Page 1 of 53

MISSISSIPPI
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 53

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 7

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

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 14

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 14

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 16

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 20

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 20

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 33

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 35

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 37

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 38

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 42

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 48
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 53

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

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

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

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

lists, or data.” 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 53

Executive Summary

Introduction 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for providing a safe intermodal 

transportation network that is planned, designed, constructed, and maintained in an effective, cost efficient, and 

environmentally sensitive manner. As stated in the mission statement, safety is at the forefront of the MDOT’s 

short and long range plans. Providing the safest and most efficient transportation facilities possible are of 

critical importance to MDOT. The primary “measuring stick” for safety in Mississippi is the reduction in the 

number of fatalities and serious injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes each year. MDOT has an 

extensive safety program that aims to ensure that the transportation facilities are as safe as possible, from the 

initial planning phase through the usable life of the facility. 

Program Administration

The HSIP funds appropriated for Mississippi are administered centrally by the MDOT. MDOT strives to 

allocate HSIP funds based in safety need, regardless of geographic location or district boundary. Local roads 

(non-state owned) are also candidate locations which are analyzed and considered for safety improvement. Any 

HSIP project located within the boundary of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is coordinated with 

all vested parties and placed on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the appropriate 

MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Program Methodology

MDOT’s Safety Section generates a list of HSIP candidate projects using the Safety Analysis Management 

System (SAMS). The SAMS provides locations in need of remediation with established crash histories. 

Candidate locations are also identified from the MDOT’s six construction district offices, area traffic engineers, 

safety engineers, and other sources within MDOT. Feedback from private citizens and law enforcement officers 

regarding specific locations are also used in the location identification process. 

Locations selected for HSIP funding go through rigorous statistical analysis prior to being selected. The 

programmed projects have, at a minimum, one of the following: 

Severity index above an acceptable level 

Elevated crash rate compared to homogenous locations 

Exceedingly high number of crashes, or 

Crashes conducive to producing fatalities or severe injuries. 

MDOT seeks to identify projects that can be tied back to the State of Mississippi’s Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP). The SHSP was developed with various safety partners across Mississippi and was formally 

adopted in early 2007. The initial goal of the plan was to reduce the number of fatalities from the benchmark of 

931 in 2005 to 700 or fewer by 2011, a reduction of more than twenty-five percent. Mississippi saw success

following the implementation of the SHSP and reports that Mississippi’s goal was achieved in 2009, two years 

before the targeted date. 

Mississippi’s original SHSP identified five critical emphasis areas in which to focus its safety efforts. These 

five critical emphasis areas were: 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 53

Unbelted drivers 

Young drivers 

Aggressive drivers 

Impaired drivers 

Lane departure crashes 

In early 2009, data analysis indicated that an additional critical emphasis area was needed. The need to add 

intersections as an emphasis area was discussed at the SHSP Executive Update Meeting in August 2009. 

The 2nd Edition of the SHSP was accepted in January 2014. The Vision of the 2nd Edition of the Mississippi 

SHSP established a Towards Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. A thorough data analysis indicated that the new 

emphasis areas for the updated Mississippi SHSP are:

Unbelted drivers 

Impaired drivers 

Suspended/Revoked Licensed or Unlicensed drivers 

Lane departure crashes 

Intersection crashes

In addition to these data-driven emphasis areas, there are other areas in need of attention. It is widely recognized

that distracted driving is becoming more of a problem across the United States. The extent of the problem in 

Mississippi is not yet known, as this information is difficult to accurately or legitimately collect once a crash 

has taken place. Without state-specific data, Mississippi will rely on the most recent data from the United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) to justify the addition of distracted driving. 

Another area which needs continued focus and effort will be crash and road data quality. The analysis of safety 

information can only be as good as the quality of data available. The process of data validation must be included 

in the SHSP as well.

2017 HSIP Allotment and Local Road Safety

MDOT was appropriated $33,396,817 in Federal Section 148 and Section 154 funding for the HSIP in Federal 

Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017.

During FFY 2016, MDOT and FHWA were successfully able to develop processes and procedures to assist the 

MDOT Safety Circuit Rider Program in the allocation of HSIP funds on the non-state maintained system. As a 

result, during FFY 2017, MDOT’s Safety Circuit Rider Program continued its efforts to provide technical 

assistance to county and city officials as well as analyze locations on the non-state maintained network in an 

effort to achieve the vision of identifying local roads with opportunity for safety improvements. While no HSIP 

funds were allocated to the non-state maintained system in FFY 2017, it is anticipated that there will be several 

local road projects utilizing HSIP funding during FFY 2018.

HSIP Effectiveness

As was the case for many states across the country, 2016 saw a troubling continuance of rising traffic fatality 

numbers in Mississippi. After seeing sharp declines in fatalities from 2005 - 2012, 2016 became just the 3rd 

year since 2005 where there was an increase in fatalities. While 2016 fatality numbers are not yet certified and 

listed within NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Database, the state of Mississippi 

is projecting that 690 lives were lost in crashes in the state last year. While 2016's preliminary projected number 

of fatalities is still significantly below where we started in 2005 (931), it is not a trend we in the state would like 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 53

to continue. As always, Mississippi will make every effort to see that those numbers restart their downward 

trend in the upcoming year.

Project Evaluation

While overall road safety numbers in Mississippi have experienced incremental increases over the previous 

several years, it should be noted that HSIP projects within the state have continued to see positive results. 

Comparing before and after periods for each of the projects, MDOT has seen a reduction in both the overall 

severity index and the overall crash rate, 37% and 18% respectively, for projects with a minimum of three 

years of before and after crash data analysis. It is important to note that not all HSIP projects can boast such 

successful numbers, yet it should not detract from the overall success of the projects that have been 

implemented. To review the performance of projects that have been constructed to date, Please refer to the 

information given in response to Question #45.

In Closing

MDOT will continue to ensure that available safety dollars go towards efforts that can effectively and 

efficiently restart the downward trend in fatal crashes. As even one fatality is too many to suffer, Mississippi 

will continue to work towards realizing a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, so that we can reverse the 

most recent trend of increased fatalities and get back on track in achieving our vision of Towards Zero Deaths 

on all public roadways.
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 53

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program staff includes full-time engineers, as well as supporting data 

analysts and clerical staff, all housed within the Mississippi DOT's Traffic Engineering Division. On a day-today basis, the HSIP staff works hand-in-hand with other MDOT Divisions in aiding the MDOT 

Districts towards advancing safety on Mississippi Highways. These regular efforts include, among other things, 

data analysis, countermeasure discussion and coordination, as well as the administration of regular safety 

meetings to keep in regular contact with the Districts regarding safety matters and concerns.

One of the initiatives that the Mississippi HSIP staff has taken on in the last few years is holding regular safety 

meetings with its Districts. These meetings are an informal time for HSIP staff to go out into the Districts and 

discuss locations of concern that are showing up in data analysis, as well as locations that the Districts are 

fielding calls from the public, and so forth. These meetings have proven invaluable in establishing a rapport 

between District staff and the HSIP, which has aided in the identification of locations of need that might not 

have been found as quickly by data analysis alone. The HSIP has also, in some cases, seen these relationships 

help to advance a trust of alternative intersection countermeasures, as well as more progressive and non-typical 

countermeasures that are being implemented across the United States.

The second initiative that directly impacts HSIP projects in Mississippi are the Safety Countermeasure Selection 

Team meetings. These meetings were established by internal policy in the last several years to ensure 

that applicable MDOT Divisions (Roadway Design Division, Construction Division, Environmental Division, 

Planning Division, etc.) and District personnel are extensively involved in the countermeasure selection process 

for HSIP projects. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP funding, any and all 

possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a formalized meeting format. Site visits are 

conducted as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location information, 

countermeasure recommendations, and a benefit to cost analysis - is recorded and summarized in report 

format. This formal report is then submitted for review and approval by meeting attendees as well as senior 

MDOT Officials. This ensures that HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi are fully vetted by the entire 

agency, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner possible.

Once projects are selected, programmed, and constructed using HSIP funds, the MDOT ensures that their 

performance - in terms of realized crash reductions - is tracked and reported as a part of the HSIP Reporting 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 53

process. The Mississippi HSIP typically conducts a five year before and after data analysis of each project in 

order to provide a healthy set of data to determine the performance of the project's countermeasure(s). In many 

cases, the state also continues to track projects beyond the five year window to ensure the countermeasure still 

works and/or other changes are not needed beyond the initial project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

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

The Mississippi HSIP staff are located within MDOT's Traffic Engineering Division, which falls under the 

Field Operations branch.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

As a part of Mississippi's statewide safety efforts, local roads are given consideration for Highway Safety 

Improvement Program funding during each federal fiscal year. Potential projects are scrutinized under the same 

set of criteria set forth for state highway safety projects. All local road safety projects conducted by the 

Mississippi Department of Transportation are identified through the Circuit Rider Program.

The Circuit Rider program, established in 2012, provides training as well as technical assistance to local road 

administrators and staff. As a part of the technical assistance portion of the program, Circuit Riders (along with 

MDOT Traffic Safety personnel) review crash data for local roads and conduct site visits with local government 

authorities to offer countermeasure identification assistance. Solutions offered by Circuit Riders on these site 

visits can either be resolved by the local road authority, or can be treated under several available Circuit Rider 

initiatives. Projects identified in need of additional assistance through the Circuit Rider program can be treated 

using one of the following:

1. Sign Project: At no cost to the local authority, MDOT provides warning and advisory signage to a local 

government agency where crash trends - systemic or "hot spot" in nature - have been identified, and where signs 

and/or low cost countermeasures are deemed an appropriate corrective measure. The local authority may be asked 

to provide an in-kind service as part of the agreement, such as tree trimming within the Right-of-Way; otherwise, 

the signs are free of charge to the county or municipality. During the 2017 State Fiscal Year (July 16 - June 17), 

MDOT spent $105,013.20 of state funds on this program.

2. Design Project: Should a location or set of locations within a county, municipality or other local governing 

body's jurisdiction be deemed eligible by MDOT for HSIP funding, those projects are pursued as a part of the 

statewide HSIP program. Currently, MDOT chooses to focus its local road safety efforts on low cost measures, 

including resigning and restriping of routes, the installation of reflective sign post delineators, raised pavement 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 53

marker reinstallation, etc. There is no application deadline currently for local projects; projects are considered 

through the entire fiscal year. All local road safety projects are considered alongside state highway safety 

projects, although MDOT is currently making more efforts to ensure local road safety projects are a part of each 

fiscal year's projects to be pursued. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Other-Environmental

Other-Right of Way Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Under current internal policy, applicable MDOT Divisions (District personnel, Construction Division, 

Environmental Division, Planning Division, etc.) are extensively involved in the countermeasure selection 

process. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP Program funding, any and all 

possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a meeting format. Site visits are conducted with this 

group as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location information, 

countermeasure recommendations, etc. - is recorded in report format and approved by meeting attendees as well 

as MDOT leadership. This ensures that all HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi that adhere to this process 

are fully vetted by the entire agency, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner possible.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Other-Office of State Aid Road Construction

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

Describe coordination with external partners.
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 53

The Federal Highway Administration - Mississippi Division is intricately involved in the HSIP project planning 

process. FHWA's Safety Engineer and Area Engineers are involved in safety discussion meetings, as well as all 

countermeasure selection process meetings.

Other external partners involved the HSIP project planning process are local government agencies, MPOs, and 

Mississippi's Office of State Aid Road Construction, which is responsible for major county roadways. These 

partners are brought into the fold when the HSIP is developing a potential Circuit Rider program project for a 

local road area of safety concern.

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

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms)

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/3/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-Addresses state's priority of advancing safety 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 53

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Available funding : 2

Cost Effectiveness : 1

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 53

 70

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Clear Zone Improvements

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Other-Systemic Intersection Signing Improvements, following SCDOT model

Other-Systemic Curve Warning Signing Improvements

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

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP)

Other-Input from internal partners

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

Mississippi HSIP projects primarily consider ITS elements when they are a complimentary component of a 

larger project, such as traffic cameras at a new or improved signal, fiber interconnectivity between signals, or 

other measures to provide advanced warning to motorists of some down stream condition.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?

Yes

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

Currently, the Mississippi HSIP uses various principles that are cited in the Highway Safety Manual, though the

manual is not used extensively in day to day analysis and decision-making. We are currently developing a 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 53

crash data analysis system that will wholly incorporate the principles and practices outlined in the HSM, and 

will fully integrate them into how Mississippi evaluates locations across the state, and potential projects.

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 53

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $27,996,817 $27,996,817 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $5,485,489 $5,485,489 100%

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

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$3,564,180 $3,564,180 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $3,834,859 $3,834,859 100%

Totals $40,881,345 $40,881,345 100%

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

Notes

- For the purposes of this report, the dollar amounts in the State and Local Funds categories are the required 

matching funds for HSIP projects, and the Sign and Bright Stick Distribution initiative facilitated through the 

Safety Circuit Rider Program.

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

0%

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

1%
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 53

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

The Mississippi DOT did not program any monies towards local road safety projects in the last federal fiscal 

year; however, it currently has several projects in early development stages that should be both designed and 

likely constructed within the next year. The Mississippi HSIP program currently sets aside $250,000 for local 

road safety projects through its Circuit Rider program each year, with additional projects considered against 

State Highway projects in terms of benefit to cost and overall safety impact.

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

1%

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

1%

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

Notes

- The actual percentage is 0.75%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

There are no impediments currently.

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

No
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 53

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Const.

Roadside Barrier - cable 16.3 Miles $-783060 $-870066.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

MS 12, from Old 

Highway 12 to Sta 

17+47

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 2.6 Miles $8651340 $9612600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

23,650 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 18

MS 12, from Sta 

17+47 to Russell 

Street

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 1.2 Miles $198000 $220000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

23,650 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 18

US 45 at Wheeler 

Grove Road

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.3 Miles $-15390 $-17100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 17

US 82 Fr MS 

River Bridge to 

BASF Rd.

Lighting Intersection lighting 2.6 Miles $-7785 $-8650 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

MS 2 Fr 

Tippah/Alcorn CL 

to Kossuth

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

8.3 Miles $69919 $77687.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,362 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 15

US 49 SB Fr Main 

St in Mt. Olive to 

Walter Lott Rd. in 

Seminary

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

24.2 Miles $12039692 $13377435.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,050 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 15

MS 25, 

Tishomingo 

County

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled38.9 Miles $-386726 $-429695.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,564 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

District 1 

Intersection 

Improvement 

Project

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled118 Intersections $1202575 $1336194.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Districtwide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17

US 49 from the 

Stone County 

Line to South 

Gate Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

19.9 Miles $900000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,950 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 18

I-59 Loops 

Ramps at US 49

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

1 Interchanges $49336 $54817.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

17,216 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 15

US 61 from 

Washington CL to 

US 82

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

22.2 Miles $-178465 $-198294.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,608 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

MS 43 between 

Picayune and 

Henleyfield

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 3 Curves $-798751 $-887501.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,570 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 15

I-10 from the 

Louisiana SL to 

MS 43/603

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

13.6 Miles $-2088847 $-2320941.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

38,440 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 53

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

US 278/MS 6 -

Johnston St to 

Medical Center Dr

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 2.5 Miles $-96474 $-107193.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17

RWIS - I-55 

Coldwater River 

Bridge, I-69/MS 

304 Hurrican 

Creek Bridge

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 2 Locations $-19260 $-21400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

34,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 18

US 49 at 4th St, 

Pinecrest St.

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

1 Intersections $-125482 $-125482 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

25,958 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 51 at Pat 

Harrison Dr

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $26726 $29695.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,264 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 49 at RT 

Braddy Rd, US 49 

at Muse Rd

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection flashers - add 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2 Intersections $20690 $22988.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

22,790 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

MS 43 from 

Crossroads to I20

Alignment Horizontal curve realignment 4.3 Miles $73017 $81130 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 18

US 49 at MS 42 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $157500 $175000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,650 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

RWIS - I-55 SB to 

I-20 EB Flyover 

Bridge

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 1 Locations $3255 $3616.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

23,000 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 15

Copiah County 

Safety Circuit 

Rider 

Improvements

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

28.5 Miles $-64763 $-71958.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Routes 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 15

MS 25/Lakeland 

Dr Mast Arm 

Replacement

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $-29640 $-29610.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

54,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17

US 49 at Hall St, 

Magnolia Dr and 

Wal Mart Dr

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

1 Intersections $69076 $69076 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 49W at SR 3 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $-39517 $-43907.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,100 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 278 - SR 6 to 

SR 7

Roadside Barrier - cable 8 Miles $-248184 $-275760 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

26,040 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

US 61 at Eagles 

Nest Rd

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Intersections $-26847 $-29830 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,655 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

MS 570 from I-55 

to US 51

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

0.6 Miles $589613 $655125.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

11,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17

MS 145 Corridor 

Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

3.7 Miles $7120872 $7912080 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

20,320 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 53

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

I-55 Exit Ramps 

at MS 302

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 4 Intersections $5480550 $6089500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

45,750 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

MS 12 from 

Hollandale to the 

Sunflower River

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

9.5 Miles $982170 $1091300 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

US 49 Safety 

Improvements 

(Simpson)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 26.4 Miles $-384670 $-427411.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

I-55 Cable Barrier 

(Holmes/Carroll)

Roadside Barrier - cable 29.9 Miles $-88581 $-98423.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

14,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

US 45 at Ripley 

Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1 Intersections $122619 $136243.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 84 at MS 184 

(west of 

Waynesboro)

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

1 Intersections $0 $0 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

9,850 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 84 at 

Reservoir 

Rd/Magnolia Hill

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $0 $0 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,311 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 84 at Auburn 

Dr

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $0 $0 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,338 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 78 from Craft 

Rd to Hacks 

Cross Rd

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

5.6 Miles $-414264 $-460293.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

31,070 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 15

US 45 at MS 145 

(Clarkdale)

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

1 Intersections $50052 $55613.3333333333 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

19,020 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

MS 569 at MS 

570

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

all-way stop

1 Intersections $11645 $12938.8888888889 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,830 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

US 49 between 

French Road and 

Sam Road

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous

0.5 Miles $0 $0 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

21,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 18

US 82 Itta Bena Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 1 Intersections $67500 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

8,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

Circuit Rider Sign 

Donation/Bright 

Stick Program

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Numbers $0 $105013.2 State and Local 

Funds

Various Locations 0 County and 

Municipality

Systemic Lane Departure 15

Safety Analysis 

Management 

System (SAMS) 

Version 2

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records 1 Numbers $250000 $277777.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data 22

Rail Signage 

Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - upgrade or 

replacement

3 Numbers $55800 $62000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various Locations 0 County and 

Municipality

Spot Railroad 

Crossings

14

MS 63 at MS 614 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Intersections $93366 $103740 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

14,850 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 53

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

Lafayette County 

Road 215 

Improvements

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

1 Curves $-2320 $-2577 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

370 45 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure 18

SR 15 from 

Louisville to the 

Neshoba County 

Line

Roadway Rumble strips - center 11.4 Miles $-267182 $-296868.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,540 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure 18

Highway 90 

Pedestrian Bridge 

Crossing

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian bridge 1 Crosswalks $570201 $633556.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

30,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians 9

US 90 Traffic 

Signal Upgrades 

(Hancock County)

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements -

signal-controlled

10 Intersections $693000 $770000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

20,450 45 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections 17

US 61 at Oak 

Ridge Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1 Intersections Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections 17

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

Notes

- Portions of projects listed with a Funding Category of "HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148)" are supplemented with "Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154)" as well.
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 53

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 783 700 641 630 582 613 607 677 690

Serious Injuries 716 622 671 686 631 568 506 506 627

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.800 1.740 1.610 1.620 1.510 1.580 1.540 1.700 1.700

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.650 1.542 1.684 1.766 1.636 1.465 1.281 1.269 1.543

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

55 68 54 54 55 59 60 68 71

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

0 0 47 39 49 47 47 42 61
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 53

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 22 of 53

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 23 of 53

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

Notes:

- The 2016 reported traffic fatalities for the state of Mississippi is an accurate representation of what we in the 

Mississippi HSIP anticipate the number to be, based upon our own analyses, as well as conversations with the 

state's FARS Analyst, the Department of Public Safety, and other applicable officials within the 

state. However, that number is not yet certified, and therefore may be subject to change before final admission 

into the FARS Public Database. This same note applies to the reported number of non-motorized fatalities for 

2016.

- Serious Injuries are reported using Mississippi's Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS), and should 

reflect those numbers reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during quarterly Performance 

Measure reporting.

- The number of non-motorized fatalities are reported using the FARS Database.

- The number of non-motorized serious injuries are reported using Mississippi's SAMS program. Since all 

values for this category began their reporting for this year, and since the SAMS program currently only retains 

crash data for the state back through the completed calendar year of 2010, values preceding that year were not 

reported.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 53

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

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

52.4 33.2 1.37 0.87

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

173.2 97.2 3.17 1.8

Rural Minor Arterial 63.2 80 1.82 2.34

Rural Minor Collector 13 21.8 2.97 4.99

Rural Major Collector 124.4 124.4 3.09 3.11

Rural Local Road or Street 70.8 35.6 1.33 0.69

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

16.8 20.8 0.41 0.54

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

8.6 4.4 1.76 0.89

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

40 62.2 0.78 1.22

Urban Minor Arterial 20.4 31.4 0.82 1.24

Urban Minor Collector 9.4 21.2 0.42 1.11

Urban Major Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or Street 42.4 10.6 1.34 0.3
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 53

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 417.8 401 1.76 1.69

County Highway Agency 147.4 185 1.7 2.13

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

46.2 69.8 0.69 1.04

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

8.8 7.6 0 0

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 53

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 27 of 53

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 28 of 53

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 29 of 53

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 53

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 of 53

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

Notes

- Fatality figures reported from 2010-2015 are from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The 2016 

reported traffic fatality information given for each functional class and ownership category matches figures 

MDOT has reported elsewhere for total anticipated fatalities for the previous year.

- Serious Injury data reported herein comes from Mississippi's Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS).

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 53

Number of Fatalities 677.8 

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

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend 

that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the 

extrapolated trends. 

Number of Serious Injuries 574.4 

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

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend 

that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the 

extrapolated trends. 

Fatality Rate 1.668 

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

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend 

that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the 

extrapolated trends. 

Serious Injury Rate 1.425 

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

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend 

that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the 

extrapolated trends. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

119.8 

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

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend 

that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the 

extrapolated trends. 

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

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

targets. 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 53

Over the summer of 2017, Mississippi HSIP personnel met on several occasions with staff from the Mississippi 

Office of Highway Safety. These meetings, which also included staff from MPOs, the Federal Highway 

Administration, and other involved local and federal agencies, were convened to review trend line analysis and 

crash data statistics to determine what the joint targets for the state should be. After these meetings were 

completed, three joint goals were set - Fatalities, Fatality Rate, and Serious Injuries - which have been reflected 

in this report. From the perspective of the Mississippi HSIP, these meetings were imperative to ensure that all 

involved parties had a voice in determining what Mississippi's crash data targets would be for future years.

As far as the other two goals - Serious Injury Rate and Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries - are 

concerned, those were set internally in discussion amongst Mississippi HSIP staff and administrative personnel 

from MDOT. The Serious Injury Rate target was simply a reflection of the Serious Injury target measured 

against a projected VMT, while the Non-Motorized target was discussed much in the same way that other 

targets were amongst a larger audience.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

65 65 62 84 60 66 68

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

42 34 27 44 41 22 31
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 53

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 53

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-Before and After Crash Analysis

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

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

level evaluations.

As a part of the HSIP reporting process, the state of Mississippi has kept track of the performance of its HSIP 

projects. Since this first began, the preferred method of evaluating projects has been to measure the crashes 

occurring after the project was constructed and in place against crashes at the location before improvements 

were installed. Using this measuring tool, the state of Mississippi's HSIP has realized an appreciable success in 

terms of its project effectiveness. Through the Federal Fiscal Year 2017, Mississippi HSIP projects with a 

minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis have achieved a 37% reduction of the severity of 

crashes at its project locations, as well as a 18% reduction in the overall number of crashes at these same 

locations (Mississippi measures crashes by crash rate to account for any changes in traffic volumes at these 

locations). While recognizing that these reductions are a positive litmus test for the projects that Mississippi has 

selected for the HSIP to date, it is the intention of our program to continue aggressively pursuing projects that 

will help us raise those reduction numbers in the future, and continue to make Mississippi's roads safer for our 

fellow road users.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Policy change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations

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

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

No
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 53

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 363.4 346 0.92 0.88

Intersections 126.6 163.6 0 0
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 40 of 53

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

Notes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 41 of 53

- A value of zero was input for fatality and serious injury rate for intersections since the state does not collect 

/MEV (Million Entering Vehicles) traffic data, and HMVMT is not applicable.

- Values submitted for this question in 2016's report are significantly lower due to a differing interpretation of 

the requirement. MDOT previously reported fatal and serious injury crashes related only to HSIP projects 

targeting SHSP emphasis areas, not statewide.

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

No

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

Page 42 of 53

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

MS 609 at I-10 

Ramps

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

82.00 127.00 1.00 2.00 21.00 29.00 106.00 156.00

I-55 Fr Fortification 

to MS 25

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

207.00 266.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 62.00 67.00 274.00 335.00

US 98 at MS 29 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

19.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 24.00 6.00

MS 57 at I-10 

Ramps

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

36.00 72.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 17.00 50.00 90.00

I-20 in Vicksburg 

City Limits 

(HO/ROR-L 

Crashes Only)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.00 44.00 1.00 3.00 28.00 7.00 73.00

US 49 at (old) MS 

67 in Saucier

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

14.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 2.00 26.00 6.00

MS 145 at MS 513 Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew angle

3.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 4.00

MS 589 at Old Hwy 

24

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

7.00 11.00 5.00 12.00 11.00

I-55 Barrier Wall 

Extension

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - concrete 185.00 345.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 62.00 120.00 252.00 467.00

US 49 from Little 

Biloxi River to 

Saucier

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

89.00 124.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 66.00 64.00 161.00 192.00

US 49 from Stone 

CL to US 98

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

234.00 328.00 12.00 12.00 5.00 5.00 167.00 213.00 418.00 558.00

US 49 from Bond to 

Forrest CL

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

10.00 16.00 1.00 6.00 17.00 17.00 33.00

US 72 @ CR 

218/306/Central 

School Rd/Old 72

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

31.00 21.00 1.00 5.00 12.00 5.00 49.00 26.00

US 49 from Pass Rd 

to Airport Road

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

621.00 429.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 4.00 317.00 190.00 949.00 624.00

US 49 from Airport 

Road to Creosote 

Road

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

476.00 277.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 151.00 101.00 631.00 380.00

US 49 from Landon 

to Dedeaux Road

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

384.00 361.00 3.00 120.00 136.00 507.00 497.00
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

US 49 from 

Dedeaux Road to St 

Charles

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

278.00 268.00 1.00 120.00 119.00 399.00 387.00

MS 15 at MS 32 Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island -

install on one or 

more approaches

10.00 9.00 1.00 6.00 9.00 17.00 18.00

US 45 @ Hamilton 

Rd

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

16.00 10.00 2.00 22.00 5.00 38.00 17.00

MS 25 from I-55 to 

Rankin Co. Line 

SECTION

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

523.00 471.00 1.00 108.00 105.00 632.00 576.00

MS 25 from Rankin 

Co. Line to MS 471 

SECTION

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

1425.00 1748.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 475.00 464.00 1906.00 2216.00

MS 25 at I-55 E. 

Frontage Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

110.00 113.00 27.00 23.00 137.00 136.00

MS 25 at Cool Papa 

Bell Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

70.00 61.00 22.00 12.00 92.00 73.00

MS 25 at Lakeland 

Terrace/Lakeland 

Ln.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

41.00 55.00 1.00 4.00 13.00 46.00 68.00

MS 25 at 

Ridgewood Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

152.00 133.00 36.00 31.00 188.00 164.00

MS 25 at Lakeland 

Cir

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

58.00 43.00 18.00 12.00 76.00 55.00

MS 25 at River 

Bend

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

36.00 65.00 15.00 15.00 51.00 80.00

MS 25 at Tree Tops Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

86.00 77.00 27.00 14.00 113.00 91.00

MS 25 at Layfair Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

42.00 50.00 12.00 5.00 54.00 55.00

MS 25 at River 

Oaks

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

77.00 93.00 1.00 1.00 28.00 23.00 107.00 116.00
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

MS 25 at N. 

Flowood Dr.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

39.00 53.00 13.00 10.00 52.00 63.00

MS 25 at Flynt Dr. Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

52.00 49.00 8.00 10.00 60.00 59.00

MS 25 at MS 475 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

173.00 194.00 1.00 55.00 42.00 229.00 236.00

MS 18 @ Seven 

Springs/Palestine 

Rd

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

21.00 10.00 15.00 6.00 36.00 16.00

MS 18 @ Hinds 

Blvd

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

3.00 7.00 5.00 2.00 8.00 9.00

MS 18 @ County 

Farm Rd

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

10.00 10.00 7.00 4.00 17.00 14.00

US 84 @ JacksonLiberty RdRural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

7.00 5.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 17.00 7.00

I-55 Byram 

Interchange (SB 

Rear End Crashes 

Only)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Interchange 

design

Extend existing 

lane on ramp

10.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 14.00 10.00

US 90 at 

Hospital/Ocean 

Springs Rd SOUTH

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

133.00 130.00 1.00 1.00 27.00 36.00 161.00 167.00

US 90 at 

Hospital/Ocean 

Springs Rd NORTH

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

107.00 34.00 141.00

Springridge Rd Btw 

I-20 and US 80

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

172.00 218.00 34.00 68.00 206.00 286.00

MS 13 W of Gunther 

Rd to Forrest Co Ln

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

40.00 6.00 26.00 6.00 66.00 12.00

MS 25 from Monroe 

CL/Gaddy Rd

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

66.00 70.00 7.00 4.00 3.00 26.00 39.00 99.00 116.00

US 49 @ 

Southgate/Anderson

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

30.00 41.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 26.00 47.00 68.00

I-110 Fr Biloxi Bay 

to I-10

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 205.00 114.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 81.00 54.00 290.00 169.00

MS 27 Fr Warren to 

Copiah Co. Ln.

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

120.00 155.00 7.00 4.00 1.00 49.00 33.00 177.00 192.00

I-20 at Norrell Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 8.00 6.00

MS 35 @ MS 28 

East of Mize

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 6.00 6.00
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

I-20 Fr Smith Spur 

Rd to AL State Line

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 10.00 40.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 16.00 50.00

I-55 Fr Copiah Co 

Ln to Byram 

Interchange

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 22.00 70.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 16.00 18.00 42.00 90.00

I-55 Fr LA State 

Line to Lincoln Co 

Ln

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 39.00 123.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 22.00 61.00 65.00 192.00

I-55 Fr Pike Co Ln 

to Union St Bridge

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 22.00 129.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 12.00 55.00 35.00 189.00

I-20 Fr Bovina to Big 

Black River

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 29.00 62.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 16.00 40.00 80.00

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Construction

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 132.00 608.00 5.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 60.00 155.00 200.00 773.00

MS 481 Realign 

Curve South of I-20

Rural Major 

Collector

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Construction

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 70.00 302.00 10.00 5.00 1.00 6.00 48.00 66.00 129.00 379.00

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Construction

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 112.00 432.00 12.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 70.00 120.00 196.00 558.00

MS 18 @ Midway 

Rd

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

19.00 20.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 7.00 36.00 27.00

MS 15 @ US 84 in 

Laurel

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

99.00 122.00 1.00 22.00 29.00 121.00 152.00

US 11 at 

2nd/Goodyear

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

34.00 20.00 5.00 8.00 39.00 28.00

US 11 at 

Bruce/Jackson 

Landing

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

24.00 14.00 9.00 5.00 33.00 19.00

US 11 at Canal St. Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

45.00 13.00 12.00 14.00 57.00 27.00

US 11 at Memorial 

Blvd/MS 43 S

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

76.00 12.00 19.00 2.00 95.00 14.00

US 11 at Fourth/N. 

Main

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing -

signal 

coordination

22.00 16.00 2.00 24.00 16.00

MS 67 at Lickskillet 

Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

22.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 45.00 12.00 70.00 19.00
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Spillway Rd 

Guardrail

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadside Barrier - other 28.00 32.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 10.00 40.00 43.00

US 49 at MS 22 Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

12.00 9.00 1.00 15.00 4.00 27.00 14.00

US 98 at Old MS 63 

North

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Median crossover 

- directional 

crossover

28.00 11.00 6.00 3.00 31.00 5.00 68.00 16.00

I-10 at Cedar Lake 

Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Interchange 

design

Interchange 

design - other

63.00 38.00 3.00 1.00 39.00 20.00 106.00 58.00

MS 33 between 

Gloster and Coles

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Install / remove / 

modify passing 

zone

8.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 5.00 20.00 13.00

US 98/Hardy Fr 

Westover to I-59 

(including SB 

Ramp)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Installation of new 

lane on ramp

384.00 422.00 1.00 1.00 82.00 105.00 467.00 528.00

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Construction

Rural Principal 

Arteria - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 15.00 27.00 1.00 8.00 13.00 23.00 41.00

US 90 at MS 607 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew angle

8.00 14.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 15.00 22.00

US 49 at W. 

Wortham Rd/Grand 

Way Blvd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

26.00 11.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 19.00 44.00 32.00

MS 198 Fr I-59 to 

US 49

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Change in access 

- close or restrict 

existing access

263.00 646.00 1.00 67.00 151.00 330.00 798.00

Kiln-Delisle at 

Vidalia Curb and 

Gutter

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00

US 49 Fr Campbell 

Loop to N 31st

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Raised island -

install new

114.00 82.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 53.00 37.00 173.00 120.00

US 90 at Franklin 

Creek Rd

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew angle

14.00 8.00 3.00 1.00 15.00 7.00 32.00 16.00

US 45 at CR 212 Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Median crossover 

- directional 

crossover

9.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 21.00 1.00

Districtwide Cable 

Barrier Construction

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.00 58.00 2.00 1.00 8.00 7.00 18.00 66.00

MS 67 at Sangani -

old configuration

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

125.00 2.00 64.00 191.00

MS 67 at Sangani -

east ramps (NB)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

69.00 18.00 87.00
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 53

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

MS 67 at Sangani -

west ramps (SB)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

11.00 3.00 14.00

MS 67 at Sangani -

east signal/Indian 

River Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

40.00 6.00 46.00

MS 67 at Sangani -

west 

signal/Promenade

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

35.00 17.00 52.00

US 45 Cable Barrier 

(Lee Co)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.00 117.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 29.00 21.00 147.00

US 45 at 

Euclatubba Rd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to 

interchange

14.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 19.00 3.00 36.00 8.00

US 84 at Ferguson 

Mill Rd

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Median crossover 

- directional 

crossover

10.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 1.00 22.00 1.00

US 61 at Delta View 

Rd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

8.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 6.00 16.00 8.00

I-59 at 16th Ave. Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Interchange 

design

Ramp closure 52.00 43.00 8.00 10.00 60.00 53.00

MS 35 at I-20 EB 

Ramps

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

13.00 11.00 1.00 12.00 2.00 26.00 13.00

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

Notes

- The Project Listing for this year's report includes all projects that MDOT has tracked or is currently tracking that have a minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis.

- A large proportion of the projects listed have a lengthier post-construction analysis period than the period studied before the project's construction. This may cause some projects to appear to have higher post-construction crash totals 

when that may not necessarily be the case. 

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

No
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 53

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/02/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 To: 2017

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

 2018

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

Page 49 of 53

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

16 16

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 53

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 89.50 89.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

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

Current efforts are under way to complete the remaining data needed for intersection traffic control. MDOT does have a signalized/unsignalized table for all intersections, however, this table is out of date and is not very accurate. We are 

currently going through the process of looking at all 149,000 intersections and identifying the type of traffic control in place at each. We expect to have this done by the time of next year's report. 

MDOT's Planning Division has recently updated their LRS to a new MLRS system that incorporates all roads in the State. Within that data, we have all of the above mentioned MIRE elements. All of the new roads are drawn into the 

system as soon as plans are developed or are discovered by MDOT. While all the MIRE data fields are populated, they may not be 100% accurate (ex. Surface Type), but MDOT strives to keep the majority of elements up to date as best we 

can. 

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

Current efforts are being made to complete the MIRE fundamental data elements. During the MDOT's deployment of the new MLRS, many of the data elements were statistically derived or geometric based. The few remaining 

elements were captured from aerial photography or from previous inventories. The intersection control type is one of the elements MDOT is still missing. Current data collection is underway to complete this element and should be 

completed by next year's reporting cycle. 

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Life Threatening No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Life Threatening No Injuries where there is a high probability of 

the loss of life

No N/A No

Crash Database Life Threatening No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Life Threatening No See Previous No See Previous No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 53

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety is actively working towards updating its crash report form. As a part of that process, an updated definition of serious injuries will be completed in order to meet MMUCC 4th Edition 

Compliancy. 

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

Notes

Links: KABCO Injury Definition, Pgs. 8-9 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/conversion_tbl/pdfs/kabco_ctable_by_state.pdf 

 Mississippi Crash Report Instruction Manual, rev. 2009 https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/stateCatalog/states/ms/docs/MS_Crash_Report_Instruction_Manual_062009.pdf 

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

No

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

2021

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

The Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with the MDOT, completed a Highway Safety Improvement Program review during the Federal Fiscal Year 2016. Both agencies intend to complete the next program assessment by no 

later than Federal Fiscal Year 2021. 
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 53

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 53

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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