Tennessee

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2014 Annual Report

Prepared by: TN
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 .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 28

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 28

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 31

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 50

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 50

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 65

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................69

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 71

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 76

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 81

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 92
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is managed by the Project 

Safety Office which is located in the Strategic Transportation Investments Division. The 

Project Safety Office consists of two units. The Safety Data Unit processes crash data and 

selects HSIP project locations. The Safety Project Unit manages project implementation 

logistics i.e. sets schedules for funding, meetings, site visits for Road Safety Audit Reviews 

(RSAR), etc. This report displays the initiation, selection process and evaluation process of 

infrastructure-related highway safety projects. The Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) consists of the following programs: 

Hazard Elimination Safety Program

High Risk Rural Roads Program

Local Roads Safety Initiative

Crash Data Improvement Program

Roadway Departure Action Plan

Shoulder Widening Initiative

Ramp Queue Program

The Project Safety Office manages two other safety programs that are not funded with HSIP 

funds. The Spot Safety Improvement Program is developed by the Regional Traffic Engineer 

and the Project Safety Office. The purpose of this program is to identify and recommend 

improvements to state routes or intersections to state routes. The integrity and safety of the 

state roadway system will be the first consideration on all projects. The Expedited Project 

Delivery Program is managed by Project Coordination and Investigation Office which is 

located in the Strategic Transportation Investments Division. The purpose of this program is 

to identify and recommend improvement options that are feasible, cost effective, and 

provide improved safety and mobility.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

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.

The Local Road Safety initiative was developed for counties with the highest number of fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes per mile of local roads from the available data provided by the Tennessee 

Department of Safety (TDOS) and TDOT. A list was generated by the Tennessee Department of Safety 

(TDOS) ranking counties not wholly located in an MPO based on serious injuries and fatalities per mile of 

county roads. This ranked list is used to select counties to implement improvements. The Safety Data 

Office uses a consultant to assist in the review of statewide local traffic crash reports, organize 

electronic crash reports by date, review crash location and roadway classifications and enter the reports 

into the Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (TRIMS).
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

After the consultant reviews the reports, they meet with the local governments to present their findings 

and potential locations for safety improvements. Next, road safety audits are conducted on the roads 

that were discussed. Then, the guidance from the Road Safety Audits are made into no-plans contracts 

and let to bid as a TDOT construction contract.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-Traffic engineers

Other: Other-Environmental

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

The TDOT Project Safety Office collects and processes crash data, identifies projects and 

organizes Road Safety Audit Reviews (RSARs) for those projects. The TDOT Environmental 

Division provides environmental clearance documents. In the event that a project needs to be 

designed, the TDOT Design Division develops construction plans and provides guidance on NoPlans Contracts. The Design Division is also part of the RSA team that provides ideas and 

concepts during the site visit. All safety projects are coordinated with each MPO and RPO. 

TDOT Traffic engineers, both from the headquarters office and the regional office, participate 

on RSARs and provide guidance, concepts, ideas and history on projects. They also ensure that 

the correct representative attends from the local government. The TDOT Regional 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Construction Divisions provides additional guidance on right of way needs. The TDOT 

Maintenance Division maintains safety projects after completion

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Tennessee Department of Safety is an integral part of the program. Also Rural Planning 

Organizations (RPO) and local governments.

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-None

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

would like to elaborate.

Tennessee has several noteworthy practices:

1. The Road Safety Audit report is written with enough detail that the report itself is used as 

the construction plans when the project is bid out for contract. These are called “no plans 

contracts”.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

2. Several safety projects are bundled together and let as one safety project. This allows 

TDOT to award several projects for construction at one time and receive better bid prices on 

the safety projects.

3. The Project Safety Office and the Environmental Division developed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to expedite environmental clearance on safety projects.

4. The Local Roads Safety Initiative targets safety projects on local roads in rural counties that 

have limited access to resources, only counties, or sections of counties, not represented by a 

MPO. The entire project, from road safety audit review to construction, is completed by TDOT.

5. Since 2008, HSIP funds have been used on safety improvements for resurfacing projects.

Safety improvements include rumble strips/stripes, guardrail, shoulder widening, and the use of 

the Safety Edge.

6. In order to identify crash data on local roads, TDOT updated the Tennessee Roadway 

Identification Management System (TRIMS) to include local roadway data elements. This 

project was completed in April 2012.

7. In 2013, TDOT received a National Roadway Safety Award in the Infrastructure Category for 

J-Turn Intersections.

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

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other: Other-High Risk Rural 

Road (HRRR)

Other: Other-Ramp Queue Other: Other-Hazard 

Elimination Safety Program 

(HESP)

Other: Other-High-fricion 

Surface Safety Initiative

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 9/1/2005

 

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)
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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 

Other-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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).
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity. 2

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2010

 

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? 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

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

Selection committee
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Other-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity 2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2010

 

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
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

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?

Yes
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity 2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/28/2010

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Based on severity 2
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 5/11/2012

 

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 departures Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Shoulder width

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
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity 2
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Other-High Risk Rural Road (HRRR)

Date of Program Methodology: 4/17/2013

 

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
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

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-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity 2

Program: Other-Ramp Queue

Date of Program Methodology: 11/1/2008

 

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 

Other-The intent of this 

program is to identiify locations 

where the queue extends onto 

the mainline.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

20

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-As projects are identified.

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 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ramp queue projects are 

initiated when the ramp queue 

problem is identified.

2

Program: Other-Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HESP)

Date of Program Methodology: 4/17/2013

 

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 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

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
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Selection committee

Other-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Ranking based on severity 2

Program: Other-High-fricion Surface Safety Initiative

Date of Program Methodology: 5/23/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

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

24

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

Other-Number of crashes in 

the curve.

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-Number of crashes on Horizontal curves.

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

Yes

No
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

Selection committee

Other-The projects are developed for all locations that meet the criteria for the 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 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Number of crashes 2

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

25

Highway safety improvment program funds are used to address which of the following systemic 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-High friction surface treatment 

program

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: Other-Road Safety audit Review

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Systemic Approach

Other: Other-None

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

would like to elaborate. 

None
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

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) 123838797 74 % 52346116 56 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 236897 0 % 726747 1 %

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

23975090 14 % 20322081 22 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

17994081 11 % 17293982 19 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

2000000 1 % 2000000 2 %

State and Local Funds
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Totals 168044865 100% 92688926 100%

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

$14,021,633.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$14,021,633.00

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

$7,865,396.00

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

$7,865,396.00

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

period?

$0.00
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

None

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strateg

y

Bedford Co, 

Various Routes

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

3.74 

Miles

96000 96000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Various 

Routes

0 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Blount Co, SR115Roadway 

Roadway -

other

2.58 

Miles

142000 142000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1070 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Blount Co, SR33Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.21 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1675

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Bradley Co, SR2Roadway 

Roadway -

other

427 

Miles

128000 128000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8640 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

154 the road

Bradley Co, SR60Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.03 

Miles

87000 87000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

3242

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Campbell Co, 

SR-9

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0 

Miles

177000 177000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Major 

Collector

880 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Campbell Co, I75Roadway 

Roadway -

other

15.5 

Miles

562000 562000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2848

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Campbell/Coc

ke Co, I-75/I40

Miscellaneo

us 

0 

Miles

1002000 1002000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2750

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Chester Co, SR100Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

30000 30000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3040 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Davidson Co, 

SR-155

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.3 

Miles

10000 10000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

3934

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Davidson Co, 

SR-251

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.85 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2823

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Davidson Co, 

SR-6

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1072

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Decatur Co, 

SR-69

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

117 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1134

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Dekalb/Wilso

n Co, SR-26

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

626 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4680 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Dekalb Co, SR53Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2310 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Dekalb/Warre

n Co, SR-56

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

7.96 

Miles

40000 40000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3610 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Fayette Co, SR1Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control -

other

0.31 

Miles

22000 22000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3430 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Fayette Co, SR15Roadway 

Roadway -

0 

Miles

5000 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

1806

0

70 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

other Section 

154

Other Agency es of leaving 

the road

Fayette Co, SR76Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control -

other

0.14 

Miles

2000 2000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7390 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Franklin Co, 

SR-15

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.3 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

4550 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Grainger Co, 

SR-131

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control -

other

0.35 

Miles

15000 15000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Major 

Collector

1350 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Hancock Co, Roadway 

Roadway -

1.62 20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

Rural Minor 3020 50 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

SR-31 other Miles -

Section 

154

Arterial Agency consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Hardeman Co, 

SR-15

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

422 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1285

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Hardeman Co, 

SR-15

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

422 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1285

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

0

Hardin Co, SR128Roadway 

Roadway -

other

216 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Henderson Co, 

SR-100

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

30000 30000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4130 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Henderson Co, 

SR-20

Roadway 

Roadway -

0.58 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1861

0

40 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

other Section 

154

Other Agency es of leaving 

the road

Houston Co, 

SR-49

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

3.92 

Miles

168000 168000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5650 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Humphreys 

Co, SR-1

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1.59 

Miles

35000 35000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9330 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Knox Co, LR01053Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0.37 

Miles

80000 80000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2568

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Knox Co, SR169Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

2362

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Knox Co, SR-33 Roadway 

Roadway -

0.44 40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

Urban 

Minor 

5520 35 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

other Miles -

Section 

154

Arterial Agency consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Knox Co, LR0D734Roadway 

Roadway -

other

2.43 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Knox Co, I-140 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

5000 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Knox Co, I-275 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.17 

Miles

39000 39000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3030

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Lake Co, SR-78 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

3 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4400 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Lawrence Co, 

SR-6

Roadway 

Roadway -

0.17 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1136

0

55 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

other Section 

154

Other Agency es of leaving 

the road

Lawrence Co, 

SR-6

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1823

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Lincoln Co, SR10Roadway 

Roadway -

other

11.95 

Miles

205000 205000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2980 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Loudon Co, SR33Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0 

Miles

5000 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1354

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Loudon Co, LR01247Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

6490 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Loudon Co, SR- Intersection 

traffic 

0 316490 316490 Penalty 

Transfer 

Rural Minor 6840 45 State 

Highway 

Reduce lanedeparture 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

2 control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

Miles -

Section 

154

Arterial Agency crashes

Macon Co, SR10Roadway 

Roadway -

other

18 

Miles

2000000 2000000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Madison Co, 

SR-20

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1555

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Marshall Co, 

SR-11

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.11 

Miles

5000 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3160 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Maury Co, SR-6 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.34 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

2021

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

s

McMinn Co, 

SR-2

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

2.75 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1434

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

McMinn Co, 

SR-30

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

48 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2167

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

McMinn Co, 

SR-30

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

9020 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

McMinn Co, 

SR-305

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

59 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

8320 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

McMinn Co, 

SR-2

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1434

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

154 the road

McMinn Co, I75Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3821

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Monroe Co, SR33Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1360

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Monroe Co, SR68Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.4 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9750 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Moore Co, SR55Roadway 

Roadway -

other

3.92 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7330 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Obion Co, SR-5 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

615 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2960 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

154 the road

Obion Co, SR-5 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

228 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5430 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Overton Co, 

SR-52

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1390 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Overton/Picke

tt Co, SR-52

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

7.33 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1390 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Perry Co, SR13Roadway 

Roadway -

other

314 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

610 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Pickett Co, SR111Roadway 

Roadway -

other

114 

Miles

313000 313000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7180 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

154 the road

Polk Co, SR-40 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

23.56 

Miles

5000 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5380 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Rhea Co, SR-29 Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0.27 

Miles

50000 50000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1851

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Roane Co, SR70Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

25000 25000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

1241

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Roane Co, LR01203Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

480 30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Robertson Co, 

SR-257

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Rural Major 

Collector

3660 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

other 154

Robertson Co, 

SR-76

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.6 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1680

0

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Scott Co, SR-63 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

312 

Miles

60000 60000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5840 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Statewide Miscellaneo

us 

0 

Miles

31000 31000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Guidance for 

preparing 

Road Safety 

Audit 

Reports

Sullivan Co, 

SR-36

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

30000 30000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2537

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Sullivan Co, 

SR-36

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

116 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2537

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

154 the road

Sullivan Co, 

SR-93

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.25 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s

2479

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Sullivan Co, I81Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

25000 25000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3201

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Sumner Co, SR174Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.32 

Miles

37000 37000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1390

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

0

Sumner Co, SR76Roadway 

Roadway -

other

10.34 

Miles

5000 5000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Minor 

Collector

4100 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Sumner Co, SR- Intersection 

geometry 

0.25 15300 15300 Penalty 

Transfer 

Urban 

Principal 

1136 55 State 

Highway 

Reduce lanedeparture 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

6 Intersection 

geometry -

other

Miles -

Section 

154

Arterial -

Other

0 Agency crashes

Tipton Co, SR14Roadway 

Roadway -

other

4.39 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6090 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Tipton Co, SR3Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2902

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Tipton Co, SR3Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 

Miles

30000 30000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1772

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Washington 

Co, LR-01365

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0 

Miles

40000 40000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

1740 40 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Williamson Co, 

SR-11

Roadway 

Roadway -

0.02 

Miles

206000 206000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3950 55 State 

Highway 

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

other Section 

154

Agency es of leaving 

the road

Williamson Co, 

SR-397

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0.67 

Miles

166400 166400 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

2451

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Wilson Co, SR10Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.06 

Miles

386000 386000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1225

0

30 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Wilson Co, SR26Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

0.47 

Miles

11000 11000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1574

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reduce lanedeparture 

crashes

Grundy Co, I24Roadway 

Roadway -

other

0.42 

Miles

1239000 1239000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3339

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Macon Co, SR10Roadway 

Roadway -

other

18 

Miles

1496098

2

1496098

2

Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Polk Co, SR-40 Roadway 

Roadway -

other

23.56 

Miles

1094000 1094000 Penalty 

Transfer 

–

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

5380 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequenc

es of leaving 

the road

Please see attached HSIP Project Listings.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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 1158.8 1111.2 1041.8 1002.4 993

Number of serious injuries 6275 6242.6 6429.4 6790 7008.8

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.644 1.578 1.48 1.426 1.406

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.9 8.862 9.126 9.636 9.906

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

51
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

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

59.8 275.6 0.69 2.52

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

86.6 417.6 1.59 7.65

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

124.4 680.8 2.5 13.53

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

100.8 567.2 1.7 9.56

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

103.8 576.2 1.75 7.84

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

28.6 392.8 1.1 12.55

URBAN PRINCIPAL 70.2 368.8 0.59 3.11
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

39.8 300.2 2.07 14.74

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

142.6 1344.2 1.32 12.47

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

87 800.4 25.61 9.7

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

22.4 185.2 0.27 2.24

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

43 323.2 1.44 10.86

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

17.4 262.8 0.25 3.81

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 667.4 4450.8 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 146.2 1155.4 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 114.8 1122.4 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

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

65

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

None

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)

405 417 542 544 520

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

15 15 17 20 12

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

420 432 559 564 532

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

Serious Injury Calculations:

The TITAN database was queried for 2008-2012 traffic crashes for person types 01 (driver) 

and person type 05 (pedestrian), age equal to or greater than 65; and injury class code =03 

(incapacitating injury). The number of drivers and pedestrians combined reflects seriously 

injured drivers and pedestrians involved in traffic crashes and constitute the Numerator.

Data for Tennessee population age 65 and over was sourced from US Census Bureau of 

Estimates for the respective years 2008-2012. The respective population estimates were 

calculated in thousands; i.e. 816.996, 837.344, 856.664, 877.625, and 918.507 for the 

respective years 2008-2012; and constitute the Denominator. The Numerator divided by 

the Denominator yields the serious injury rate. 

Fatal Injury Calculations: The Tennessee Fatality and Analysis Reporting System (TNFARS) is 

the source for drivers and pedestrians age 65 and over killed in traffic crashes. The fatality 

numbers for drivers and pedestrians age 65 and over constitute the Numerator.

Data for Tennessee population age 65 and over was sourced from US Census Bureau of 

Estimates for the respective years 2008-2012. The respective population estimates were 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

calculated in thousands; i.e. 816.996, 837.344, 856.664, 877.625, and 918.507 for the 

respective years 2008-2012; and constitute the Denominator.

The Proportion: Numerator divided by Denominator yields the fatality rate. For example for 

2008; fatality rate (per capita) = 135/816.996; yielding fatality rate of 0.1652 per thousand 

population. For 2009-2012; fatality rates were calculated as 115/837.344, 129/856.664, 

128/877.625 and 145/918.4507 for 2009-2012 respectively; with 2012* data being 

preliminary.

Note: The above methodology calculates serious injury and fatality rates combined for 

drivers and pedestrians age 65 and over also. The numerators are replaced with total for 

drivers and pedestrians with serious injuries and total for driver and pedestrian fatalities for 

respective years. However, the Denominators require no change and remain the same for 

the respective years.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those rates in 

the State SHSP.

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><span 

style="color: black;">Strategies for improving older driver and pedestrian facilities are in the current 

Tennessee Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).  Tennessee is in the process of updating the 

SHSP and have included strategies in the following emphasis areas:  Infrastructure Improvements, 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

vulnerable users, and operational improvements<b>.</b></span></font></font></p>
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

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: Other-Tennessee continues to track each safety related project to ensure timeliness delivery. 

Tennessee also conducts crash data investigations following a Road Safety audit for at least three years. 

This ensures that the low-cost safety countermeasures reduced the number and severity of the crashes

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. 
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

70

The Strategic Transportation Investments Division provides strategic support for projects that 

addresses safety, congestion, and economic development needs across the state. This includes the

Expedited Project Delivery (EPD) Program. The goal of the EPD program is to address immediate

issues on the highway system and propose the proper solution. The Division will also conduct 

operational analysis of non-highway transportation projects that impact the highway system. This 

division reports to the Chief Engineer for TDOT.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

71

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)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure All 449.6 203.4 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway Departure All 662 2746.4 0 0 0 0 0

Intersections All 206.8 2023.4 0 0 0 0 0

Pedestrians All 78.4 229.8 0 0 0 0 0

Bicyclists All 6.8 92.6 0 0 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 123.8 485.6 0 0 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 236.8 598.6 0 0 0 0 0

Work Zones All 31.8 93.4 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Please be advised that the data for 2013 is preliminary, and is consistently lower than the numbers provided by the FHWA. This will have a 

tendency to show a decrease for 2013. When NHTSA releases the final numbers for 2013, we will use those to recalculate and update the 

numbers for next year’s report
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program Types Target 

Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Other-Hazard Elimination 

Safety Program (HESP)

All 111.4 33.8 0 0 0 0 0

Shoulder Improvement All 508.4 144.6 0 0 0 0 0

Other-High-fricion 

Surface Safety Initiative

All 397 110.8 0 0 0 0 0

Local Safety All 0.6 2.2 0 0 0 0 0

Crash Data All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway Departure All 662 2746.4 0 0 0 0 0

Other-High Risk Rural 

Road (HRRR)

All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other-Ramp Queue All 508.4 144.6 0 0 0 0 0

Intersection All 206.8 2023.4 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

A group rate cannot be conducted on a state level as a group. Each project/location has to have an individual rate. For this reason and due to 

the number of projects, Tennessee will not be conducting project rates.
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

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)

Other1Other2Other3

Install/Improve Signing All 590.6 2834.8 0 0 0 0 0

Install/Improve Pavement 

Marking and/or Delineation

All 592.6 2834.8 0 0 0 0 0

Other-High friction surface 

treatment program

All 592.6 2834.8 0 0 0 0 0
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

86

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

None
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Function

al Class

Improvem

ent 

Category

Improvement Type BefFat

al

BefSerio

us 

Injury

BefOthe

r 

Injur

y

Bef

-

PD

O

BefTot

al

AftFat

al

AftSerio

us 

Injury

AftOthe

r 

Injur

y

AftPD

O

AftTot

al

Evaluati

on 

Results 

(Benefit

/ Cost 

Ratio)

Cheatham SR 12 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0 0 1 18 19 0 0 0 5 5 $0.00

Bradley SR 311 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0 0 11 22 33 0 0 7 20 27 $0.00

Bedford SR 5 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspe

cified

0 0 3 17 20 0 0 3 2 5 $0.00

Campbell SR 9 Rural 

Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 0 0 2 9 11 0 0 1 11 12 $0.00

Davidson SR 65 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0 0 4 5 9 0 0 4 10 14 $0.00
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

88

Dickson/William

son I-40

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Miscellaneo

us

Cable Barrier 0 0 19 41 60 1 0 11 40 52 $0.00

McMinn SR 30 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Miscellaneo

us

Crosswalk 0 0 2 12 14 0 0 1 11 12 $0.00

Rutherford SR 

266

Rural 

Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 1 3 25 37 66 0 2 15 37 54 $0.00

Shelby SR 3 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Miscellaneo

us

Safety Improvements 0 0 3 17 20 0 1 4 7 12 $0.00

Shelby SR 176 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

0 0 6 59 65 0 0 5 32 37 $0.00

Greene SR 70 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Miscellaneo

us

Intersection and 

Miscellaneous Safety 

Improvements

0 2 4 25 31 0 0 4 10 14 $0.00

Davidson I 40 

Ramp

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Miscellaneo

us

Channelization & turn lanes 1 0 10 29 40 0 0 16 23 39 $0.00
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

89

Interstate

Monroe SR 33 Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Miscellaneo

us

Channelization and turn 

lanes

0 1 7 22 30 0 0 0 6 6 $0.00

Roane I 40 Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Miscellaneo

us

Turn Lanes and Signing 0 0 5 3 8 0 0 1 3 4 $0.00

Sullivan SR 126 Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Miscellaneo

us

Intersection Improvements 

Turn Lanes

0 1 12 20 33 0 5 14 15 34 $0.00

Hickman SR 48 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Miscellaneo

us

Turn Lanes and Signing 0 0 5 3 8 0 0 1 3 4 $0.00

Hickman SR 100 Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Miscellaneo

us

Turn Lanes and Signing 0 1 2 3 6 1 0 3 3 7 $0.00

Knox SR 33 Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Miscellaneo

us

Signing, Marking, 

Channelization, Turn Lane

1 2 20 26 49 1 3 10 34 48 $0.00

Davidson SR 11 Urban 

Principal 

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway delineation -

other

0 1 2 17 20 0 0 1 10 11 $0.00
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

90

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expresswa

ys
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

91

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

Jessica Final 1Q21_2014-08-27_02-57-44-

PM(1).xlsx
2014 Tennessee Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

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.