the data driven county report cards. Additionally, we work with Design 

Policy to update and refine pedestrian safety through the Urban Design Guide and coordinate these efforts with 

the office of Planning to ensure design elements are incorporated when appropriate. These activities are critical 

pieces to support the goals of the Serious Crash Type Task Team and the Pedestrian / Bicycle task teams while 

promoting the alignment between HSIP and SHSP. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Agency 

Other-Public Safety & Local Law Enforcement

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

In order to execute the Governor’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the work involves a variety of 

internal and external partners at the state and local levels. A critical piece of the SHSP is the HSIP. As part of 

the planning and development of the states HSIP, GDOT works with the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 67

to ensure that the engineering and data needs of the task teams are fulfilled. By working closely with these 

teams, the implementation elements that fit into the HSIP are advanced.

Additionally, GDOT works with local governments, agencies and MPOs to develop the HSIP. The groups 

connect with our Office of Planning, District Offices and directly to the Office of Traffic Operations. They can 

present project ideas, provide studies and relate public comment. Each request is examined to determine if it a 

reasonable fit for HSIP funding.

Over the past several months GDOT has worked closely with the State's GOHS and MPOs to develop the states 

safety performance targets. this process included multiple presentations and working sessions. The crash data 

queries and data forecasting methodology was presented to local FHWA and NHTSA representatives and 

adopted by the TRCC working group.

Over the past year GDOT has continued meeting and presenting the updated crash report that was approved by 

the TRCC Executive Board. Additionally, we have been working with the software developers that service the 

law enforcement agencies. The updates include improved alignment to MMUCC and KABCO injury severity 

coding. These changes will improve the quality of the state’s motor vehicle crash reporting and advance our 

HSIP objectives.

This example highlights how Georgia's safety partners collaborate across organizational boundaries to advance 

safety for all road users. 

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

As noted in the introduction, GDOT worked with FHWA to develop both an ICE (Intersection Control 

Evaluation) policy and tool. For every intersection project, including HSIP projects, the policy applies. an 

excerpt of the policy (below) defines the breadth of what project types will be applicable. This approach will 

"provide trace-ability, transparency, consistency and accountability when identifying and selecting an 

intersection control solution that both meets the project purpose and reflects the overall best value in terms of 

specific performance-based criteria." All HSIP intersection projects will go through an ICE evaluation.

"The ICE process serves the mission of GDOT, which is to “provide a safe, connected, and environmentally 

sensitive transportation system that enhances Georgia's economic competitiveness by working efficiently and 

communicating effectively to create strong partnerships”. In fulfilling that mission, GDOT strives to improve, 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 67

construct and maintain a world class network of highways, roads and bridges.

Improvements to intersections are typically undertaken for one or more of the following reasons:

As a congestion mitigation project;

As part of a broader corridor improvement/widening project;

As a safety improvement project;

As a pedestrian and/or bicycle facility enhancement project;

A change of access to an adjacent parcel of land or land development project;

As a part of pavement rehabilitation or bridge projects.

III. APPLICABILITY

Required. An ICE is required for any intersection improvement (e.g., a new intersection, an intersection 

modification, widening/reconstruction or corridor project, or work accomplished through a driveway or 

encroachment permit that affects an intersection) where one or both of the following conditions are met:

The intersection includes at least one roadway designated as a State Route (State Highway System) or as part 

of the National Highway System;

The intersection will be designed or constructed using State or Federal funding."

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

HSIP Program Final-2016 FAST.docx

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Sign Replacement And Improvement

Local Safety

Pedestrian Safety

HRRR

Wrong Way Driving

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 67

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Bicycle Crashes Traffic 

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

Probability of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 67

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Ball Bank and Systemic

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 67

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 67

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Other-District / Commitee : 2

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 67

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Total Relative Weight : 1

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

Program: Local Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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

Yes
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 67

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Probability of specific crash types
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 67

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Median width 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 67

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Systemic

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 67

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

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

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 67

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

No

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 67

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

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

Yes

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

No

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

Coordination between GDOT District Office and Local Government is used to identify project locations

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Other-Off system route can receive marking upgrades from the off system safety program application

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 67

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

No

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

Coordination between GDOT District Office and Local Government is used to identify project locations

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 67

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

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

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Interchange Design 

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

Probability of specific crash types

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

No

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

No

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

Coordination between GDOT District Office and Local Government is used to identify project locations

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Systemic

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 67

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

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

Available funding : 1

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 31

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-High Friction Surface Treatment 

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

Other-ICE

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

GDOT performs a benefit cost analysis on all non systemic safety projects using the CMFs from the CMF 

Clearinghouse. Also, our safety consultant uses the HSM to evaluate expected crash frequency as part of our 

engineering studies. 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 67

Yes

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

GDOT has been working with our engineering consultants to calibrate the state using our geo-located crash 

data. We have been leveraging the EB method to identify roadways for analysis. To date we have calibrated 

three of our seven districts. We hope to have all seven districts calibrated by the end of the 2018 fiscal year.

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 67

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $68,700,548 $94,413,478 137.43%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$6,299,452 $9,405,348 149.3%

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

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $75,000,000 $103,818,826 138.43%

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

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

$7,000,000

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

$9,676,327

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 67

$0

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

$0

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

It is the state's understanding of the current safety funding guidance that all HSIP funding is to be used for only 

infrastructure related projects/activities. Below is a paragraph directly from the FHWA Safety web site at this 

link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm

"The FAST Act continues the overarching requirement that HSIP funds be used for safety projects that are consistent with the 

State’s strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) and that correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or address a 

highway safety problem. Under MAP-21, the HSIP statute listed a range of eligible HSIP projects. However, the list was nonexhaustive, and a State could use HSIP funds on any safety project (infrastructure-related or non-infrastructure) that met the 

overarching requirement. In contrast, the FAST Act limits HSIP eligibility to only those listed in statute—most of which are 

infrastructure-safety related."

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

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

In the past the state has been challenged to obligate HSIP funds. We were often faced with projects being 

pushed into the next fiscal year because of design, ROW or environmental schedules. Over the past few years 

we have been actively improving our crash data, and we have enhanced project development by executing our 

safety design contracts. This has allowed the HSIP team to actively seek out quality safety projects and 

advance them into the plan development process. Therefore, we have minimized the impact created by shifting 

schedules. This doesn't impact our ability to identify HSIP projects, but it does help to ensure that the 

department has the capability to deliver our annual HSIP commitments. 

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 67

No
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 67

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0001572 SR 

300/US 19 Turn 

Lanes from 

Doughtery Co to 

Warwick

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 16 Locations $80000 $80000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,620 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0002882 SR 155 

FM CR 134/W 

BROADWAY 

ST/SPALDING TO 

E OF I-75/HENRY 

Roadway Roadway - other 5.75 Miles $2521053.59 $2521053.59 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,470 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0007126 SR 3/US 

19 FM N OF 

FLORIDA STATE 

LN TO S OF CR 

219 - 19 LOCS

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 19 Locations $7486679.42 $7486679.42 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,070 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009870 SR 17 @ 

SR 119

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $2860628.68 $2860628.68 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,870 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009872 SR 275 

@ CR 

307/RINCONSTILL ROADROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $260000 $260000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,340 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009876 SR 107 

@ SR 268

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

470 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009883 SR 56 @ 

CR 332/CR 

333/Johnson 

Corner

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,350 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009887 SR 372 

@ SR 369 -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $4438577.56 $4438577.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,110 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009919 SR 81 @ 

SR 162 -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1380000 $1380000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,910 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009938 SR 53 @ 

SR 183-

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $4111547.26 $4111547.26 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,830 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009948 SR 52 @ 

SR 115/CR 

41/COPPER MINE 

ROADROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $510000 $510000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,890 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009950 SR 9 @ 

SR 60-

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $340000 $340000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,880 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0009971 SR 92 @ 

CR 149/ANTIOCH 

ROAD & CR 

308/LOCKWOOD 

ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $340000 $340000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,240 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009972 SR 92 @ 

CR 138/SEAY 

ROAD & CR 

129/HARP ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $380000 $380000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,140 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009988 SR 212 

@ CR 593/SALEM 

ROADROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $620000 $620000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,160 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0009989 SR 138 

@ CR 6/CR 

443/Union Church 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

6,600 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0010121 Ped 

Upgrades on 

Signal ProjectPedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

18 Locations $184025.63 $184025.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Systematically & 

reliably 

incorporate 

proven pedestrian 

safety 

countermeasures 

0010428 CR 

248/LANGSTON 

CHAPEL RD @ 

CR 585/HARVILLE 

ROAD -

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

3,580 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0010939 SR 3 @ 

SR 92

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Locations $2326661.58 $2326661.58 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

30,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0012870 SR 9/US 

19 from CS 

164/Derring Rd to 

CS 3377/Pharr Rd

Roadway Roadway - restripe to revise 

separation between opposing 

lanes and/or shoulder widths 

2.9 Miles $1652259.07 $1652259.07 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

36,700 35 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0013332 SR 22 @ 

CR 740/FULTON 

MILL ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,920 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0013643 I-16 @ 6 

Locs in Dist 2 &@ 

5 Locs in Dist 5 -

Cable Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 60 Miles $6154051.4 $6154051.4 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

19,800 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013643 I-16 @ 6 

Locs in Dist 2 &@ 

5 Locs in Dist 5 -

Cable Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 60 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

19,800 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013646 I-185 fm 

Troup Co Line to 

Roadside Barrier - cable 22 Miles $3620572.25 $3620572.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

21,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Muscogee Co Line 

- Cable Barriers

roadway 

departure

0013646 I-185 fm 

Troup Co Line to 

Muscogee Co Line 

- Cable Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 22 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

21,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013650 I-20 fm 

Walton Co Line to 

Taliaferro Co Line -

Cable Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 41 Miles $4205695.75 $4205695.75 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

31,600 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013650 I-20 fm 

Walton Co Line to 

Taliaferro Co Line -

Cable Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 41 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

31,600 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013657 I-85 fm 

Alabama State 

Line to Meriwether 

Co Line - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 29 Miles $5048348.65 $5048348.65 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

36,400 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013657 I-85 fm 

Alabama State 

Line to Meriwether 

Co Line - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 29 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

36,400 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0013788 Safety 

Project 

Identification & 

Evaluation II

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Numbers $6000000 $6000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 multiple Systemic Touches multiple 

areas

Multiple

0013859 SR 11 @ 

SR 12 (US 278)-

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,620 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0013861 SR 105 

@ SR 115 -

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,520 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0014159 SR 16 @ 

Higgins Rd -

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,010 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015150 SR 

22/US 80 (JR Allen 

Pkwy) @ 10 Locs 

in Columbus - RSA

Roadway Roadway - other 10 Locations $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

64,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015151 SR 204 

(Abercorn St) from 

SR 21 to CS 

1201/Rio Rd @ 25 

Locs - RSA

Roadway Roadway - other 25 Locations $600000 $600000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,200 35 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015156 SR 3/US 

19 (Tara Blvd) 

from SR 54 to I-75 

@ 15 Locs - RSA

Roadway Roadway - other 15 Locations $800000 $800000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

55,900 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0015166 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 57 LOCS IN 

CARROLLTON

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

57 Locations $384045.03 $384045.03 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015167 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 53 LOCS IN 

CARTERSVILLE

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

53 Locations $459524.75 $459524.75 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015168 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 35 LOCS IN 

FLOYD COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

35 Locations $575510.73 $575510.73 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015169 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 13 LOCS IN 

UNION CITY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

13 Locations $114712.77 $114712.77 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015170 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 46 LOCS IN 

BRYAN COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

46 Locations $423897 $423897 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015171 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 9 LOCS IN 

ROME

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9 Locations $201035.65 $201035.65 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015172 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 5 LOCS IN 

CONYERS

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5 Locations $135057.2 $135057.2 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015173 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 14 LOCS IN 

WANYE COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

14 Locations $608468.44 $608468.44 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015174 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 5 LOCS IN 

WARE COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

5 Locations $380444.78 $380444.78 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015175 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 9 LOCS IN 

BACON COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9 Locations $332802.58 $332802.58 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015176 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

20 Locations $211119.8 $211119.8 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

@ 20 LOCS IN 

PIKE COUNTY

0015177 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 71 LOCS IN 

LAMAR COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

71 Locations $211338.36 $211338.36 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015178 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 25 LOCS IN 

CRAWFORD 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25 Locations $758843 $758843 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015181 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 32 LOCS IN 

ELBERT COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

32 Locations $388918.93 $388918.93 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015182 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 15 LOCS IN 

BLECKLEY 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

15 Locations $610578.84 $610578.84 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015183 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 25 LOCS IN 

SWAINSBORO

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25 Locations $335728.8 $335728.8 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015184 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 72 LOCS IN 

HALL COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

72 Locations $165028.95 $165028.95 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015185 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 28 LOCS IN 

LOWDES 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

28 Locations $697609.03 $697609.03 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015186 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 17 LOCS IN 

DOUGHTERY 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

17 Locations $158039.41 $158039.41 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015187 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 19 LOCS IN 

COLQUITT 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

19 Locations $389260.71 $389260.71 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0015188 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 2 LOCS IN 

LUMPKIN 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

2 Locations $327363.73 $327363.73 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015191 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 9 LOCS IN 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9 Locations $425165.56 $425165.56 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015192 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 10 LOCS IN 

WASHINGTON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

10 Locations $779339.74 $779339.74 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015193 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 9 LOCS IN 

JOHNSON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9 Locations $299109.48 $299109.48 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015201 I-95 @ 5 

Locs in McIntosh 

County - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 21 Miles $431729.55 $431729.55 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

51,500 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015201 I-95 @ 5 

Locs in McIntosh 

County - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 21 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

51,500 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015202 10 Loop 

@ 2 Locs in Clarke 

and Oconee 

County - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.5 Miles $2293820.09 $2293820.09 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

34,100 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015202 10 Loop 

@ 2 Locs in Clarke 

and Oconee 

County - Cable 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.5 Miles $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

34,100 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015218 SR 74 @ 

2 Locs & SR 138 

@ 8 Locs -

Pedestrian 

Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal - modify 

existing

10 Locations $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Systematically & 

reliably 

incorporate 

proven pedestrian 

safety 

countermeasures 

0015275 School 

Road Safety Audits 

- CY 2017 - CY 

2019

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

14 Locations $2880000 $2880000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 multiple Other Pedestrians Train and engage 

partners on 

strategies that will 

increase 

pedestrian safety
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

0015299 Flashing 

Yellow Arrow 

Upgrades on 

RTOP 1 Corridor -

FY 2017

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Locations $3712023.28 $3712023.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015300 Flashing 

Yellow Arrow 

Upgrades on 

RTOP 2 Corridor -

FY 2017

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Locations $3029824.82 $3029824.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015359 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 4 LOCS IN 

TRENTON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4 Locations $16867.4 $16867.4 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015360 OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 9 LOCS IN 

DADE COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

9 Locations $286516.71 $286516.71 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Varies 99 55 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure

0015589 SR 17 @ 

CR 156/BLUE JAY 

ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,870 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015590 SR 25 

SPUR EAST 

FROM SR 25 TO 

CR 584/KINGS 

WAY - (TORRAS 

CAUSEWAY) 

BIKE 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

31,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015591 SR 9 @ 

CR 

741/BANNISTER 

ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

4,830 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015592 SR 11 @ 

SR 124 -

ROUNDABOUT 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015593 SR 92 @ 

CR 1374/BUTNER 

ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,110 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015594 I-75/I-85 

@ CS 

3450/EDGEWOOD 

AVE -

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Locations $35000 $35000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

11,800 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Systematically & 

reliably 

incorporate 

proven pedestrian 

safety 

countermeasures 

0015595 SR 9 

FROM SR 9 SO 

TO CS 

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

3 Locations $10000 $10000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

31,900 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

361/WINDSOR 

PKWY - UTILITY 

RELOCATION 

roadway 

departure

0015596 I-516 

FROM CS 

508/OAK STREET 

TO SAVANNAH 

CITY LIMITS -

SIGN UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

53,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Young and Older 

Driver

Improve 

environment for at 

risk driveers

0015597 I-95 

FROM LIBERTY 

COUNTY LINE TO 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

STATE LINE -

SIGN UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

56,100 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Young and Older 

Driver

Improve 

environment for at 

risk driveers

0015598 SR 141 

FROM FULTON 

COUNTY LINE TO 

FULTON COUNTY 

LINE - SIGN 

UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Locations $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

34,200 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Young and Older 

Driver

Improve 

environment for at 

risk driveers

0015667 SR 22 @ 

SR 24

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,120 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015670 SR 15 

FROM JACKSON 

COUNTY LINE TO 

FAULKNER ROAD 

RSA

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $350000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015671 SR 169 

@ RED HILL 

ROAD/RAYONIER 

RD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

2,970 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015672 BROWN 

BRIDGE ROAD AT 

MAGNET ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

2,000 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015673 NEW 

ROAD @ 

HENDERSON 

GROVE ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

320 55 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015674 SR 26 @ 

SR 171/US 221

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,490 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015679 SR 8 @ 

CONNERS RD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $700000 $700000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,910 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015680 SR 

155/CLAIRMONT 

RD @ SR 

236/LAVISTA TO 

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $800000 $800000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

32,400 35 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

BRIARCLIFF RD 

RSA

0015681 SR 

8/PONCE DE

LEON AVE @ 

CLIFTON ROAD 

RSA 

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

35,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015682 SR 8 

/PONCE DE LEON 

AVE @ RR 

BRIDGE TO N 

PONCE WEST 

RSA

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Locations $1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

35,600 35 State Highway 

Agency

Other Touches multiple 

areas

Impacts multiple 

strategies

0015685 SR 42 @ 

OLD BETHEL

ROAD -

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,930 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015686 SR 11/49 

@ SR 

247/HOUSTON 

AVE -

ROUNDABOUT 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

37,000 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015687 SR 1 @ 

SR 520

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

10,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015688 SR 16 @ 

ENGLAND 

CHAPEL ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,470 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015689 SR 81 @ 

NEW MORN 

DRIVE

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

6,950 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015690 SR 22 @ 

SR 22 SPUR

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

17,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015691 SR 54 @ 

FOREST ROAD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,920 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015692 SR 87 @ 

BASS 

RD/AWKWRIGHT 

RD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,900 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015693 SR 26 @ 

ELKO RD 

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,690 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015694 SR 16 @ 

BEULAH 

CHURCH RD

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,500 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015695 RUMBLE 

STRIPS 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 Numbers $3000000 $3000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

consequences of 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 67

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

roadway 

departure

0015696 SR 3 @ 

SR 93

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

8,170 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

intersection angle 

crashes

0015700 SAFETY 

PROJECT 

IDENTIFICATION 

& EVALUATION -

PHASE III

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Numbers $4530000 $4530000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Varies 99 55 multiple Systemic Touches multiple 

areas

Multiple

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 67

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 1,495 1,292 1,247 1,226 1,192 1,180 1,164 1,430 1,560

Serious Injuries 11,729 12,482 12,483 14,756 15,510 17,040 16,168 19,405 18,900

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.370 1.180 1.120 1.140 1.120 1.080 1.050 1.210 1.280

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

10.810 11.440 11.170 13.670 14.600 15.610 14.520 16.460 15.550

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

172 178 192 152 188 209 183 228 265

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

522 528 664 738 878 866 869 1,002 1,002
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 67

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 67

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 67

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

All changes and update are in alignment with the safety performance measures / targets completed this year. 

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

All fatality data was taken from the published FARS data. Because the 2016 data has not been published, 

GDOT used what is currently loaded into FARS.

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

81.8 574.6 1.09 7.82

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

101.8 857.8 1.8 15.44

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 67

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Arterial 147.4 1,195.2 2.72 22.5

Rural Minor Collector 40.2 292.8 0.83 6.12

Rural Major Collector 178.4 1,266 17.37 127.72

Rural Local Road or Street 104.4 897.2 2.53 22.25

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

102.8 1,706.2 0.46 7.66

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

11.6 205.2 0.35 6.14

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

162 3,326.8 1.07 22.09

Urban Minor Arterial 191 3,813.8 1.17 23.23

Urban Minor Collector 0 0 0 0.4

Urban Major Collector 56 1,062.4 0.93 17.68

Urban Local Road or Street 128 2,206.4 0.6 10.43
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 67

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 795 10,225.8 1.16 9.33

County Highway Agency 349.8 4,737 1.12 9.32

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

160.4 2,441.8 0.69 10.68

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 67

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 67

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 67

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 67

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 67

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

State Highway

Agency

County Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

County Highway

Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 67

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 67

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 67

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1593.0 

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

Using 5-year moving averaging method and using polynomial modeling (R2 of 0.99) 

The state has worked in collaboration with our safety partners to establish the 2018 the 

5-year moving average traffic fatality target based on the 2014 - 2018 calendar year. 

Number of Serious Injuries 19643.0 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency Town or Township

Highway Agency

City of Municipal

Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 67

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

Using 5-year moving averaging method and using polynomial modeling (R2 of 0.99) 

The state has worked in collaboration with our safety partners to establish the 2018 the 

5-year moving average traffic serious injury target based on the 2014 - 2018 calendar 

year. 

Fatality Rate 1.320 

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

Using 5-year moving averaging method and using polynomial modeling (R2 of 0.99) 

The state has worked in collaboration with our safety partners to establish the 2018 the 

5-year moving average traffic fatality rate target based on the 2014 - 2018 calendar 

year. 

Serious Injury Rate 16.318 

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

Using 5-year moving averaging method and using polynomial modeling (R2 of 0.99) 

The state has worked in collaboration with our safety partners to establish the 2018 the 

5-year moving average traffic serious injury rate target based on the 2014 - 2018 

calendar year. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 1027.2 

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

Using 5-year moving averaging method and using polynomial modeling (R2 of 0.99) 

The state has worked in collaboration with our safety partners to establish the 2018 the 

5-year moving average non-motorized traffic fatality and serious injury target based 

on the 2014 - 2018 calendar year. 

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

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

targets. 

GDOT met multiple times with Governor's Office of Highway Safety, FHWA, the State's MPO's, NHTSA and 

our safety partners. In particular the SHSP data team conducted several working sessions to review the state's 

data and the state's approach to developing performance targets. In early summer of 2017, the working team 

met with NHTSA and FHWA to resolve questions concerning the the proper approach for forecasting the 

targets. In mid-summer of 2017 GDOT presented the finding and approach to the SHSP Executive Board and

MPOs. 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 67

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

205 209 183 182 174 153 241

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

1,526 1,556 1,362 1,355 1,276 1,271 1,547

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 67

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 67

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

Other-Fatality Rates

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

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

The state samples the effectiveness of the safety projects delivered by calculating the b:c ratios after projects 

have been constructed. This effort is focused on non-systemic programs such as intersection 

improvements. The state challenges our District Engineers to reduce both the number and rate of serious 

injuries. Each district engineer and senior staff engineer has a performance measure tied to minimizing 

fatalities and serious injuries in their district. The district engineering teams and the central office work closely 

to identify and evaluate locations that would be good candidates for the safety program. These locations are 

studied and ranked based upon the benefit cost. 

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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

Each year the state's goal is to complete at least 14 RSAs, 2 per district. this process not only helps to identify 

opportunities to improve highway safety for all users, it also engages a large audience. These participants 

become connected to our efforts to promote safety. This "buy in" fosters a positive relationship and promotes 

our safety program. 

Over the past year, we developed the ICE tool and policy. This change has ensured that safety will be a critical 

aspect of every intersection project. This will increase safety awareness of everyone that plans, studies and 

designs intersections.

Also, over the past year we have updated our rumble strip design details and will ensure that these updates will 

be part of every resurfacing and new construction project let in the next fiscal year. This simple change will 

integrate a systemic change that will have significant long term benefit.

 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 67

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 191.6 1,848.8 0.17 1.63

Roadway Departure 199.4 981.6 0.17 0.85

Intersections 502.4 6,025 0.45 5.36

Pedestrians 188.6 822.8 0.17 0.72

Bicyclists 23.2 100.6 0.02 0.09

Older Drivers 198.4 1,377.2 0.17 1.21

Motorcyclists 142.4 927.4 0.13 0.82

Work Zones 31.2 261.8 0.03 0.23

Data 1,305.2 17,404.6 1.15 15.35
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 67

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 67

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

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

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 67

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 61 of 67

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Cobb SR 360 @ 

CR 809/CORNER 

RD; CR 2083 AND 

CR 811/BULLARD 

RD

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

16.00 14.00 16.00 7.00 32.00 21.00 Reduced injury 

crash

Jackson SR 98 @ 

CR 286/B 

WILSON & CR 

536/KING ROAD 

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

5.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 15.00 6.00 Significant 

reductio

Bulloch SR 46 @ 

SR 67

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

realignment to 

align offset cross 

streets

8.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 14.00 3.00 Significant 

reductio

Bryan SR 26/US 

80 @ SR 30/US 

280

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

20.00 18.00 1.00 5.00 17.00 14.00 43.00 32.00 Significant 

reductio

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

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

No
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 62 of 67

Compliance Assessment

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

 12/09/2015

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2018

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

 2018

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

The SHSP Coordinator and task teams are currently working on the next update to the SHSP. We are setting calendars and schedules to ensure timely delivery of all sections from each task team. 

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 20 20

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 63 of 67

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 64 of 67

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

78.89 78.89 0.00 0.00 45.45 45.45 55.56 55.56 40.00 40.00

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

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

The state DOT is nearing the end of a complete update of the states road center-line model. The state is migrating the data into the ESRI model. As part of the effort, considerable care has been made to document the needs and actions that 

will be met as part of the Georgia DOT Roads and Highways Implementation Logical Roads and Highways Geo-database Design. In section 3.3 (shown below) specific care has been taken to ensure the MIRE requirements have been 

achieved. These steps support the states efforts to met the September 30, 2026 deadline.

"Source to Target Mapping

The Source to Target Mapping spreadsheet shows how the source data tables and columns map to the new tables and columns in the logical model. This spreadsheet can be used to either find one of the new tables/columns in the logical 

model to see what source it comes from, or to find source data and see what table/column it will become in the new model. Note that not all tables and columns in the logical model will be mapped to a source, since some events have been 

designed for future population. This document also includes a sheet which maps the HSIP Fundamental Data Elements to tables and columns in the Roads and Highways logical design. References to MIRE are included as well as 

definitions and comments about implementation."

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Serious Injury No N/A No N/A No
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 65 of 67

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Serious Injury No Any injury that prevents the injured person 

from walking, driving, or

normally continuing the activities that, that 

person was capable of

performing prior to the accident

No 2 No

Crash Database Serious Injury No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Serious Injury No Any injury that prevents the injured person 

from walking, driving, or

normally continuing the activities that, that 

person was capable of

performing prior to the accident

No 2 No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

In October of 2016 the SHSP and TRCC Executive Board voted to adopt the State's new crash report. A significant effort was made to bring the report into alignment with MMUCC. This included the adoption of the KABCO injury 

definitions and values. We are currently updating the crash reporting software and should have all law enforcement agencies using the new crash report by January 1, 2018. Going forward, the state will meet the exact MMUCC 4th edition 

injury definitions.

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

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

No

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

2019

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

Georgia had several accomplishments over the past year. These have been highlighted throughout the report. There are a few other efforts that should be completed in early spring of 2018. Among these are; the state's HSM calibration 

using the state's crash data, the full implementation and use of the new crash report, update of the state's Design Policy Manual incorporating the use of the revised rumble strip details and the delivery of crash diagramming software using 

our crash query reporting format. Therefore, a well timed assessment of the state's HSIP program could be conducted sometime after July of 2018. 
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 66 of 67

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Program Final-2016 FAST.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Cobb SR 360 at Bullard Rd.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 67 of 67

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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