ALABAMA 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Page 1 of 56 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 56

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 8

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 8

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................12

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................25

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................25

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................27

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................44

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................46

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................47

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................47

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................47

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................51

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................52

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................55

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................56
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 56

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. 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.”
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 56

Executive Summary

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) through the Design Bureau, Traffic Engineering Division, 

and Traffic & Safety Operations Section (TSOS) is responsible for the administration of the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal for the TSOS is to provide the tools, processes, and guidance 

necessary to promote highway safety efforts that lead to a reduction in the number and severity of crashes on 

all public roads in Alabama.

The HSIP projects are consistent with the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 3rd Edition which 

was updated in July 2017. The 3rd Edition of the of the Alabama SHSP focuses on implementing regional 

SHSPs following the Rural/Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) as the geographical boundaries for each 

region. Specific emphasis areas were identified by local stakeholders to develop performance measures with 

proven countermeasures. Four regions were selected to represent various geographical areas of the state and 

ensure a mix of urban and rural traffic and safety challenges. Regional coalitions were established to convene 

a diverse group of stakeholder participants representing all facets of the 4 "E"s (Engineering, Enforcement, 

Education, and Emergency Response) ranging from industry to community civic groups. The Alabama SHSP, 

3rd Edition included four Regional Safety Coalitions Planned Emphasis Areas and Strategies. 

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

adopted the goal of reducing fatalities by 50% within a 20-year time period. Fatal crashes had dropped 

significantly over the past decade from 2005 to 2015. Alabama had seen a steady decline in the number of 

fatalities and the fatality rate during this same period but has recently seen an uptick in fatalities over the past 

couple of years. ALDOT failed to meet 2019 targets, so an Implementation Plan is being developed for FY 

2022.

The SHSP 3rd Edition has four key emphasis areas: High-Risk Behavior, Infrastructure and Operations, AtRisk Road Users, and Decision and Performance Improvement. The SHSP was developed in conjunction with 

the Alabama Department of Economic and Communities Affairs (ADECA) and multiple agencies and 

organizations. ADECA is responsible for the implementation of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) programs. The human behavioral aspects of the SHSP incorporate ADECA’S 

Statewide Highway Safety Plan which addresses the safety program behavioral elements related to occupant 

restraint use, impaired driving, distracted driving, speed, young drivers, motorcycles, and pedestrians. HSIP 

projects have generally focused on (3) three areas: Infrastructure Countermeasures (construction/supportive 

programs), Driver Behavior (safety outreach campaigns and overtime enforcement efforts), and Traffic Safety 

Information Systems (crash data analysis).

HSIP Infrastructure projects are developed through safety and operational analysis using crash data statistics, 

crash patterns, and benefit-cost engineering analysis. The projects have been more systemic in recent years 

and target more specific needs identified through data analysis such as Interstate Median Barrier, Shoulder 

Widening Program, Rumble Strips, and Horizontal Curve Safety Programs. Electronic ball bank equipment and 

training were provided to the ALDOT Regions/Districts/Counties to reduce roadway departure crashes. The 

HSIP program also launched the Roadway Departure Focus State Program which included an in-depth 

evaluation of roadway departure crashes and a set of roadway departure countermeasures such as the 

Horizontal Curve Resigning Program. A Roadway Safety Assessment Manual, HSIP Management Manual, 

Alabama Roundabout Guide, Red Light Running Camera Criteria, and Speed Management Manual were also 

developed to aid in project development for infrastructure and operations. The ALDOT HSIP Program 

continued its implementation of the Section 130 Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Program and is currently 

undertaking a program to update all passive devices at each public crossing in the state. The ALDOT 

implemented targeted marketing and media campaigns focused on High-Risk Driver Behavior. Public 

information campaigns using social media, radio, and outdoor advertising focused on distracted driving, 

seatbelt safety, speeding, and driving under the influence. In addition, our CARE Program (Critical Analysis
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 56

Reporting Environment) identified impaired driving hotspots which resulted in our stakeholders implementing 

focused enforcement, educational programs and engineering fixes at these locations.

To enhance Decision and Performance Improvement, the ALDOT HSIP has strengthened its traffic safety 

information systems by increasing its electronic citations and electronic crash reporting. The Emergency 

Medical Services Information System (EMSIS) has also been deployed and it electronically collecting data from 

all licensed EMS agencies.

The ALDOT is also continuing its efforts to enhance its safety culture by making safety a priority in all aspects 

of planning, project development, and performance evaluation. A study was completed that allowed the 

ALDOT to assess the role of safety across bureaus and identify which bureaus play critical roles in advancing 

safety across the state. Peer roundtables were conducted with experts from across the country to determine 

what safety related skills are needed for various roles in the ALDOT. and what coursework would provide the 

proper training.

HSIP Infrastructure Projects/Tool Development

The Interstate Median Barrier program and the Shoulder Widening Program are safety programs which were 

established in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The Interstate Median Barrier program addresses median cross 

over crashes by installing median cable along selected sections of interstate with a high pattern of median 

cross over crashes. The shoulder widening program addresses the addition of two (2) feet of shoulder during 

maintenance resurfacing along state routes (where feasible). In 2015, the Horizontal Curve Safety Program 

(HCSP) was the next systemic HSIP project developed and implemented. This program is evaluating 

horizontal curves on state-maintained roads and is developing recommendations for traffic signing and 

pavement marking in accordance with the MUTCD 2009. In addition, high crash sites and roadway departure 

locations are undergoing road safety assessments (RSAs) to determine appropriate safety enhancements and 

countermeasures.

TSOS collaborates with various University Research Centers to identify and develop data and analytical tools 

and manuals such as ALSAFE: Development of an Alabama Specific Planning Level Safety Tool, and the 

Alabama Roundabout Guide.

ALSAFE will be a safety forecasting tool for analysis at the Traffic Analysis Zone level which is a common 

metric used by planners. ALSAFE will be a statewide planning level safety software tool which will aid ALDOT, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). These tools will 

be vital in the planning and selection process of addressing potential safety problems and countermeasures for 

human factors or needs that are identified.

In the past few years, Alabama has been implementing conceptual designs for roundabouts. In order to 

maintain design consistency and to provide guidance, there was a need for the development of guidance for 

Alabama roundabouts. The Alabama Roundabout Guide serves as a guide to the planning, design, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of roundabouts in Alabama.

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

tool to assist in selecting and evaluating safety projects. The Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) is 

contracted to develop Safety Performance Factors (SPF) for state route segments and intersections while the 

University of South Alabama has a project to develop SPFs for rural roads. The SPFs will be specific for 

Alabama by applying Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodology during their development. By using these 

tools, the project selection and evaluation process will be enhanced.

Local Roads
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 56

Local roads safety programs are included in the HSIP program of projects. The Alabama Local Technical 

Assistance Program (LTAP) through Auburn University provides both training and practical application of 

safety principles to educate local entities. Other tools and equipment, such as the HSIP Manual, provide 

guidance on how to apply for HSIP funds. TSOS in conjunction with FHWA also hosted the first annual Rural 

Road Safety Conference (now the Alabama Roadway Safety Conference) in 2014, with the 8th conference 

scheduled for October 2021. The Conference focuses on safety issues and provides training on various 

roadway safety topics.

The Safety Technical Assistance for Counties and Cities (STACC) Program was also authorized to address 

issues on Alabama's local roadways. The objective is to provide technical support to owners, operators and 

maintainers of Alabama's local roads through a cooperative agreement between the ALDOT and the Auburn 

University Engineering Continuing Education Office. The STACC program focuses on low-cost safety 

countermeasures, including training and road safety reviews to strengthen the Alabama safety culture and 

ultimately reduce fatalities and serious injuries. STACC is coordinated with the Alabama Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) and the Alabama Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. Reduction of local road roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries along with facilitating local road peer to 

peer assistance, networking, technical assistance and the dissemination of safety related resources to the local 

roads community are STACC's objectives.

Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts

Prior to adoption of the FAST Act, Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts of Driver Behavior and Traffic Safety 

Information Systems areas of Alabama’s current SHSP are managed by the Design Bureau, Traffic Design 

Division, Safety Management Section (SMS).

Law enforcement agencies are invited to participate in HSIP development committees such as the 

development of the Speed Management Manual and Road Safety Assessments (RSA) Manual. Their 

perspective and experience play an important role in targeting effective countermeasures for the safety of the 

traveling public.

Safety outreach initiatives are coordinated with the ALDOT's Media and Community Relations Bureau, the 

Alabama State Law Enforcement Agency (formerly the Alabama Department of Public Safety), and ADECA. 

“Driver Sober or Get Pulled Over”, “Click It or Ticket it” and “Work Zone Safety” are examples of the safety 

campaigns implemented annually. This partnership is effective in providing safety information to the public. Its 

focus is to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries that occur, especially during various holiday 

seasons.

ALDOT Media and Community Relations conducted a safety public education and awareness program that 

addressed the behavioral safety elements related to seatbelts, speeding, impaired and distracted driving, work 

zones, rail crossings and motorcycles. Working with the Governor’s Office, December was proclaimed Slow 

Down Move Over Awareness Month, by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey. Using varied communication channels 

and events, the ALDOT public education programs reached across the state of Alabama and generated news 

articles, advertisements and other marketing pieces that were viewed by our target audiences more than 35 

million times.

Alabama crash data is maintained and accessed through the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) 

software and its supporting data is maintained by the Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) at the 

University of Alabama. This interface is used for crash analysis by both ALDOT and local agencies. This data 

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

the development of the HSIP for assessing safety information.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 56

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

but more efforts are needed to continue the efforts to meet the “Toward Zero Death” Initiatives. This is a 

corporative effort through partnerships with other agencies and addressing safety elements through the SHSP 

to reduce fatalities and serious injuries throughout the state of Alabama.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 56

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 Alabama Department of Transportation's Traffic & Safety Operations Section (TSOS) is responsible for 

monitoring the availability and use of all federal HSIP funding available to our state. In order to make HSIP 

funding decisions, the TSOS has the responsibility of developing a prioritized list of proposed HSIP projects for 

funding consideration. HSIP project funding decisions can be based on a safety cost-effectiveness using a 

benefit/cost ratio or also by focusing on site specific project locations which may benefit from a particular safety 

countermeasure such as a roundabout or where pedestrian safety is lacking. 

Potential HSIP projects may come from a variety of sources, including the analysis by ALDOT of crash data, 

field observations by ALDOT and/or local governments, law enforcement agencies, emergency response 

organizations, and others. These proposed projects must address a stated goal(s) of the Alabama Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan, including the reduction of crashes, fatalities, injuries or property damage in support of the 

State's established safety performance measures. There must also be a documented description of the safety 

issue(s) along with supporting data and quantitative and/or qualitative information on the proposed safety 

countermeasures. The TSOS will then review and/or approve the HSIP project application if it is confirmed that 

the project is eligible for funding, is consistent with SHSP and its focus areas, is based on sound technical 

engineering analyses, and has non-federal matching funds available for the project. 

Once a project is approved for funding the TSOS will work with the project sponsor on how best to proceed 

with the project including (1) confirming the project schedule and letting date; (2) confirming the project budget; 

(3) confirming the either systemic or non-systemic safety improvement(s) to be implemented; (4) complying 

with plan preparation requirements; and (5) complying with project delivery requirements. The TSOS will also 

serve as a technical advisor to ALDOT Regional Offices and other project sponsors on HSIP program 

requirements, and will approve/disapprove requests for HSIP project schedule revisions in coordination with 

the Region Offices. A project's status will be continually monitored by the TSOS. If there are significant project 

delays it will be determined whether to cancel an HSIP project, require the project sponsor to take corrective 

actions, and/or reprogram the HSIP funding to other eligible project(s).

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 56

The TSOS accepts and approves or disapproves HSIP project applications for federal HSIP funding throughout 

the year to program eligible, cost-effective HSIP projects. To be eligible to use HSIP funds, projects must be 

consistent with the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan and must correct or improve a hazardous road 

location or address a highway safety problem as required by federal legislation.

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

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

Alabama is proactive in the development of safety tools and manuals for use of the analysis of local roads.

ALDOT has updated the HSIP Manual which provides an overview of the HSIP program. This manual provides 

aid for local agencies, MPOs/RPOs, and local ALDOT Region Personnel with a focus on the eligibility and 

funding requirements for HSIP projects. HSIP funds are available to local agencies for low cost safety 

improvements such as striping, markings, signage, traffic signal upgrades, etc. Any striping, marking or signing 

improvement must be a safety improvement and not routine maintenance. Project selections are based upon a 

benefit to cost analysis. Training has been provided on the HSIP manual and HSIP application process.

Other local tools under development are the United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP). usRAP is 

intended to encourage highway agencies to make safety decisions in the management of road networks based 

on national assessment of risk as well as to develop roadway Star Ratings and Safer Road Investment Plans. 

usRAP can be used for risk mapping of crashes, safety performance tracking, and provides a star rating. Star 

Ratings in usRAP are based on the presence or absence of specific safety-related road features and their 

effect on the likelihood of crashes occurring and the severity of crashes that do occur.

The development of Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) for rural two-lane roads of the HSM will assist in the 

analysis process for local roads. ALDOT developed a Road Safety Assessments (RSAs) program. A RSA is a 

formal safety performance examination of existing and proposed roadways by an independent and multidisciplinary team. This program will be available to both state and local government projects.

ALDOT's Safety Management Section (SMS) provides cities, counties and other municipalities with annual 

crash data summaries, high crash information locations, individual crash reports, and other crash-related 

information as needed. This crash data provides information to help identify immediate or potential safety 

needs. This data is also helpful in the selection process for safety program funding. State and local agency 

personnel are presented opportunities to receive crash analysis training for the Critical Analysis Reporting 

Environment (CARE) program. CARE provides an analytical process to assess crash data for trends and use 

as needed. CARE training is provided several times during the year.

In September 2014, ALDOT in cooperation with FHWA and LTAP hosted its first annual Local Rural Road 

Safety Workshop and Conference. Subsequent to this first conference, we have had four additional 

conferences that have emphasized the implementation of the safety process through all stages of roadway 

planning, design and operations through practical guidance specifically geared to local/rural roads. The 8th 

Annual Alabama Roadway Safety Conference is scheduled for September 2021. We have averaged 125 

participants per conference who have learned from various subject matter experts. Participants also learned 

how to use the CARE system, to develop countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections, Work Zone 

Safety for Local Roads, Measures to Improve Roadside Safety etc. The workshops and conferences have all 

been very successful for both internal and external outreach focusing on creating and maintaining a safety 

culture in our state.

The ALDOT has also implemented a project called Safety Technical Assistance for Counties and Cities 

(STACC) Program which ALDOT has funded to assist the locals. A consultant was hired to assist the counties 

with their plans. The effort was initiated from participation in the EDC-5 Reducing Rural Roadways Departure 

initiative. STACC provides technical support to Alabama counties and cities to reduce rural roadway fatalities 

and serious injuries and grow the safety culture.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 56

The Local Road safety Initiative (LRSI) is available to cities and counties for both rural and urban non-state 

maintained roadways with significant safety risks. All projects submitted must be in accordance with the SHSP 

and applicable Local Road Safety Plans if one has been developed for that County. The LRSI provides funding 

for local agencies when the HRRR rule is not triggered.

Alabama triggered the HRRR Special rule for FY 2019 and FY 2020, and Alabama was informed that the rule 

had been triggered for FY 2021 as well, however, in early spring/ late winter of 2021 we were informed that we 

had in fact not triggered the rule. The ALDOT made the decision to continue forward with the funding since 

projects had been approved and awarded. Beginning in FY 2022, Alabama will provide approximately $4 

Million in funding annually from the HSIP program to local agencies regardless of whether or not the HRRR 

Special Rule is triggered.

The ALDOT is also sponsoring the development of Local Road Safety Plans for all 67 counties. One county is 

complete, ten are currently under development, and ten are expected to be initiated every year until all 67 have 

LRSPs. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Local Aid Programs Office/Division

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

• Other-ALDOT County Transportation

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Traffic & Safety Operations Section (TSOS) has several safety program partnerships with the ALDOT 

Maintenance Bureau. The initial safety program was developed between the TSOS and ALDOT's Maintenance 

Bureau to implement the statewide shoulder widening projects on resurfacing projects. The program addresses 

road departure crashes along rural state routes. This program coordinates with the state’s resurfacing program 

and provides two (2’) foot shoulders along routes with shoulder scoring, where feasible. HSIP funds are utilized 

to implement the improvements. The ALDOT Maintenance Bureau administers the program and assists TSOS 

in the identification of state routes that are being widened.

Additionally, ALDOT's Maintenance Bureau has been given the task of upgrading horizontal curve signage on 

state roads to meet the current MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). As an effort to improve 

safety, TSOS is collaborating by identifying high crash horizontal curve locations for enhanced signage 

upgrades. HSIP funding will be used to implement this portion of the overall program.

In 2012, TSOS initiated a pilot project for a potential statewide inventory of traffic control devices at signalized 

intersections located on ALDOT maintained highways. The purpose of the inventory was to collect the type of 

equipment and infrastructure at each intersection, including approaches, for use by both the TSOS and the 

ALDOT Maintenance Bureau. TSOS is using this database to develop Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) 

for use with the Highway Safety Manual, while the Maintenance Bureau will be using the data to advance 

maintenance, operations, and financial management of the State's Traffic Signal Inventory. The pilot originally 

was to inventory traffic signals in Shelby County, which provided a mixture of urban and rural locations. 

Funding remaining from the pilot was then used to inventory signal locations in Grove Hill Area, a very rural 

part of Alabama. The project was then expanded statewide while ALDOT Computer Services developed a 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 56

database for the use by selected ALDOT personnel. The inventory was completed in Spring of 2020, along 

with training of ALDOT users.

TSOS has had other similar partnerships with ALDOT’s Local Transportation Bureau. This partnership was 

initially developed with the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) and has expanded. Now ALDOT’s Local 

Transportation Bureau is active in the HSIP review committee of county applications and provides valid input 

on the development of other efforts to educate locals on safety issues. For instance, ALDOT’s Local 

Transportation Bureau assisted and participated in the Local Rural Roads Conference which was held in 

September 2014 and has been actively involved in subsequent conferences. We have had four additional 

conferences (2015-2018) that have emphasized the implementation of the safety process through all stages of 

roadway planning, design and operations through practical guidance with a track for local roads. The 5th 

annual Alabama Safety Conference was an all roads conference and the 6th annual will be the same, but 

virtual. This "hands on" approach has been successful in addressing Alabama's local roads safety needs and 

is beneficial in obligating HRRR and HSIP funds.

Another essential partnership is with the ALDOT’s development of an Enterprise GIS (EGIS) system. ALDOT’s 

Enterprise GIS (EGIS) is comprised of a Linear Referencing System for all the roads in the state of Alabama 

and its associated data attributes. EGIS’s primary function has been to help process inventory data required for 

FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System’s (HPMS) submittal. TSOS has a representative on the 

EGIS committee who gives a perspective on Safety Data related needs. TSOS has submitted an extensive list 

of Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data elements to the committee for consideration in the 

ALDOT’s Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data collection process. TSOS is working with the University of 

Alabama to collect data on off system routes in the state.

Also, ALDOT is converting its current Link-Node system to GPS coordinates. Theses coordinates will be put 

into the CARE system and will allow past crash reports to have a GPS coordinate. The University of Alabama 

is leading this project and were initially tasked with translating ALDOT’s digital copies of the Link Node maps 

drawn in MicroStation into a GIS format. Now that ALDOT’s Enterprise GIS (EGIS) Linear Referencing System 

(LRS) has come into being, the university has been tasked with conflating the Link Node data to the new LRS 

system. Currently the Link and Node features have been fully migrated to reference the ALDOT eGIS LRS. 

Link and Node now reside in the eGIS production database and are registered as internal events against the 

production LRS at ALDOT. This allows for the events (Link and Node) to always be in sync with any route 

updates. Lastly, the university has also been charged with developing an interactive Viewer/Editing program for 

the Links and Nodes and future changes to the data.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Local Technical Assistance Program

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

• Other-County and Local Govt

• Other-Ala Dept of Public Health

• Other-Ala Dept of Public Safety

• Other-Ala Dept of Education

• Other-Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 56

Describe coordination with external partners.

ALDOT maintains a close relationship with its safety partners, including (1) Academia/University, (2) FHWA, 

(3) Alabama Governors Highway Safety Office, (4) Alabama Local Technical Assistance Program, (5) Regional 

Planning Organizations (MPOs, RPOs, & COGs), (6) County and Local Governments, (7) Alabama 

Department of Public Health, (8) Alabama Department of Public Safety (aka ALEA), (9) Alabama Department 

of Education, and (10) Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). 

The universities and the Alabama LTAP help advance the implementation of the HSIP through valuable 

research, data management, and data collection, and by providing training and support to ALDOT and its 

partners in the areas of roadway safety. The Planning Organizations, and the county/local government 

agencies apply and receive funding for safety projects through the HSIP. Although not directly funding through 

HSIP efforts, ALDOT maintains a close working relationship with Public Health, Public Safety, Education, and 

ADECA to advance safety throughout the state through a 4-E approach.

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

elaborate. 

Traffic & Safety Operations Section's vision is to develop and provide tools, processes, and guidance 

necessary to focus on reducing the number and severity of crashes for all public roads in Alabama. TSOS 

provides infrastructure road safety initiatives and strategies and provides rapid review, response, and 

resolution to roadway safety concerns.

TSOS administers the HSIP program by developing innovative and progressive programs consistent with the 

Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The programs are planned by fiscal year with available HSIP 

funding. TSOS works closely with the FHWA Division Office Safety personnel to expedite obligating HSIP 

funds in a timely manner.

Implementing a proactive approach in administration, planning and coordinating HSIP projects, TSOS 

manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Local Safety

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Shoulder Improvement

• Sign Replacement And Improvement

• Wrong Way Driving
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 56

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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 • Traffic

• Volume • Roadside features

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.

Local projects are identified but are not addressed in this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Recently authorization project for Vulnerable Users Handbook

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:2

Available funding:1
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 56

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/2/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

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

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

Available funding:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2020
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 56

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 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

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

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

Available funding:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 56

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

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

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?

• Other-ALDOT Region selection of Candidates

• Other-Safety and Operations Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/22/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 56

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:9/13/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 56

• All crashes • Traffic

• Volume

• Median width

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

• Other-Use of HSM methodology

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?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Crash Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:50

Other-Projects are ranked by priority:50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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 • Traffic • Roadside features
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 56

• Volume

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

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:2

Available funding:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

• Lane miles

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

• Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 56

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?

• Other-Crash Analysis, Road Safety Assessments, HSM Methodologies

• Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:50

Cost Effectiveness:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/2/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

• Lane miles

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 56

• 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?

• Other-Crash Analysis, Road Safety Assessments, HSM Methodologies

• Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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 • Traffic

• Volume

• Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

• Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 56

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?

• Other-HRRRP

• Other-MUTCD REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-Wrong Way Crashes • Functional classification

• Other-Interchange Form

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-HSM Methodologies

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

program?

Yes
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 56

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Crash Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 66

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Signing

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• 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

• Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Yes
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 56

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

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is currently used in Design Exception analyses and occasionally in the 

evaluation of alternative analyses for new or reconstructed roadways on an as needed or requested by the 

Traffic Safety and Operations Section. The HSM, and in particular Part A, B & D are used in the evaluation of 

individual projects for HSIP funding, as well as, the overall management of the Safety Programs within the 

department.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 56

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal 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) $36,057,000 $32,512,000 90.17%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$9,856,000 $7,083,000 71.86%

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 $4,511,000 $3,873,000 85.86%

Totals $50,424,000 $43,468,000 86.2%

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

safety projects?

8%

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

8%

The High Risk Rural Roads and Local Road Safety Initiative programs are used to fund local safety projects.

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

5%

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

5%

The following non-infrastructure programs were funded for FY 2020 with HSIP funds:

Road Safety Reviews for various selected locations across the state for $250,000.00

Local Road safety Plan Development Phase I for $300,000.00

Local Road safety plan Development for Alabama Counties Phase II for $333,333.33

Sign Inventory and Assessment state route intersections in Sumpter County for $50,000.00

Feasibility Study For Roundabout at intersection of SR-167 and SR-87 in Springhill for $58,075.00
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 56

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?

$21,867,968

In FY 2019 $42,921,089 was transferred into HSIP funding for Alabama and the transfer out of HSIP funding 

for Alabama shown above in FY 2020 was from these additional funds.

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

the future.

Identification and prioritization of project sites through network screening has been an issue, thus impacting the 

ability to obligate HSIP funds. ALDOT is taking a proactive approach to improve our internal business 

practices, data collection and management, and crash databases to reduce this impediment to obligating HSIP 

funds.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 56

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

ROUNDABOUT AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF SR-147 

(NORTH COLLEGE ST) AND 

CR-72 (FARMVILLE RD)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$2912871.4

8

$2956689.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,58

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACE AND 2' SAFETY 

WIDENING SR-21 (US231) 

FROM MP 191.62 TO MP 

197.43

Roadway Roadway - other 5.810 Miles $370908.36 $1854541.80 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,422 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ROAD SAFETY REVIEWS 

FOR VARIOUS SELECTED 

LOCATIONS ACROSS THE 

STATE FOR FY 2020 AND FY 

2021

Miscellaneous Road safety audits $250000.00 $250000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 

DEVELOPMENT PHASE I

Noninfrastructure Local road safety plans $300000.00 $300000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY 

PLANS (LSRP) FOR 

ALABAMA COUNTIES 

PHASE II

Noninfrastructure Local road safety plans $333333.33 $458333.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

RESURFACE ON SR-2 (US72) IN GURLEY TO INCLUDE 

GUARDRAIL RESET 

(SAFETY REPLACEMENT OF 

STEEL BLOCK OUTS)

Roadside Roadway - other 16.350 Miles $84464.67 $14572145.4

3

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,47

4

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING ON SR-9 IN 

CENTRE TO INCLUDE 

GUARDRAIL RESET 

(SAFETY REPLACEMENT OF 

STEEL BLOCK OUTS)

Roadside Roadway - other 5.020 Miles $142979.49 $2341967.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 9,392 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ROADWAY SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 

THE CORRIDOR OF CR-89

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

5.100 Miles $47130.94 $47130.94 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 4,423 50 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT (BIN 001861) ON CR-17 

OVER LIMESTONE CREEK

Roadside Roadway - other $68950.40 $68950.40 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 1,560 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

INSTALLING TRAFFIC 

CONTROL DEVICES ON CR21 FROM MAPLE AVE TO 

CR-321

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

1.432 Miles $58714.30 $58714.30 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 1,938 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Signage Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT (BIN 000988) OVER DRY 

CREEK

Roadside Roadway - other $56724.29 $56724.29 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Local Road or 

Street

9,392 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INTERSECTION 

MODIFICATIONS AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF SR-2(US72) AND SR-79

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$555346.30 $555346.30 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther13,64

8

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

WIDENING FOR 

CHICANES,HFST,PEDESTRI

AN CROSSINGS, AND SIGNS 

ALONG CR-89

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$265481.56 $290892.27 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,086 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Multiple Other

RESURFACING WIDENING 

AND TRAFFIC STRIPE ON 

CR-1297 FROM SR-67

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

1.230 Miles $272668.95 $272668.95 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 2,007 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-24,CR-36, AND CR-61

Roadside Roadway - other $129950.79 $136265.66 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Collector 530 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

WIDENING, EVELING, AND 

RESURFACING CR-65 

(EASTER FERRY RD)

Roadside Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

0.250 Miles $205761.48 $205761.48 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 640 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INTERSECTION 

MODIFICATION ON CR-109 

AND CR-36 TO INSTALL 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection realignment 1 Intersection

s

$374979.00 $374979.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

4,882 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR75 S OF INSBROOKE PKWY

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.934 Miles $44059.29 $3371583.41 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,33

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR-3 

(US 31) N OF FINLEY BLVD

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

2.325 Miles $52789.01 $2906109.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,83

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR25 FROM BIBB COUNTY LINE 

TO CR-73

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.685 Miles $82399.18 $2241519.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,83

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

ROADWAY SIGNING ON 

STATE ROUTES IN BLOUNT, 

ST. CLAIR, SHELBY AND 

JEFFERSON COUNTIES

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$269000.00 $269000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-51, CR-29, AND CR33

Roadside Roadway - other $181155.42 $181155.42 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 719 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

(BIN008027,005607, AND 

008435)

Roadside Roadway - other $104789.27 $211001.92 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Arterial 4,275 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

WIDENING, RESURFACING 

AND STRIPING ON CR-83

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

0.700 Miles $88888.89 $333007.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,163 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING AND 

GUARDRAIL RETROFIT ON 

SR-144 ST. CLAIR COUNTY

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

9.364 Miles $667051.33 $3923831.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 10,01

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

SIGNING ON STATE 

ROUTES IN ALEXANDER 

CITY AREA

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$529265.26 $529265.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING AND 

STRIPING ON SR-50 FROM 

SR-38(US280) TO MP 

528.520

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.412 Miles $359938.20 $1999656.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,770 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING, STRIPING, 

AND 2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-22 FROM MP 122.437 

TO MP 130.587

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

8.150 Miles $325272.34 $2957021.28 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,743 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING, STRIPING 

AND 2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-49 FROM MP48.302 

TO MP 52.920

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.619 Miles $379691.98 $1650834.71 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,074 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

RESURFACING, STRIPING 

AND 2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-1(US 431) FROM MP 

146.463 TO MP 150.20

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.737 Miles $297613.59 $1653408.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,914 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALL GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-46, CR-67, CR-15 

AND CR-5

Roadside Roadway - other $112639.75 $112639.75 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 107 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-190, CR-280 AND CR382

Roadside Roadway - other $194326.62 $194326.62 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-55 AND CR-49

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$154303.18 $154303.18 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 146 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING, STRIPING 

AND 2' WIDENING ON SR-77 

FROM MP 25.208 TO MP 

32.099

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.953 Miles $429988.79 $2529345.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,195 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

WIDENING, RESURFACING 

AND STRIPING ON CR-289 N 

OF CR-216

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$150900.80 $204289.69 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,425 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ROUNDABOUTS SIGNING 

AND STRIPING ON I-65 OFF 

RAMPS AT EXIT 208

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$255025.00 $255025.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate40,90

8

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

SIGN INVENTORY AND 

ASSESSMENT STATE 

ROUTE INTERSECTIONS IN 

SUMPTER COUNTY

Noninfrastructure Miscellaneous - other $50000.00 $50000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING, 

CENTERLINE AND 

EDGELINE SCORING ON SR69

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

8.039 Miles $567831.32 $3548945.73 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,156 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING GUARDRAIL 

RESET AND STEEL BLOCK 

OUT ON SR-13(US-43) 

MARENGO COUNTY

Roadside Roadway - other 11.429 Miles $33775.11 $2032389.50 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,644 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

SIGNING STATE ROUTES IN 

THE TUSCALOOSA AREA

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$358981.33 $358981.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND SHOULDER 

SCORING ON SR-3 (US31) 

JEMISON CITY LIMITS

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.766 Miles $182963.41 $1829634.07 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 10,24

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND SCORING 

ON SR-6 (US 82)

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.180 Miles $597119.29 $7463991.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,62

2

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' WIDENING 

AND SCORING ON SR-6 

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.672 Miles $1242061.1

5

$5914576.91 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,38

8

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-12 AND CR-10

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$232694.62 $232694.62 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

192 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALLING TRAFFIC 

CONTROL DEVICES AT THE 

CR-34/CR-83 

INTERSECTION

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

1 Intersection

s

$57211.60 $57211.60 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

404 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RSURFACING 1.5' SAFETY 

WIDENING CENTERLINE 

AND EDGELINE SCORING 

ON SR-17 FROM MP 210.425 

TO MP 215.700

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.270 Miles $517146.90 $3042040.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,372 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-56, CR-47 AND CR-85

Roadside Roadway - other $97686.29 $97686.29 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 968 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR17 FROM MP 220.970 TO MP 

227.000

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.030 Miles $369831.68 $3655541.17 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,427 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 

GUARDRAIL STEEL BLOCK 

OUT REPLACEMENT ON I-22 

EXIT 22 TO EXIT 30

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

7.350 Miles $27055.51 $16016286.3

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate14,32

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' WIDENING 

CENTER AND SHOULDER 

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.270 Miles $647925.14 $3839076.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,688 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

SCORING ON SR-17 FROM 

MP 215.700 TO MP 220.970

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR171 FROM MP 47.101 TO MP 

52.775

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.674 Miles $625735.31 $3364697.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,688 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' WIDENING 

SHOULDER AND CENTER 

SCORING ON SR-241 FROM 

SR-172 TO MP 13.503

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

1.955 Miles $246412.29 $1170811.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 620 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 

GUARDRAIL STEEL BLOCK 

OUTS ON SR-13 FROM MP 

271.312 TO MP 276.074

Roadside Roadway - other 4.718 Miles $15624.13 $1874203.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther581 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

SIGNING STATE ROUTES IN 

FAYETTE AREA

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

$700965.74 $700965.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' WIDENING 

EDGELINE SCORING ON SR13(US 43) FROM EUTAW 

CITY LIMITS TO SR-14

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

2.035 Miles $82110.03 $1474969 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,371 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

CR-49, CR-41, CR-21 AND 

CR-15

Roadside Roadway - other $99269.91 $257925.00 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

CR-133 AND CR-48

Roadside Roadway - other $137086.73 $137086.73 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

217 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ROUNDABOUT AT 

INTERSECTION OF SR-147 

AND CR-72 (FARMVILLE RD)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$287671.39 $287671.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther10,58

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

MODIFYING VERTICAL 

CURVE, ADDING ACCEL 

LANES, IMPROVING MEDIAN 

ON SR-38 AT SR-147

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$185000.00 $185000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,14

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALL WRONG WAY 

ENTRY 

COUNTERMEASURES AT I65 AND EDGEMONT AVE

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology 

and ITS - other

$17799.57 $17799.57 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate3,415 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

UPGRADE TRAFFIC 

SIGNALS ON SR-9 (US-231)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal –

modernization/replacem

ent

$185000.00 $185000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther39,86

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

ROUNDABOUT AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF WIRE RD 

AND COX RD IN AUBURN

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$96000.00 $96000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,79

2

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENNG ON SR14 FROM TALLAPOOSA 

COUNTY LINE TO LEE 

COUNTY LINE

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

9.306 Miles $404039.08 $1623899.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,121 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR223 FROM THE PIKE 

COUNTY LINE TO CR-28

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.820 Miles $470930.87 $1623899.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 838 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ADDING LEFT TURN LANE 

ON SR-165 AT CR-24

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify auxiliary 

lanes

1 Intersection

s

$45000.00 $45000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,75

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR165 FROM BARBOUR 

COUNTY LINE TO SR-208

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.006 Miles $377467.97 $2359174.79 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,940 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR97 FROM SR-3 (US 31) TO I65

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.174 Miles $259932.74 $1299663.72 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,830 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

SAFETY WIDENING 

GUARDRAIL 

IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC 

STRIPING ON BURT MILL RD

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.100 Miles $320702.98 $320702.98 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 811 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALLING INTERSECTION 

CONFLICT WARNING 

SYSTEM AT INTERSECTION 

OF SR-8 (US 80) AND 

WARES FERRY RD

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology 

and ITS - other

1 Intersection

s

$27777.78 $46527.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,30

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT CR-379, CR-148, CR-175, 

CR-183, CR-126 AND CR-29

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$224995.24 $224995.24 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 450 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT BIN 004838 ON CR-16

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$59977.56 $69036.02 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

Rural Local Road or 

Street

1,390 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

MODIFYING VERTICAL 

CURVE, ADDING ACCEL 

LANE, ADDING TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL IMPROVING 

MEDIAN ON SR-38 (US 280) 

AT SR-147

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$3265932.1

0

$3265932.10 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther17,14

5

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

ROUNDABOUT AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF 

REDLAND RD(CR-80 AND 

FIRETOWER RD (CR-59)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$293164.00 $445634.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 3,835 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

WIDENING ON SR-8 (us 80) 

FROM MACON COUNTY 

LINE TO RUSSELL COUNTY 

LINE

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.050 Miles $611144.02 $2182657.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,086 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT BIN0046660 ON 

HARRISON AVE OVER 

BEECH CREEK

Roadside Roadway - other $144394.77 $144394.77 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Arterial 557 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

BIN 009989 ON CR-11 OVER 

CEDAR CREEK RELIEF 

BRANCH

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$85634.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 43 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 

ROUNDABOUT AT 

INTERSECTION SR-167 AND 

SR-87 IN SPRINGHILL

Noninfrastructure Miscellaneous - other 1 Locations $58075.00 $58075.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,094 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING 2' SFETY 

WIDENING CULVERT 

EXTENSIONS AND 

GUARDRAIL ON SR-97 

FROM SR-9 TO 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

LINE

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

7.780 Miles $1284571.8

2

$2928247.33 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,187 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

ROUNDABOUT AT 

CAMPBELLTON HIGHWAY 

(CR-203) AND TAYLOR RD 

(CR-64)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$584929.40 $584929.40 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,885 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

WIDENING ON SR-134 FROM 

SR-87 TO SR-88

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

10.800 Miles $1049149.9

0

$4561521.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,435 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR52 FROM SR-9 ( US 3310 TO 

HARVEST TIME RD

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

14.560 Miles $1005826.7

3

$5587926.26 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,902 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 

AND 2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-9 (US 331) FROM N 

FLORALA CITY LIMIT TO 

RANDELL RD

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.913 Miles $645202.51 $2150675.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,109 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALL RUMBLE STRIPS 

UPGRADE SIGNS REMOVE 

FLASHER ON SR-153 AT SR52

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

1 Miles $14000.00 $14000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,707 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

REALIGNING OF SR-85 SIGN 

UPGRADE ANS REMOVE 

FLASHER AT SR-85 AND SR167

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control 

- other

1 Intersection

s

$100000.00 $100000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,007 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR15 (US 29) FROM SR-93 TO 

BULLOCK COUNTY LINE

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

9.977 Miles $851102.66 $3868648.47 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,690 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT BIN 003970 ON CR-17 

AND BIN 013483 ON CR-16

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$65960.17 $65960.17 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 418 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-420, CR-719, CR-148 

AND CR-148

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$122028.60 $122028.60 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

STOP LINES AND RUMBLE 

STRIPS CR-85 AT CR-44 AND 

CR-49 AT CR-28

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control 

- other

$12736.50 $12736.50 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 487 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

ROUNDABOUT AT 

INTERSECTION SR-55 AND 

SR-12 (US 84)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$41474.96 $41474.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,638 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

SAFETY SIGNING 

INTERSECTION OF CR-85 AT 

CR-44 AND CR-49 AT CR-28

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection signing –

other

$4000.93 $4000.93 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 2,543 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHOR 

CR-20 OVER JACKSON, 

PAULS AND LINDSEY 

CREEKS

Roadside Roadway - other $179673.47 $197198.62 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHOR 

BIN 010958, 009776, AND 

008382

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$172258.80 $172258.80 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Major Collector 300 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INSTALLING TRAFFIC 

CONTROL DEVICES AND 

GUARDRAIL CR-2238 AND 

CR-6600

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$114464.19 $114464.19 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,362 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-32 OVER UNNAMED 

TRIBUTARY TO FIVE RUNS 

CREEK

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$19746.05 $19746.05 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Collector 306 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

ON CR-93 BIN 007111, 

007466, AND 011305

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$111302.12 $111302.12 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

612 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS AND 

ACCESS MANAGEMENT SR12 (US 84)

Access 

management

Access management -

other

$7000.00 $7000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther21,19

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR265 FROM MONROE 

COUNTY LINE TO CR-51

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.037 Miles $286639.14 $1364948.30 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 501 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND STEEL 

BLOCK OUTS ON SR-13 (US 

43) FROM SR-8 (US 80) TO 

BLACK WARRIOR RIVER 

BRIDGE

Roadside Roadway - other 3.331 Miles $46521.42 $1536118.99 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,696 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESTRICTED CROSSING UTURN INTERSECTION SR-8 

(US 80) AND SR-25

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$2750000.0

0

$2750000.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,369 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT BIN 009583 ON CR-1 

OVER CANE CREEK

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$38312.73 $42542.79 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END ANCHORS 

AT BIN 003074 OVER CR-34 

AND BIN 010751 ON CR-16

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

$69988.13 $69988.13 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 1,269 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING ON SR181 FROM SR-42 (US 98) TO 

S OF QUAIL CREEK

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

6.950 Miles $290931.61 $1898507.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 6,612 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND STEEL 

BLOCK OUTS SR-59

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

5.270 Miles $16078.29 $3541788.53 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther44,60

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INTERSECTION 

RELOCATION AND TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL INSTALLATION ON 

SR-16 (US 90) AT SR-59

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$792221.75 $792221.75 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,26

9

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

RESURFACING AND 

GUARDRAIL WITH STEEL 

BLOCK OUTS ON SR-15 (US 

29)

Roadside Roadway - other 7.291 Miles $18017.46 $1653429.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,250 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND STEEL 

BLOCK OUTS ON SR-3 (US 

31) FROM SR-12 (US 84) TO 

CSX OVERPASS

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

3.157 Miles $16125.93 $1689653.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther8,283 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

INTERSECTION 

REALIGNMENT AND 

MODIFICATIONS SR-3 (US 

31) AND SR-12 (US 84)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$291235.52 $291235.52 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,288 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

INTERSECTION 

REALIGNMENT AND 

INSTALLATION TURN LANES 

AT CR-31 AND SR-3 (US 31)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$40521.00 $76521.00 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,61

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

ROUNDABOUT 

INSTALLATION AT CANAL ST 

AND BROAD ST

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$1535099.0

2

$1535099.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,24

7

35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

INTERSECTION 

RELOCATION AND TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL INSTALLATION ON 

SR-16 (US 90) AT SR-59

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$1353348.6

3

$1632940.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,26

9

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 56

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

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 

STRATEG

Y

RESURFACING AND STEEL 

BLOCK OUT SR-41 FROM 

SR-3 TO N OF BURNT CORN 

CREEK

Roadside Roadway - other 2.350 Miles $41794.64 $738617.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 4,447 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

CONSTRUCT OFFSET LEFT 

TURN LANES ON FOLEY 

BEACH EXPRESS AT CR-12

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry -

other

1 Intersection

s

$423123.80 $423123.80 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Urban Minor Arterial 18,37

5

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersectio

n

GUARDRAIL ASSESSMENT 

SR 7 AND SR 171 

TUSCALOOSA

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

43.165 Miles $691747.68 $691747.68 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING 2' WIDENING 

GUARF=DRAILS ON SR-75

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.48 Miles $23043.70 $207393.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

RESURFACING AND 2' 

WIDENING ON SR-97 FROM 

SR-3 (US 31) TO I-65

Roadway Roadway delineation -

other

4.7 Miles $25993.27 $233939.47 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,425 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND END 

ANCHORS ON CR-32

Roadside Roadway - other $1974.61 $17771.44 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 445 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure

GUARDRAIL AND END 

ANCHORS CR-113, CR-60 

AND CR-54

Roadside Roadway - other $119305.54 $119305.54 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 420 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

departure
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 56

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 865 852 820 849 1,088 948 954 930 932

Serious Injuries 9,266 8,564 7,960 8,540 8,152 7,480 6,990 6,687 4,777

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.330 1.310 1.250 1.240 1.600 1.380 1.350 1.314 1.400

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

14.250 13.170 12.140 13.020 12.000 10.640 11.080 9.479 7.200

Number nonmotorized fatalities86 64 103 105 127 121 115 120 108

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

331 322 264 274 258 249 231 242 249
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 56

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 56

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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

120 506

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

5 28

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

253 1,231

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 56

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

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 56

Year 2020

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

435 1,976

County Highway 

Agency

230 1,281

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

146 787

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

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:961.0

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 56

This performance target was developed through analyzing trend analysis of both individual years crashes in 

conjunction with trend analysis of the five-year rolling averages. Trend analysis projections were then adjusted 

to account for uncertainty due to the trends that began in 2020.

Number of Serious Injuries:6000.0

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

This performance target was developed through analyzing trend analysis of both individual years crashes in 

conjunction with trend analysis of the five-year rolling averages. Trend analysis projections were then adjusted 

to account for uncertainty due to the trends that began in 2020.

Fatality Rate:1.400

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

This performance target was developed through analyzing trend analysis of both individual years crashes in 

conjunction with trend analysis of the five-year rolling averages. Trend analysis projections were then adjusted 

to account for uncertainty due to the trends that began in 2020.

Serious Injury Rate:9.000

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

This performance target was developed through analyzing trend analysis of both individual years crashes in 

conjunction with trend analysis of the five-year rolling averages. Trend analysis projections were then adjusted 

to account for uncertainty due to the trends that began in 2020.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:365.0

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

This performance target was developed through analyzing trend analysis of both individual years crashes in 

conjunction with trend analysis of the five-year rolling averages. Trend analysis projections were then adjusted 

to account for uncertainty due to the trends that began in 2020.

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

safety performance targets. 

The Safety Performance Targets were developed through a complex series of negotiations with the SHSO. 

ALDOT collaborated with stakeholders to refine target scenarios and develop final targets for each of the five 

performance measures. Additionally, ALDOT staff has attended MPO meetings and also has offered technical 

support to any MPOs that wish to set their own targets. If an MPO agrees to adopt the state's targets, the 

TSOS will work with them to address areas of concern for fatalities and serious injuries within their 

metropolitan planning area.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 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.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 56

Number of Fatalities 964.0 970.4

Number of Serious Injuries 8143.0 6817.2

Fatality Rate 1.350 1.409

Serious Injury Rate 11.025 10.080

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

384.0 364.0

Alabama failed to meet the fatality and fatality rate targets for 2019. Alabama has an anomaly for FY 2016 that 

is still having an effect on meeting our targets. An implementation Plan is being developed for 2022. Alabama 

did not meet the targets for 2020.

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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

153 145 179 182 134 159 115

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

1,249 1,437 1,385 1,344 584 604 360
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 56

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations.

Following a spike in fatalities during 2016, Alabama has shown a downward trend in the last two reporting 

cycles. Alabama Traffic Safety & Operations Section has continued to refocus its efforts based on previous 

years crash type trends to implement countermeasures to reduce the long-term trend for fatalities. Serious 

Injury crashes are trending downward, and we anticipate that this trend will continue to start to flatten over the 

coming years.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• # miles improved by HSIP

• # RSAs completed

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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)

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 298 1,197 453 2,550

Intersections Intersections 361 2,193 312.6 2,709.6

Pedestrians All 98 204

Bicyclists All 8 45

Older Drivers All 176 767 124.2 553.2

Motorcyclists All 75 414

Work Zones All 19 86
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 56

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)

Data All
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 56

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 56

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 56

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 56

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/18/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

The updated SHSP is due 7/18/2022.

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

10 15

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

10 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 56

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

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

50 50

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

AADT Year (80) [82]

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 56

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

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 87.22 92.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 80.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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.

ALDOT representatives from the Traffic Safety and Operations Section and the Traffic Engineering Section along with FHWA Alabama Division Office representatives meet regularly to discuss strategies and issues regarding ALDOT's 

transition to MIRE compliance. In addition, the MIRE committee members are actively engaged with the Alabama Traffic Records Coordinating Committee. The TRCC goal is to move the state ahead effectively in applying information 

technology to its transportation systems. The most significant product to the TRCC is the DRAFT Traffic Safety Information System (TSIS) Five Year Plan. In this document, one of the goals or measurable performance metric, is for 20% 

of the data elements functional per year to be collected in regards to MIRE Fundamental Data collection. Another essential partnership is with the ALDOT's development of an Enterprise GIS (EGIS) system. ALDOT's Enterprise GIS 

(EGIS) is comprised of a Linear Referencing System for all the roads in the state of Alabama and its associated data attributes. EGIS's primary function has been to help process inventory data required for FHWA's Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS). TSOS has a representative on the EGIS committee who gives a perspective on safety data related needs. TSOS has submitted an extensive list of Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data 

elements to the committee for consideration in the ALDOT's Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data collection process. TSOS is currently researching additional funding opportunities to support the MIRE collection efforts, and looking 

into partnerships with state universities for help in the processing of data that is collected.
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 56

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Alabama HSIP Application Guide July2020.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 56

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.