Alabama

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: AL

 
ii

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.”
iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 4

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

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................36

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 36

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 39

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................................................................59

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................59

Application of Special Rules....................................................................................................................75

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................78

SHSP Emphasis Areas..............................................................................................................................79

Groups of similar project types...............................................................................................................84

Systemic Treatments...............................................................................................................................89

Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................97
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) through the Bureau of Transportation Planning 

and Modal Programs, Office of Safety Operations (OSO) is responsible for the administration of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The vision for the Office of Safety Operations is to 

provide the tools, processes and guidance necessary to reduce the number and severity of crashes 

for all public roads in Alabama. 

The HSIP projects are consistent with the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2nd 

Edition, 2012. The SHSP is scheduled for update in 2015. The next version of the 

Alabama SHSP's focus will be toward implementing regional SHSP’s to target the Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs), Counties, and Rural/Regional Planning Organizations 

(RPOs). Specific emphasis areas will be identified within in region to develop emphasis areas 

where proven countermeasures may be applied.

The current focus of Alabama’s SHSP is the “Toward Zero Deaths” initiative. Additionally, Alabama 

has adopted the additional goal of reducing fatalities by 50% within a 20-year time period. Fatal 

crashes have dropped significantly over a the past decade from 2003 to 2012. Alabama has had a 

steady decline in the number of fatalities and the fatality rate during this same period. 

The SHSP has five key focus areas: Driver Behavior, Infrastructure Countermeasures, Legislative 

Initiatives, Traffic Safety Information Systems and Safety Stakeholders Community. The SHSP was 

developed in conjunction with the Alabama Department of Economic and Communities Affairs 

(ADECA). ADECA is responsible to implement the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) programs. The behavioral side of the SHSP is referenced in the Statewide Highway Safety 

Plan that addresses the behavioral safety elements related to occupant restraint use, impaired 

driving, speed, young drivers, motorcycles, and pedestrians. 

HSIP projects have focused on the areas of Infrastructure Countermeasures 

(construction/supportive programs), Driver Behavior (safety outreach campaigns), and Traffic Safety 

Information Systems (crash analysis). 

Infrastructure Countermeasure HSIP projects are developed through a safety and operational 

analysis using crash data statistics, crash patterns, and benefit-cost engineering analysis. The 

projects have been systemicin recent years and have been directed toward specific needs identified 

through data analysis . These systematic projects include Shoulder Widening Program, Interstate 

Median Barrier, and Horizontal Curve Signing.

OSO collaborates with University Research Centers to identify and develop data and analysis tools 

such as the Roadway Improvement Safety Evaluation (RISE) program and ALSAFE. RISE is a 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

dashboard based tool that will provide ALDOT Region personnel with a method for selecting safety 

projects that will be cost effective. This tool will integrate safety needs into on-going maintenance 

projects. ALSAFE is a statewide planning level safety software tool which will aid ALDOT, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) in 

identifying potential safety related activities both human factors based and infrastructure 

based. These tools will be vital in the planning and selection process of potential HSIP projects.

Alabama is developing a process and procedures to implement the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

to provide a tool to assist in selecting and evaluating safety projects. Center for Advanced Public 

Safety (CAPS) at the University of Alabama has a contract underway to develop Safety Performance 

Factors (SPF) for state route segments and intersections while the University of South Alabama has 

a pending project to develop SPFs for the rural roads. The SPFs will be specific for Alabama by 

applying Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodologies to their development. By using these tools, 

the project selection and evaluation process will be enhanced. 

Local roads safety and enforcement programs are included in the HSIP program of projects. Local 

roads safety needs has been emphasized through the development of tools and educating locals 

entities on the emphasis of safety, through Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) at Auburn 

University. LTAP provides both training and practical application of safety principles. The 

HSIP Applications Guidelines is currently being update. This Manual will assist local agencies and 

Regional Personnel in developing safety projects and applying for HSIP funds. 

Law enforcement agencies are invited to participate in HSIP program development committees 

such as Speed Management Studies, and Road Safety Assessments (RSA). Their perspective and 

experience play an important role to targeting effective countermeasures for the safety of the 

traveling public.

Driver Behavior and Traffic Safety Information Systems areas of Alabama’s current SHSP are 

managed by the Safety Management Section (SMS) in the ALDOT’s Bureau of Transportation 

Planning and Modal Programs.

Safety Outreach initiatives are coordinated with the ALDOT's Media and Community Relations 

Bureau, the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS), and ADECA. “Driver Sober or Get Pulled 

Over," “Click or Ticket It,” and “Work Zone Safety” are just a few of the safety campaigns that occur 

during the year. This partnership is effective in presenting safety information to the public to 

focus on reducing the number of fatalities and serious injury, especially during various holiday 

seasons. 

Crash data is readily available in Alabama. Crash data is maintained and accessed through the 

Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) software and its supporting data is maintained 

by CAPS. This interface is used for crash analysis by both ALDOT and local agencies. This data system 

is used to help in the preparation of this report as well as the SHSP. The CARE program is critical in 

the development of HSIP for assessing various safety information. 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

ALDOT has made great strides to develop and implement safety programs and provide public 

awareness but more efforts are need to meet the “Toward Zero Death” goal. This is a cooperative effort 

through partnerships with other agencies and addressing safety elements through the SHSP to reduce 

fatalities and serious injuries throughout the state of Alabama. 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

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 MAP-21 Reporting Guidance dated February 13, 2013 and consists 

of four sections: program structure, progress in implementing HSIP projects, 

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

How are Highway Safety Improvement Program funds allocated in a State? 

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

Local Roads are address through the HSIP by using crash analysis and safety and operations analysis. 

HSIP funds are available to local agencies for low cost safety improvements such as striping, markings, 

signage, traffic signal upgrades, etc. Project selections are based on crash data analysis as well as benefit 

to cost analysis. As this process continues, there is more focus on the system wide or corridor approach 

rather than isolated or hotspot locations. ALDOT is currently developing a HSIP Manual for project 

selection. This manual will provide guidance for local agencies, MPOs/RPOs, and ALDOT Region 

Personnel and focuses on the eligibility and funding requirements for HSIP projects. Training and 

workshops will be provided for those responsible for HSIP program implementation.
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

Alabama is proactive in the development of safety tools such as RISE, usRAP and the use of the 

HSM that will assist in the analysis process for local roads. These programs and studies are being 

conducted by various universities and consultants. ALDOT is currently developing a Road Safety 

Assessments (RSAs) program. A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of existing and 

proposed roadways by an independent and multi-disciplinary team. This program will be available for 

both state and local government projects.

SMS provides cities, counties and other municipalities with yearly crash data summaries, high crash 

information locations, individual crash reports, and other crash-related information as needed. This 

crash data provides information to help identify immediate or potential safety needs. This data is also 

helpful in the selection process for safety program funding. 

State and local agency personnel are presented opportunities to receive crash analysis training for the 

Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) program. This provides an analytical process to assess 

crash data for trends and use as needed. CARE training is held several times during the year. 

Identify which internal partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-ALDOT County Transportation

Other: Other-ALDOT Computer Services

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

OSO coordinates the HSIP program with internal bureaus and sections within the Department. 

A safety program was developed between the OSO and ALDOT's Maintenance Bureau to implement the 

statewide shoulder widening projects on resurfacing projects. The program addresses road departure 

crashes systemwide along rural state routes. The program works in coordination with the state’s 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

resurfacing program and provides two (2’) feet shoulders along routes with shoulder scoring, where 

feasible. HSIP funds are utilized to implement the improvements. The ALDOT Maintenance Bureau 

administers the program and assists OSO in the identification of state routes that are being widened and 

provides input for preparation of the HSIP Report.

ALDOT's Maintenance Bureau is tasked with maintaining traffic control signage in conformance with the 

current MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). As part of this requirements, OSO 

is collaborating with Maintenance Bureau by identifying high crash horizontal curve locations for 

enhanced signage upgrades. HSIP funding will be used to implement this program.

Similar partnerships were developed between the ALDOT's County Transportation Bureau and SMS/OSO 

to implement the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). This partnership was essential in the 

development and implementation of the program. Areas of involvement range from the providing 

county engineers with crash data and analysis, to application development, review, and project 

selection. This "hands on" approach had been successful in addressing Alabama's local roads safety 

needs. SMS provides crash data for interdepartmental use, including Division Offices as well as, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Cities, and Counties and others as needed. 

 

Identify which external partners are involved with Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-County and Local Govt

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Health

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Safety

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Education

Other: Other-Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

Identify any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since 

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Implementing HSIP/Safety Operations Manual

Other: Other-Pending Development of SPFs/CMFs for use of HSM

Describe any other aspects of Highway Safety Improvement Program Administration on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

OSO vision is to develop and provide tools, processes, and guidance necessary to focus on reduce the 

number and severity of crashes for all public roads in Alabama. OSO provides infrastructure road safety 

initiatives and strategies and provides rapid review, response, and resolution to roadway safety 

concerns. 

OSO administers the HSIP program by developing innovative and progressive sub-programs consistent 

with the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The sub-programs are planned by fiscal year 

with available HSIP funding. OSO works closely with the FHWA Division Office Safety personnel to 

expedite funds in a timely manner. 

By taking a proactive approach in administration and planning for HSIP projects and with upper 

management support, OSO manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner. 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2003

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Use of HSM 

methodology

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Crash Analysis

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

Rank of Priority Consideration
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Other 

Projects are ranked by priority 50

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2000

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Division selection of Candidates

Other-Safety and Operations Analysis
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1 

Available funding 2 

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Other 

 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

13
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Other 

Methodology being developed 100

 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-No of lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 50

16

 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 50

 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1996

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-Use of the CARE system

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Data Available Statewide 100

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

 

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1993
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Other 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-HRRRP

Other-MUTCD REQUIREMENT

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 2 

 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 25

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 25

 

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 

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).
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1 

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 2 

31

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/3/1993

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Other-RANKING

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit 

Cost Effectiveness 50

What proportion of highway safety improvement program funds address systemic improvements? 

50

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Upgrade Guard Rails

Install/Improve Pavement Marking 

Delineation

Clear Zone Improvements

and/or 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Horizontal Curve Signing and 

Marking Program

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

Identify any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP that have changed since the 

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

Describe any other aspects of the Highway Safety Improvement Program methodology on which you 

would like to elaborate. 

The Office of Safety Operations' methodology for development of the HSIP Programs is directly 

related to the correlation with the goals and elements in the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. Program elements are focused toward reducing the number of fatalities and severe injuries in 

Alabama. A sample list of projects that are currently underway are as follows: 

• Two Foot (2’) Shoulder Widening Program on the State Highway System 

• Interstate Median Barrier Program 

• Roadway Safety Assessments/Audits (RSA) Manual 

• Traffic Signal Inventory 

• Speed Management Program Evaluation 

• Roundabout Manual 

• Roundabout Conceptual Design on Three State Routes Intersections 

• Roadway Improvement Safety Evaluation (RISE) Program with site identification

• First Responders related to EMS 

• Integrating Safety and Operations into ALDOT processes 

• ALSAFE (Alabama Planning Level Safety Tool) 

• usRAP (Road Assessment Program) 

• Work Zone Mobility and Safety Assessment 

• Wet-Weather Safety Analysis and Site Identification Methodology 

• Horizontal Curve Resigning Program (with ALDOT Maintenance Bureau) 

• Implementing Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Procedures into overall program analysis

ALDOT is making great strides toward implementing more systemic programs and providing safety tools 

for analysis for within the department as well as external partners. The goal for the updated SHSP is to 

target more local entities to assist in the TZD initiative for the state. 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Progress in Implementing Projects 

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 24765699 18 % 27080623 16 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 1098450 1 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer 

Section 164

–

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

111909569 82 % 136683190 83 %

State and Local Funds
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Totals 136675268 100% 164862263 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

1 %

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

0 %

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

1 %

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

period?

0 %
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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

period? 

20 %

Discuss impediments to obligating Highway Safety Improvement Program funds and plans to 

overcome this in the future. 

Alabama has no impediments to obligate HSIP funds at this time.

Describe any other aspects of the general Highway Safety Improvement Program implementation 

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

General Listing of Projects

List each highway safety improvement project obligated during the reporting period. 

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Categor

y 

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AAD

T 

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

Pilot Project 

from Traffic 

Signal 

Inventory and 

Safety 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure 

Data/traffic records

1 

Numb

ers

12112

0 

12112

0 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

SR-195 

FROM MP 

30.4 TO 

35.72, 

WINSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 32378

4 

20889

28

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

299

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-3(US 31) 

FROM MP 

269.51 TO 

MP 271.67, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2 Miles 61849 14843

63

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

359

24

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

NHPP)

SR-9 FROM 

MP 238.243 

TO MP 

243.425, 

CALHOUN 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 25658

0 

17105

30

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

494

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-4 FROM 

MP 176.265 

TO MP 

183.20, 

CLEBURNE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 42478

4 

24071

10

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

194

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-22 FROM 

MP 85.053 

TO MP 

94.102, 

COOSA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 34021

6 

22681

05

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

120

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-9 FROM 

MP 180.91 

TO MP 

188.26, 

CLAY 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 27074

0 

30082

20

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

605

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

COUNTY STP, 

NHPP)

SR-48 FROM 

MP 25 TO MP 

34.3, 

RANDOLPH 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 58918

7 

45322

05

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

231

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-46 FROM 

MP 11 TO 21, 

CLEBURNE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

53310

3 

35540

22

Other

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

306

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-51 FROM 

MP 111.98 

TO 114.18, 

LEE COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2 Miles 37135 92838

5 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP,

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

236

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-4 FROM 

MP 143.673 

TO MP 

148.822, 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 30428

6 

15214

31

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

550

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

TALLADEGA 

COUNTY

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

SR-22 FROM 

MP 109.74 

TO 112.85, 

COOSA AND 

TALLAPOOS

A COUNTIES

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 14537

8 

11762

42

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

328

7 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-6 FROM 

MP 106.89 

TO MP 

115.66, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 30837

9 

31180

54

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

284

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY AND 

OPERATION

AL STUDY 

ON SR-6 (US 

82), 

TUSCALOOS

A COUNTY

Access management 

Access management - 

other

1 Miles 15453

2 

15453

2 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

388

62

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-14 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

9.30, 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

9 Miles 44560

2 

31828

74

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Rural 

Minor 

157

7 

55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

PICKENS 

COUNTY

or other Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial Agency

SR-159 

FROM MP 

0.44 TO MP 

8.70, 

PICKENS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 57223

1 

38148

71

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

192

1 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-159 

FROM MP 

17.38 TO MP 

29. 63, 

FAYETTE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

12 

Miles

80667

4 

47451

38

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

274

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-6 FROM 

MP 179.34 

TO MP 

193.58, 

BULLOCK 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

14 

Miles

16375

43

58483

69

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

114

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-110 

FROM MP 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

11 68945 38303 Other 

Federal

Rural 

Minor 

298 55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

14.127 TO 

MP 24.684, 

BULLOCK 

COUNTY

or other Miles 8 21 -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial 5 Agency Departure

SR-97 FROM 

MP 23.5 TO 

MP 29.78, 

LOWNDES 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 85370

3 

35570

95

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

150

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-106 

FROM MP 

20.63 TO 

26.688, 

BUTLER 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 79412

5 

34527

18

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

164

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-106 

FROM MP 

9.45 TO 

10.80, 

BUTLER 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

1 Miles 40364

7 

17549

87

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

615

0 

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SR-9 FROM 

MP 123.5 TO 

MP 131.275, 

ELMORE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 61940

7 

32518

84

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

666

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-170 

FROM MP 0 

TO MP 11.68, 

ELMORE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

12 

Miles

10696

54

62920

81

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

478

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-87 FROM 

MP 0 TO 

10.34, 

GENEVA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

10895

43

45397

63

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

183

3 

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-17 FROM 

MP 83.866 

TO MP 91.36, 

CHOCTAW 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 10881

1 

27202

85

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

298

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

NHPP)

SR-41 FROM 

MP 47.44 TO 

MP 56.153, 

MONROE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 82604

9 

35965

18

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

199

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-12 FROM 

MP 36.15 TO 

MP 40.326, 

CLAKE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 17733

0 

98516

4 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

153

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-13 FROM 

MP 96.823 

TO MP 

102.365, 

MARENGO 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 25737

6 

17158

39

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

397

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-59 FROM 

MP 80.679 

TO 93.66, 

MONROE 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

13 

Miles

71790

3 

28716

11

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

Rural 

Major 

Collector

100

5 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

COUNTY STP, 

NHPP)

SR-13 FROM 

MP 93.128 

TO 96.835, 

CLARKE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 46283

3 

17141

97

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

424

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-21 FROM 

MP 58.627 

TO 64.357, 

MONROE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 39131

2 

16304

67

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

965 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-47 FROM 

MP 27.454 

TO MP 

30.316, 

MONROE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 17023

9 

68095

6 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

410

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY AND 

OPERATION

AL STUDY 

ON CRNon-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

77384 77384 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

County 

Roads--5% 

Safety 

Report 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

31(SCHILLIN

GER ROAD) 

IN MOBILE 

COUNTY

Other location

DEVELOPME

NT OF 

ALDOT 

ROUNDABOU

T DESIGN 

AND 

OPERATIONS 

MANUAL

Non-infrastructure 

Transportation safety 

planning

1 

Numb

ers

30761

8 

30761

8 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT

ROUNDABOU

T 

FEASIBILITY 

STUDY IN 

SR-79 & SR160, 

BLOUNT 

COUNTY 

AND US 231 

& US 

411/CR-33 

IN ST. CLAIR 

COUNTY, 

AND SR-5 

AND CR-58, 

BIBB 

Intersection geometry 3 Miles 73355 73355 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Classes

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

COUNTY

DEVELOPME

NT OF 

HSIP/SAFET

Y 

OPERATIONS 

MANUAL

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

37310 37310 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT

US ROAD 

ASSESSMENT 

PROGRAM 

(USRAP) --

PILOT 

PROJECT IN 

MOBILE 

COUNTY

Non-infrastructure 1 Miles 20474

9 

20474

9 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

DEVELOPME

NT OF 

ALSAFE: 

STATEWIDE 

SAFETY 

PLANNING 

TOOL

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

32009

3 

32009

3 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

DEVELOPME

NT OF 

STATEWIDE 

ROAD 

SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

19167

5 

19167

5 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT 

FOR HSIP 

PROGRAM
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

GUIDANCE 

(RSA) 

MANUAL

SR-18 FROM 

MP 52.5 TO 

61.6, 

WALKER 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 55876

9 

21020

36

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

105

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-75 FROM 

MP 1.93 TO 

4.93, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 13660

9 

19515

58

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

150

60

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-119 

FROM MP 

27.975 TO 

31.753, 

SHELBY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 18465

3 

15387

73

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

105

95

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-6 FROM 

MP 98.874 

TO 107.19, 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

8 Miles 30018

6 

18761

64

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

307

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

CHILTON 

COUNTY

or other Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Other Agency

SR-183 

FROM MP 

34.782 TO 

42.105, 

PERRY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 44221

5 

21057

84

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

505 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-96 FROM 

MP 15.875 

TO 18.74, 

LAMAR 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 18595

4 

15496

19

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

163

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-69 AT CR65 (BEAR 

CREEK 

ROAD), 

TUSCALOOS

A COUNTY

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - extend 

existing right-turn lane

1 

Numb

ers

64559

4 

64559

4 

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

305

90

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 

SR-216 AT 

CR60(ROCKHO

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add 

1 

Numb

64936

7 

87709

5 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Rural 

Major 

584

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Intersection

s 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

USE 

RD/WOODL

AND LAKE 

ROAD), 

TUSCALOOS

A COUNTY

acceleration lane ers Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Collector Agency

SR-7 FROM 

MP 6.89 TO 

7.175, & MP 

8.614 TO 

8.990, 

SUMTER

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 14434

3 

28868

52

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

292

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-22 FROM 

MP 42.40 TO 

50.22, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY 

(UT)

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 43920 29288

1 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

294

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-216 AT 

CONNIE 

DRIVE, 

TUSCALOOS

A COUNTY

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - 

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

1 

Numb

ers

0 68802

7 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

927

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

SR-8 FROM 

MP 95.06 TO 

99.259, 

DALLAS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 83003

2 

34584

65

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

754

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-14 FROM 

MP 108.171 

TO 114.198, 

DALLAS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 73429

0 

24476

32

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

162

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-6 FROM 

MP 199.75 

TO 205.90, 

BULLOCK 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 89949

7 

49972

07

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

370

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-15 FROM 

MP 105.628 

TO 113.12, 

PIKE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 59325

7 

29662

85

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

264

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

NHPP)

SR-123 

FROM MP 

3.645 TO 

9.455, 

GENEVA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 54512

2 

20189

70

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

240

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-103 

FROM MP 

15.293 TO 

17.463, 

HOUSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2 Miles 12273

0 

81819

7 

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

101

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-123 

FROM MP 

9.455 TO 

12.854, 

HOUSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 30252

4 

12605

17

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

246

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-134 

FROM MP 

68.281 TO 

76.67, 

HENRY 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 62356

6 

31178

30

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

Rural 

Major 

Collector

760 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

COUNTY STP, 

NHPP)

SR-188 

FROM MP 

8.67 TO 

19.687, 

MOBILE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

11 

Miles

93844 22888

75

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

230

6 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-193 

FROM MP 

3.97 TO 

17.803, 

MOBILE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

14 

Miles

15876

6 

24425

50

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

510

7 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SIGN 

UPGRADE 

ON VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS(37 

SITES)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

37 

Numb

ers

0 47614 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Traffic 

Control and 

Signage 

Devices

COUNTY 

ROAD 120 

FROM 

LITTLETON 

ROAD TO 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

1 Miles 0 35172

9 

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

WILLIAMSBU

RG ROAD, 

ETOWAH 

COUNTY

SAFETY 

IMPROVEME

NTS ON 

COUNTY 

ROAD-341 

FROM CR 90 

TO CR-379, 

LIMESTONE 

COUNTY

Roadway 1 Miles 0 26481

2 

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

PAVING 

SHOULDERS 

AND 

STRIPING ON 

COUNTY 

ROAD-63 

FROM CR242 TO CR65, 

WINSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Pave existing shoulders

3 Miles 0 21635

2 

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY 

IMPROVEME

NTS ON CR103 AND CRRoadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

8 Miles 0 11964

4 

HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

26 IN 

TALLADEGA 

COUNTY

SIGN 

UPGRADES 

ON VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS IN 

CLAY 

COUNTY

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

114 

Numb

ers

0 51230 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

TRAFFIC 

CONTROL

SIGN 

REPLACEME

NT ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS IN 

COVINGTON 

COUNTY

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

60 

Numb

ers

0 47069 HRRRP 

(SAFET

EA-LU) 

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

TRAFFIC 

CONTROL

INSTALLATI

ON OF 

OPTICAL 

SPEED BARS 

IN VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS 

IN 

CLEBURNE, 

MARSHALL, 

AND 

Speed management 

Traffic calming feature

1 

Numb

ers

21139 21139 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SUPPORT 

PROGRAM 

(SPEED 

MANAGEME

NT)
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

ETOWAH 

COUNTIES

SR-14 FROM 

MP 65 TO MP 

69 IN HALE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 80667

4 

47451

39

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

218

3 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-95 FROM 

MP 24.323 

TO 32.878, 

HENRY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 88087

5 

36703

12

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

760 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets 

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 1057 999 937 888 864

Number of serious injuries 21761 18757 15705 12949 10609

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.75 1.63 1.51 1.41 1.35

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

36.04 30.75 25.47 20.81 16.63

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2013

Function 

Classification

Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Fatality rate (per HMVMT) Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

46 355 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

1 7 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

86 626 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

79 548 0 0

RURAL MINOR

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

28 199 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 38 369 0 0
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 27 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

69 885 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

40 408 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

10 72 0 0
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Year - 2013

Serious injury rate (per

HMVMT)

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 485 5552 0 0 

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 266 2751 0 0 

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0 

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 110 2336 0 0 

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0 

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0 

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0 

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0 

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0 

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0 

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

Figure 1 Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

72

Figure 2 Number of Serious Injuries by Raodway Ownship
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate. 

Alabama has recently incorporated highway functional class into the crash data system (CARE) for the 

annual years of 2009 to 2013. The 2013 rolling average was calculated for this report. However, the rate 

of fatalities and serious injuries for roadway classification or roadway functional classification are not 

available at this time. 

Application of Special Rules

Present the rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the 

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.74 0.71 0.72 0.79 0.68

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

8.918 8.196 7.05 5.946 4.22

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

9.658 8.9 7.766 6.734 4.902

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.

The number of fatalities for drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age and older from the FARS annual 

Report File and the number of serious injuries drivers and pedestrians 65 years of age and older from 

Alabama’s CARE system are added together. This sum is then divided by the number of people in 

Alabama who are 65 years of age and older compared to the total State population (per capita)to 

determine the rate for that particular year, i.e. 2005.

Example: For 2005: (No. of Fatalities + No. of Serious Injuries) = Total of Older Driver and Pedestrians 

for 2005

 Total of Older Drivers and Pedestrians for 2005 / 2005 older population =RATE FOR 2005

In order to calculate the 5 year rolling averages, each rate of fatalities and serious injuries was calculated 

for each year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Then a 5 year rolling average is 

calculated as below.

Example:

(2005 RATE) + (2006 RATE)+ (2007 RATE) +(2008 RATE) +(2009 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2009

(2006 RATE) + (2007 RATE)+ (2008 RATE) +(2009 RATE) +(2010 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2010
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

(2007 RATE) + (2008 RATE) + (2009 RATE) +(2010 RATE) +(2011 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2011

(2008 RATE) + (2009 RATE) + (2010 RATE) +(2011 RATE) +(2012 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2012

(2009 RATE) + (2010 RATE) + (2011 RATE) +(2012 RATE) +(2013 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2013*

*FARS DATA FOR 2013 IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT.

76

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

What indicators of success can you use to demonstrate effectiveness and success in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

What significant programmatic changes have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 

No significant changes in the programs since last reporting period. 
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

SHSP Emphasis Areas

For each SHSP emphasis area that relates to the HSIP, present trends in emphasis area performance measures. 

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 367 2499 0 0 0 0 0

Intersections Intersection 

Crashes

226 3456 0 0 0 0 0

Older Drivers 74 624 0 0 0 0 0

Data All 838 8436 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

84

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of groups of similar types of projects.

Year - 2013

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Intersection All 226 3456 0 0 0 0 0

Crash Data All 838 8436 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

STATE ROR CRASHES 101 591 0 0 0 0 0

Median Barrier Interstate Median 

Crossover Crashes

7 16 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

87
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic 

improvement

Target Crash Type Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Pavement/Shoulder 

Widening

STATE ROUTE ROR 

CRASHES

101 591 0 0 0 0 0

Cable Median 

Barriers

Intersection Median 

Crossover Crashes

7 16 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

92
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

93
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

Describe any other aspects of the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program effectiveness on 

which you would like to elaborate. 

ALDOT has been integrating the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), GIS and roadway inventory into the 

various safety program to improve safety data collection and analysis. There is also a study on 

"Integrating Safety and Operations into Planning, Design, Construction, and Post Construction 

Operations." This study includes research methodology and data collection , creates an 

environment for integrating operations and safety into multimodal planning efforts, reviews 

statewide, regional , corridor and sub-area opportunities, then will conclude with a final workshop 

and study documentations.
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

none
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the 

Improvements (Program Evaluation): SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

HSIP_Q32N_August 4 2014.xlsx
2014 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

Glossary 

5 year rolling average means the average of five individual, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. 

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.