Page 1 of 52

GEORGIA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 52

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 9

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................22

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................22

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................24

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

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................33

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

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................40

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................41

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................41

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................42

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................47

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................48
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 52

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.”
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 52

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

of engineering solutions.

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

Improvement Program allocated approximately $ 100,000,000 in highway safety funds during Fiscal Year 

2018. This past year, 2018, indicated a second year of leveling off in motor vehicle fatalities following the 

previous two year rise. Georgia’s total number of fatalities decreased 2.2% from the previous year considering 

an estimated 3% rise in statewide travel. It is projected that Georgia’s statewide fatalities will continue to flatten 

in 2019. These trends are closely monitored by all highway safety professionals in Georgia and remain the 

focus of the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

develops and supports the SHSP. The plan has specific Emphasis Area Task Teams that are organized to 

develop specific countermeasures. The previous year (2017), we launched two new task teams. The 

Distracted Driving and Impaired Driving teams continue to be active since their launch at the June SHSP 

Safety Summit held at Georgia Tech. These teams have continued their work over the past year and remain a 

critical part of the SHSP, HSP and HSIP collaborative.

We are completing our third year of a three/five year contract with three engineering consulting firms. As part of 

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

HSIP are usually moderately-sized projects that include intersection improvements, signal upgrades (LEDs), 

ramp improvements, corridor improvements, turn lanes, signage, corridor improvements identified through 

Road Safety Audits (RSA)s and traffic engineering studies. All public roads are included in one or more of the 

various emphasis areas of the program. Safety projects may be nominated or identified from a large number of 

sources. One of the most common resources leveraged in the program is an analysis of vehicle crash locations 

and types.

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

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

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

condition, or because it falls into one of several identified categories of improvements that are known to 

provide safety benefits. Examples of this last category include guardrail, traffic signals, railroad crossing 

warning devices, and most intersection improvements. Public pedestrian and bicycle facilities and traffic 

calming projects may also be eligible for hazard elimination projects. Once a project has been identified, a 

benefit/cost analysis is performed. 

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

continues to look for still more ways to improve safety. This past year’s launch of a WEB based data analytics 

platform is a highlight of these efforts. GDOT worked with FHWA, engineering consultants and local 

governments to test and validate the tools using examples from daily work to ensure the tools will support their 

efforts to identify potential safety project locations throughout the state on all public roads. The new tools will 

provide significant safety benefits over time.

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

reduce fatalities, injuries and crashes. This past year GDOT has been working closely with our safety partners 

and local law enforcement to improve the reporting accuracy in the State’s Motor Vehicle Crash Report. The 

effort to improve reporting accuracy will further advance the identification of potential safety enhancement 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 52

opportunities for both engineered and behavioral countermeasures. These efforts continue to advance the 

overall objectives of the Governor’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

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

building roundabout intersections, increasing the use of cable barrier on divided roadways, installing concrete 

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

improving intersection conspicuity, installing high friction surface treatment, coordinating traffic signal timing, 

and installing pedestrian accommodations to make our roads safer for all users.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 52

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

systemic projects based upon its benefit : cost ratio. Those projects with the highest B:C are advanced based 

on our available funding capacity. 

Following our planned HSIP budget, GDOT's program has the following core elements which will have some 

overlap:

Intersection Safety ($30-40 million)

Roadway and Lane Departure ($30-40 million)

Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety ($7-10 million)

High Risk Rural Roads ($6.5 million) 

Off System Safety ($7 million)

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

• Other-systemic 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 52

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

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

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

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

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

District coordinators use the county score-card to aid in the identification of roads and intersections. The scorecard ranks named roads based on a weighted scale. Additionally, we have been working with FHWA and pilot 

counties to develop Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) where local DOTs develop their own plans in 

coordination with GDOT. The goal is to get local governments to proactively think about and address road 

safety. Similar to our traditional approach, local governments would develop a list of roads and 

countermeasures based upon the LRSP. 

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

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

Department dedicates $1 million annually for each of the state's seven districts. This money is solely used to 

fund our off-system safety program. Additionally, larger HRRR projects are individually programmed using 

HSIP funds. The work normally consists of installing retro-reflective signage, applying pavement markings, 

installing rumble strips, intersection improvements or guardrail. GDOT has recently started programming 

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

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-District traffic egnineers

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

We work closely with GDOT Maintenance and District Traffic Operations. Each month we meet with each of 

our seven districts and our safety design consulting teams. We work together to identify sites based on local 

knowledge and crash data. Additionally, as road maintenance plans are being developed the district TO teams 

review sites and plans to ensure signs and pavement markings meet current specifications. We are also 

working with these teams to advance rumble strips and safety edge as part of all resurfacing projects. The TO 

teams and HSIP/Safety Section work with our Off System Local State Aid Coordinators to identify good project 

locations using the data driven county report cards. 

The Safety Team coordinates with Design Policy and our consulting team to update and refine pedestrian 

safety through the Pedestrian Streetscape Guide and coordinates these efforts with other GDOT offices to 

ensure design elements are incorporated when appropriate. We worked with these same teams to update our 

rumble strip/stripe details and the Design Policy Manual. We work with our Planning Office to educate MPOs 

on our 5 core performance measures and their roles. Lastly we worked with our GDOT Materials and Testing 

partners to update our high friction surface treatment standards.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 52

These activities are critical pieces to support the goals of the Serious Crash Type Task Team, OSS, HRRR 

efforts. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Other-Public Safety & Local Law Enforcement

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

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

2015 with Task Teams developing plans for the various Emphasis Areas. The task teams are comprised of a 

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

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

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

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

the participating groups and to the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS). Also, the GOHS holds semiannual Safety Program Leadership Meetings for the Executive Board and task team leaders. GDOT’s 

Pedestrian, Bicycle, Intersection and Roadway Departure Safety Action Plans are executed to implement 

engineering solutions to address highway safety problems. GDOT’s Safety Action Plans are key components 

of its HSIP and both are aligned with the goals of the state’s SHSP and a number of its Emphasis Areas.

Georgia’s SHSP Key Emphasis Areas are as follows:

Occupant Protection - Seatbelts and Air Bags

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

Median Crashes

Impaired Driver

Distracted Driving

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

Non-motorized User - Pedestrians, Bicyclists

Vehicle Type - Heavy Trucks, Motorcycles

Additionally, the following teams support the task teams by addressing unique needs associated with the 

teams goals.

Trauma System/Increasing EMS Capabilities

Traffic/Crash Records and Data Analysis

Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME)
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 52

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

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

the planning and development of the state's HSIP, GDOT works with the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 

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

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

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

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

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

a reasonable fit and eligible for HSIP funding. 

GDOT continues to work closely with the State's GOHS and MPOs to develop the state's safety performance 

targets. The process includes multiple presentations and working sessions. The crash data queries and data 

forecasting methodology was presented to local FHWA and NHTSA representatives last year and adopted by 

the TRCC working group.

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

by the TRCC Executive Board. Additionally, we have completed or worked with the software developers that 

service the law enforcement agencies. The updates include improved alignment to MMUCC and the adoption 

of KABCO injury severity coding. These changes will improve the quality of the state’s motor vehicle crash 

reporting and advance our HSIP objectives. 

The HSIP team also worked with several safety partners to monitor the impact of the State’s new "Hands Free" 

bill. The team has been providing data and comparative analysis to our SHSP Distracted Driving Task Team, 

Georgia State Patrol and local law enforcement in multiple presentations throughout the state. This example 

highlights how Georgia's safety partners collaborate across organizational boundaries to advance safety for all 

road users.

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

elaborate. 

The State is in the early stages of delivering a web-based crash and network screening application that will be 

made available to all our safety partners. This tool will promote the rapid identification and analysis of all public 

road locations applying the HSM. Once fully developed, this approach will improve how projects are identified 

for Off-system/local road safety, pedestrian safety, systemic safety, roadway departure and intersections safety 

projects. Additionally, we continue to improve our safety project tracking database (GOASIS). This database is 

accessible to GDOT and our engineering teams. The interface allows for tracking of projects as they work their 

way through the Plan Development Process (PDP). 

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

HSIP Program Final-2016 FAST.docx

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 52

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Bicycle Crashes Traffic 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

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 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 52

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:1

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Ball Bank and Systemic

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 52

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

• 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).

Ranking based on B/C:1

Other-District / Commitee:2

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 52

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Total Relative Weight:1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 52

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Available Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Roadside features 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 52

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Available Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Median width 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 52

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Systemic

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program? 

Yes
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 52

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Critical rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

No

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads? 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 52

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Available Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

No

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

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

locations

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 52

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

application

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Excess proportions of specific crash types

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• selection committee
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 52

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Available Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Other-Interchange Design 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Probability of specific crash types

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Systemic

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 52

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 30

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Cable Median Barriers

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Install/Improve Signing 

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Wrong way driving treatments

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• Other-ICE

GDOT has been working with FHWA and local governments to develop Local Road Safety Plans. The plans 

are being developed and will be applicable in the near future.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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. 

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

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

calibrated our seven districts. This data has been shared with our network screening team and is part of the 

new web based crash analysis tools.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period. 

As part of project identification, the network screening tools and the HSM calibrated data are being used to aid 

in the identification of potential HSIP projects.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 52

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $81,108,866 $88,653,705 109.3%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$6,299,452 $11,346,295 180.12%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $87,408,318 $100,000,000 114.41%

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

safety projects?

$7,000,000

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

$9,300,748

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

1%

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

1%

These funds were used to procure data analytics WEB based software used for safety project identification and 

evaluation. The funds were also used to coordinate efforts with our state safety partners in support of the 

state's SHSP.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 52

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%

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

the future. 

In previous years the state was challenged to obligate all available HSIP funds. We were often faced with 

projects being pushed into the next fiscal year because of design, ROW or environmental schedules. Over the 

past few years we have been actively improving our crash data, and we have enhanced project delivery by 

executing our safety design contracts. This has allowed the HSIP team to actively seek out quality safety 

projects and advance them through the plan development process. By working closely with our design 

consultants and program delivery project managers, we have minimized the impacts created by shifting 

schedules. This helps to ensure that the department has the capability to deliver our annual HSIP 

commitments. 

Our management of Road Safety Audits (RSA) is an example of our improved HSIP planning. Historically, 

RSAs would be conducted at any given time of the year. We have now implemented the business practice of 

completing our RSAs within the first two quarters of the state fiscal year and completing the RSA reports by the 

end of the third quarter. This is followed by maintenance activities and plan development in the fourth quarter. 

By scheduling activities to better align with our fiscal calendar, we have improved our delivery and mitigated 

project delivery delays and scheduling impacts.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 52

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0000001 All 

Counties PE Funds 

Re-Obligated

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Studies $5430533.34 $5430533.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Data Incorporate 

Crash Data

0000003 All 

Counties Historical 

Projects Expense 

Carried Over From 

Previous Fiscal 

Years

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Studies $2829135.58 $2829135.58 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Data Incorporate 

Crash Data

0000004 All 

Counties Additional 

PE Request 

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Studies $13055638.5

9

$13055638.5

9

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Data Incorporate 

Crash Data

0006463 

Washington SR 15 

@ 3 LOCS & SR 24 

@ 2 LOCS - 

PEDESTRIAN 

UPGRADES

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 5 Locations $1583471.05 $1583471.05 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 3,680 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Incorporate 

Treatments at 

Maintenance

0009835 Douglas 

SR 166 @ SR 

92/SR 154

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$4470213.42 $4470213.42 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 19,70

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0009932 Barrow SR 

11 @ SR 53

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$215000 $215000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 19,50

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0009949 Lumpkin 

SR 9 @ SR 52

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$420000 $420000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 5,590 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0009971 Fayette 

SR 92 @ CR 

149/ANTIOCH 

ROAD & CR 

308/LOCKWOOD 

ROAD - HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$2620000.1 $2620000.1 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Arterial 11,00

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0009972 Fayette 

SR 92 @ CR 

138/SEAY ROAD & 

CR 129/HARP 

ROAD - HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$2630497.5 $2630497.5 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Arterial 11,00

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0009975 Troup I-85 

@ SR 18 & SR 18 @ 

SR 103

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$1440000 $1440000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,970 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0010739 Bryan SR 

144 @ I-95 SB & NB 

OFF RAMPS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$6422476.74 $6422476.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 16,10

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0010926 Decatur 

SR 38BU/US 84BU 

@ SR 38/US 84

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersection

s

$4742826.91 $4742826.91 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,610 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0013174 DeKalb 

SR 12 @ CR 

700/YOUNG ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersection

s

$1895593.74 $1895593.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 35,40

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0013175 DeKalb 

SR 12 @ CR 

5192/COVE LAKE 

ROAD/WELLBORN 

ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersection

s

$1546286.73 $1546286.73 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 29,20

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0013194 Fulton SR 

9/US 19 @ CS 

351/GLENRIDGE 

DRIVE

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

realignment to 

align offset cross 

streets

1 Intersection

s

$3014438.94 $3014438.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther38,10

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0013687 Screven 

SR 73 LOOP @ 

ROCKY FORD RD; 

@ BUTTERMILK 

RD & @ BASCOM 

RD

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

3 Intersection

s

$2290761.87 $2290761.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,530 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0014088 Richmond 

I-520 FROM I-20 TO 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

STATE LINE

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

12.19 Miles $5162931.66 $5162931.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate95,50

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015590 Glynn SR 

25 SPUR EAST 

FROM SR 25 TO 

CR 584/KINGS 

WAY

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

4.1 Miles $3226849.03 $3226849.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther33,10

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Bicyclists Incorporate 

Treatments at 

Maintenance

0015591 Forsyth 

SR 9 @ CR 

741/BANNISTER 

ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$210000 $210000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 7,040 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0015744 Gordon 

CARTER MTN RD 

@ 1 LOC - OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTSHRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

2 Miles $260780.78 $260780.78 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

6,425 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0015746 Walker 

NICKAJACK RD @ 

1 LOC - OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

4.02 Miles $802733.03 $802733.03 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

950 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015748 DeKalb 

NORTH 

CLARENDON AVE 

@ 1 LOC - OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

42.26 Miles $169668.74 $169668.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

20,00

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015779 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 1 - AREA 

1 & 2 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $1119135 $1119135 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015780 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

1; 4 & 5 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $3096199.44 $3096199.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015781 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

1 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

1 Locations $1448417.14 $1448417.14 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015784 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 6 - FY 

2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $1578952.87 $1578952.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0015882 Barrow SR 

124 @ CR 47/OLD 

HOG MOUNTAIN 

ROAD - 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$440000 $440000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 15,40

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0015883 Barrow SR 

211 @ CR 47/OLD 

HOG MOUNTAIN 

ROAD - 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$270000 $270000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,60

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016004 Barrow 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 15 LOCS IN 

BARROW CO - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

47.05 Miles $441129.92 $441129.92 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

9,430 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016006 

Habersham OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 15 LOC IN 

HABERSHAM COHRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

42.46 Miles $201706.13 $201706.13 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

13,90

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016014 Columbia 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 25 LOCS IN 

COLUMBIA 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

76.17 Miles $490580.96 $490580.96 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

10,10

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016046 Greene 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 13 LOC IN 

GREENE CO - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

66.42 Miles $348073.07 $348073.07 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

2,920 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016046 Greene 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 13 LOC IN 

GREENE CO - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

66.42 Miles $8000 $8000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

2,920 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016050 Jasper, 

Newton OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 11 LOCS IN 

JASPER CO - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

63.28 Miles $334122.08 $334122.08 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

2,480 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016051 Wilkes 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 12 LOCS IN 

WILKES CO - 

HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

65.35 Miles $329491.33 $329491.33 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

2,690 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016057 Ben Hill 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 27 LOCS IN BEN 

HILL CO-HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

66.7 Miles $350512.17 $350512.17 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

5,420 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016059 Grady 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 21 LOC IN 

GRADY COUNTYHRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

66.7 Miles $282118.64 $282118.64 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

2,290 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016060 Lee OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 14 LOCS IN LEE 

COUNTY-HRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

60.6 Miles $318544.25 $318544.25 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

5,180 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016064 Bulloch 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 2 LOCS IN 

BULLOCH CO - 

HRRR

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 2.8 Miles $8000 $8000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

7,780 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016064 Bulloch 

OFF-SYSTEM

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 2 LOCS IN 

BULLOCH CO - 

HRRR

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 2.8 Miles $553377.57 $553377.57 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

7,780 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016065 Jackson 

SR 53 @ CR 

433/NEW CUT 

ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$800000 $800000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 9,060 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016105 Cherokee 

SR 140 @ CR 

776/AVERY ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersection

s

$407239.41 $407239.41 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 14,00

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0016106 Polk SR 6 

@ SR 100

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$332975 $332975 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 4,190 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016107 Gwinnett 

SR 378 FROM CR 

560/INDIAN TRAIL 

LILBURN RD TO 

SR 13

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1.71 Miles $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 38,10

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Mid-block 

Crossing

0016108 Carroll SR 

16 @ CS 

1110/COLUMBIA 

DR/CS 

1120/BRUMBELO

W RD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$350000 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,100 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016109 Berrien, 

Lanier, Lowndes SR 

122 @ SR 125

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 2,110 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016110 Carroll SR 

101 @ CR 352/OLD 

DRAKETOWN 

TRAIL

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersection

s

$110402 $110402 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,900 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0016112 Sumter SR 

30 @ CR 

311/LAMAR ROAD 

- HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,660 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016113 

Meriwether SR 41 

@ CR 174/JUDSON 

BULLOCH ROAD - 

HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Locations $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,550 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016114 Brooks SR 

122 @ SR 333

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,080 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016115 Bartow SR 

3 @ CS 1181/RED 

TOP MOUNTAIN 

ROAD CONN

Interchange 

design

Interchange 

design - other

1 Intersection

s

$556245 $556245 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,70

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection 

Safety Audit

0016116 Pickens 

SR 53BU @ 

DRAGON DRIVE

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$344368 $344368 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther7,040 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016117 Peach SR 

247 CONN @ CR 

83/CS 

668/HOUSERS 

MILL ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 11,40

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016118 Hall SR 

369 FROM SR 53 

TO SR 53 CONN

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 3.34 Miles $550000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther28,10

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Incorporate 

Treatments at 

Maintenance

0016119 Decatur 

SR 97 @ CS 

1013/OLD QUINCY 

ROAD - HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,630 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016124 Pierce 

CASON RD @ 1 

LOC - OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS - 

HRRR

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 8.5 Miles $2148912.33 $2148912.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,230 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016166 Jackson 

SR 124 @ SR 60 & 

CR 17/SAM 

FREEMAN ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 10,60

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016329 Clarke 

EPPS BRIDGE RD 

@ TIMOTHY RDOFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - modify 

existing

1 Intersection

s

$8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 22,80

0

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Ranked List by 

County

0016330 Clarke 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 25 LOCS IN 

CLARKE COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

50.17 Miles $514390.01 $514390.01 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 15,50

0

35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016331 Dooly CR 

215/CALHOUN RD 

@1 LOC-OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTSHRRR

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder grading 5.2 Miles $361520.86 $361520.86 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

320 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016332 Spalding 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 7 LOCS IN 

SPALDING 

COUNTY

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

38.5 Miles $309353.95 $309353.95 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

8,320 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016333 Fulton 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 13 LOCS IN 

COLLEGE PARK

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

13 Locations $115509.25 $115509.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016339 Fulton 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 2 LOCS IN 

FULTON COUNTY

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $232470.48 $232470.48 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 710 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016344 Troup 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 34 LOC IN 

TROUP COUNTYHRRR

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - 

other

93.16 Miles $695752.32 $695752.32 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

5,470 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016345 Rockdale 

CR 207 & CR 439 - 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

IN ROCKDALE

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Locations $8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 2,250 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016346 Rockdale 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 6 LOCS IN 

ROCKDALE 

COUNTY

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

flashers - modify 

existing

2 Locations $8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 7,760 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersection

s

Ranked List by 

County

0016348 Forsyth 

SR 9 @ CR 

3705/AC SMITH RD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,875 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016352 Gwinnett 

SR 84 @ CR 

556/LAKEVIEW 

ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,40

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016356 Newton 

SR 162 @ CR 

228/ROCKY 

PLAINS ROAD - 

HRRR

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 5,270 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016363 Walton SR 

81 @ CR 

29/OZORA 

CHURCH ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 10,60

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

0016412 All 

Counties CRASH 

MODIFICATION & 

ANALYTIC 

SOFTWARE

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Software $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Data Link Data 

Systems

0016429 All 

Counties 

PEDESTRIAN 

SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - CY 

2019

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Program 

Support

$313710 $313710 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Pedestrians Road Safety 

Audits

0016430 All 

Counties BICYCLE 

SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - CY 

2019

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Program 

Support

$300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A Bicyclists Road Safety 

Audits
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 52

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016432 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN

DISTRICT 1 - AREA 

3 & 4 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $2141260.6 $2141260.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016433 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

2 & 3 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $2307562.66 $2307562.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016437 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

2 & 4 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

2 Locations $1685263.38 $1685263.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016438 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

3 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

1 Locations $1685263.38 $1685263.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

0016439 All 

Counties RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

5 - FY 2019

Roadway Rumble strips - 

unspecified or 

other

1 Locations $1562451.32 $1562451.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Evaluate and 

Apply 

Countermeasure

s

003948 Catoosa SR 

3 @ CR 

381/GRAYSVILLE 

ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersection

s

$830000 $830000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 6,780 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections

009855 Colquitt SR 

37 @ CR 

238/INDUSTRIAL 

DRIVE/CR 

477/COOL 

SPRINGS ROAD

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$590000 $590000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 6,140 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Alternative 

Intersections
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 52

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 1,247 1,226 1,192 1,180 1,164 1,430 1,560 1,549 1,514

Serious Injuries 14,696 17,898 19,909 21,179 21,059 24,494 24,158 23,919 23,030

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.116 1.136 1.122 1.081 1.045 1.213 1.283 1.242 1.198

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

13.155 16.581 18.744 19.405 18.913 20.773 19.674 18.937 17.784

Number nonmotorized fatalities192 152 188 209 183 228 265 274 294

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

1,180 864 1,370 1,251 1,351 1,424 1,461 1,567 1,330
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 52

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 52

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

GDOT uses the FARS database and cross checks against the state's fatality database to ensure they are 

aligned.

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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 (RPA) - 

Interstate

113.8 1,850.4 1.51 24.61

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

112.4 1,817.2 1.92 31.25

Rural Minor Arterial 166.2 2,684.6 3.06 49.6

Rural Minor Collector 36.4 591.8 3.1 55.56

Rural Major Collector 171.2 2,775.4 5.3 57.25

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 52

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 Local Road or 

Street

127.2 2,068 3 49.16

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

113.4 1,829 0.48 7.6

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

14.2 230 0.4 6.42

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

188.4 3,035 1.17 17.94

Urban Minor Arterial 201.2 3,236.8 1.19 18.54

Urban Minor Collector 70.2 1,126 1.14 17.16

Urban Major Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or 

Street

128.8 2,088.2 0.55 8.79
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 52

Year 2018

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

919.6 14,862.2 1.27 20.56

County Highway 

Agency

427 6,905.8 1.3 20.99

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

97 1,564 0.59 9.67

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

We have been studying the variability in injury severity reported on the crash report by various law 

enforcement agencies. We would ask that both FHWA and NHTSA consider using both (A) Suspected Serious 

Injury and (B) Suspected Minor Injury as a combined value vs. just using (A) Suspected Serious Injury. We 

consider fatality, complaint and PDO crash injury severity to be consistently identified, but even with the 

KABCO definition for suspected serious injury, we see local Field Training Officers (FTO) having a greater 

impact than our training documents. 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 52

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1698.0

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average traffic fatalities under the projected 1,698 (2016-2020) 5-year 

average by December 2020

Number of Serious Injuries:24094.0

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average serious traffic injuries under the projected 24,094 (2016-

2020) 5-year average by December 2020

Fatality Rate:1.280

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled under 

the projected 1.28 (2016-2020) 5-year average by December 2020

Serious Injury Rate:21.800

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

To reduce the 5-year moving average serious traffic injuries for every 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled under the projected 21.8 (2016-2020) 5-year average by December 2020

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:1163.0

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries under the 

projected 1,163 (2016-2020) 5-year average by December 2020

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

data and the state's approach to developing performance targets. GDOT presented the finding and approach 

to GDOT Planning and the State's MPOs.
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 52

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Since the inception of the 5-year moving average traffic fatalities performance measure, the state has noticed a 

flattening of the annual fatality curve. This will significantly alter future projections if the trend continues. All 

evidence indicates that we will meet our 2018 performance target

Similarly, since the inception of the 5-year moving average serious traffic injuries performance measure, the 

state has noticed a flattening of the annual serious injury curve. The projected trend line should start to reflect 

this change within the next year. All evidence indicates that we will meet our 2018 performance target. 

Over the past two years the state notes a gradual decline in fatality and serious injury rates. This is a positive 

sign that we should meet our 2018 performance targets. 

With the continued steady rise in the state's the 5-year moving average of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

injuries, we consider this our greatest challenge. With the rise in e-scooters and a diverse population, 

achieving the performance measure is not assured. The state will continue to monitor trends and adjust 

pedestrian safety and bicycle safety programs as needed.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

153 150 139 206 229 226 201

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

1,362 1,355 1,276 1,271 1,547 1,771 1,517
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 52

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

• Other-Fatality Rates

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

Over the past years GDOT has aggressively pursued quality safety projects and enhanced our total program. 

The state has been divided into three geographic regions being served by three separate engineering teams. 

This approach has promoted improved communication and coordination between the departments central 

office and our districts. We have consolidated our safety program projects into a web based database that will 

support program tracking from origin through the Plan Development Process (PDP) process. GDOT has 

adopted an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) policy to ensure safety and alternative design is a core 

consideration when evaluating intersection traffic control options. The Department has updated the 

specifications for high friction surface treatment to help ensure reliable and consistent construction practices 

are followed. We have worked closely with law enforcement, software developers, the TRCC working group 

and executive board to bring the state's crash report into closer alignment with MMUCC 5th edition. The 

improved report and associated software will provide our safety teams the data needed to advance our safety 

programs outlined in the SHSP. We have identified and collected curve data to meet the MUTCD requirements 

for curve signing and are scheduling implementation with our districts and engineering consultants. Lastly we 

have launched our safety analytics software that incorporates the HSM EB methodology for ranking road 

segments and provides data analysis for our safety community.

All of the efforts support the improved identification of stand alone projects such as roundabouts, intersection 

turn lanes or (reduced conflict U-turns) R-Cuts to address intersection safety and projects that are systemic 

such as rumble strips, cable barrier, guardrail end treatments, pavement marking and high friction surface 

treatment to address lane and roadway departure crashes. We have identified our pedestrian focus corridors 

and are delivering pedestrian hybrid beacons to address the states rising pedestrian fatality numbers. GDOT 

has identified interchanges that have common features and developed specific countermeasures to address 

wrong way driving crashes. 

Overall, the state has put several key elements in place to curb the rise in motor vehicle fatalities and serious 

injuries. We are confidant that these efforts have and will have a positive impact on the lives of Georgia's road 

users.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• More systemic programs

• Policy change
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 52

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2018

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)

Lane Departure 294.4 2,223 0.24 1.84

Roadway Departure 726.4 3,551.4 0.6 2.95

Intersections 334.8 8,203.2 0.27 6.75

Pedestrians 225.8 1,095.4 0.18 0.9

Bicyclists 23 331.2 0.02 0.27

Older Drivers 267 2,230 0.22 1.84

Motorcyclists 149.4 855.4 0.12 0.71

Work Zones 89.2 456.2 0.07 0.37

Data 1,443.4 23,332 1.2 19.21
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 52

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 52

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting 

period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness 

evaluation. 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 52

CounterMeasures: ROUNDABOUT 

Description: 

The Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT) requested an inservice review of a roundabout at SR 22 at 

Holley Road in Bibb County. The minor 

street stop-controlled intersection was 

converted to a roundabout with an 

opening in June 2015 to improve safety. 

According to the Concept Report, there 

were 3 fatalities between 2004 and 2009 

due to angle collisions at this intersection. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 1 

Number of Installations: 1 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 4 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

Of the crashes on record during the after 

construction period, there were 4 single 

vehicles collision and 1 angle collision. 

One crash involved injuries, and no 

crashes involved a fatality. The injury 

crash was caused by the brakes failing 

and the car ran through the center island. 

Three of the single vehicle crashes were 

eastbound. One was westbound. The 

angle crash was at the southbound 

approach. 

File Name: SR 22 at CR 33 ISR memo_07 22 2019.pdf

CounterMeasures: ROUNDABOUT 

Description: 

The Georgia Department of 

Transportation (GDOT) requested an inservice review of a roundabout at SR 57 at 

SR 18 in Wilkinson County. The minor 

street stop-controlled intersection was 

converted to a roundabout, with an 

opening date in April 2015. The purpose 

and need are safety related. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 1 

Number of Installations: 1 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 4 

Years After: 4 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

Comparing the before (Table 1) and after 

(Table 2) collision history, conversion of 

the intersection to a roundabout resulted 

in a 42.5% reduction in total annual crash 

frequency and a 57% reduction in annual 

injury crashes. This is likely due to the fact 

that there are now fewer angle collisions, 
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 52

which is the type of collision that results in 

more serious injuries. 

File Name: SR 57 at SR 18 ISR memo_07 22 2019.pdf
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 52

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 OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL 

OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0009576 Bibb SR 22 at 

HOLLEY ROAD - 

ROUNDABOUT

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

8.00 4.00 2.00 9.00 1.00 19.00 5.00 3.38:1

0010364 Bulloch SR 26 at CR 

585/BURKHALTER ROAD

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

17.00 9.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 27.00 16.00 10.67:1

0008947 Cherokee SR 20 FM 

BARTOW TO FORSYTH and 

SR 140 FM BARTOW TO 

FULTON

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) 

- Other

Roadside Roadside - other 19.00 13.00 4.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 38.00 26.00 6.60:1

0007311 Fulton CR 3266/Bell 

Road at CR 72/Boles Road

Urban Major 

Collector

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

8.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 13.00 6.00 0.51:1

0009218 Paulding SR 61 at 

NEBO ROAD/MAYFIELD 

ROAD

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

10.00 13.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 18.00 17.00 1.31:1

0000409 Spalding SR 16 at 

CR 496/688/OLD 85 

CONNECTOR/HOLLONVILLE 

RD - ROUNDABOUT

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

modifications to 

roundabout

5.00 3.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 12.00 5.00 1.79:1
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 52

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/24/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2019 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

20 20

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

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

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 52

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

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)

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

AADT Year (80)

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 52

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 78.89 78.89 0.00 0.00 45.45 45.45 55.56 55.56 40.00 40.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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. 

Georgia is fortunate to have had forward thinking leadership which invested the time and resources to have established a reasonably complete geospatial inventory of all public roads well before ARNOLD or MIRE were introduced. 

Additionally, the department was one of the first to initiate the contract to implement ESRI’s Roads and Highways road inventory system. Based on the advantages introduced with the new system, the Georgia Dept of Transportation, 

through the Office of Transportation Data, started a program in 2016 that is systematically verifying, updating, and collecting the MIRE fundamental data elements. This effort is being conducted in unison with the 12 Georgia Regional 

Commissions, which cover the 159 Counties and 538 Cities within the state of Georgia. This multi-year, multi-agency effort will, in the end, provide more than the required 37 FDE for non-local paved roads, the 9 FDE for paved local 

roads, and the 5 required FDE for the unpaved roads.

Additionally, this multi-agency effort which is fully supported by, and utilized by the State GIO in her efforts to provide a uniform statewide LRS to all public agencies.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 52

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Program Final-2016 FAST.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

SR 22 at CR 33 ISR memo_07 22 2019.pdf

SR 57 at SR 18 ISR memo_07 22 2019.pdf

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 52

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 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.

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.