Alabama 

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

 

Prepared by: AL

 
ii 

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered 

for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or 

addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” 

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

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

enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any 

highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid 

highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State 

court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any 

occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
iii 

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 5

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

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 42

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 42

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 45

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 64

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 64

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 78

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................81

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 82

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 87

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 92

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 98

Glossary..................................................................................................................................................... 100
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

 

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

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

administration of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The goal for the OSO 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 for all public roads in Alabama. 

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

Edition, version 2012. The SHSP is scheduled to begin updating in 2015. The next version of the 

Alabama SHSP will focus on implementing regional SHSPs in the Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs) and Rural/Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). Specific emphasis areas 

will be identified by local stakeholders to develop performance measures with proven 

countermeasures.

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 have 

dropped significantly over the past decade from 2003 to 2012. Alabama has seen a steady decline in 

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

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

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

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

(ADECA) 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 focused on the three (3) 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, and Horizontal Curve Safety Program. 

HSIP Infrastructure projects/tool development
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

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) is the next systemic HSIP project in 

development. This program will evaluate horizontal curves on state maintained roads and will 

develop recommendations for traffic signing and pavement marking in accordance with the MUTCD 

2009. In addition, high crash sites and roadway departure locations will undergo road safety 

assessments (RSAs) to determine appropriate safety enhancements and countermeasures.

OSO 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 Alabama Roundabout Guide. 

ALSAFE will be a version of PlanSafe. PlanSafe is a safety forecasting tool for analysis at the Traffic 

Analysis Zone level which is a common metric used by planners. ALSAFE will work similar to 

PlanSafe in that regard and 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 Development of the Alabama Roundabout 

Guide will serve 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 pending 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

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 of Guidelines also provide guidance on how to apply for HSIP funds. OSO purchased 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

GPS enabled horizontal curve ball bank equipment to determine the need for and the proper speed 

for horizontal series warning signs. The equipment and training was provided not only to ALDOT 

Region personnel but also to the County Engineers. 

OSO in conjunction with FHWA also hosted the first annual Rural Road Safety Conference 

September 29 to October 1, 2014 in Guntersville, AL. The Conference focused on local safety issues 

and provided training on various topics including Road Safety 365, given by the FHWA Safety 

Resource Center.

Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts

Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts of Driver Behavior and Traffic Safety Information Systems areas of 

Alabama’s current SHSP are managed by the Safety Management Section (SMS) in the ALDOT’s 

Bureau of Transportation Planning and Modal Programs. 

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). 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, May was proclaimed Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, and July was proclaimed 

Distracted Driving Awareness Month by Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. 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. 

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” 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

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.
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program 

with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are 

required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP 

implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent 

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

 

Local Roads are 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 will 

provide 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 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

cost safety improvements such as striping, markings, signage, traffic signal upgrades, etc. Project 

selections are based upon a benefit to cost analysis. Training has been provided on the new HSIP manual 

and future training is being scheduled for the HSIP application process. 

Other local tools under development are the United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP), and the 

purchase of horizontal curve assessment devices. usRap is sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic 

Safety and 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 (based on inspection of roads to examine how well they protect used from 

involvement in crashes and from deaths and serious injuries when crashes 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 is currently developing a Road Safety Assessments (RSAs) 

program. RSA is a formal safety performance examination of existing and proposed roadways by an 

independent and multi-disciplinary team. This program will be available to both state and local 

government projects.

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. The Conference agenda was developed to emphasize the 

implementation of the safety process through all stages of roadway planning, design and operations 

through practical guidance specifically geared to local/rural roads. Over 150 participants attended to 

learn from various subjects including the Road Safety 365 workshop, which was a one day training 

session designed to provide local and rural agencies with practical and effective ways to implement 

safety solutions into their day-to-day activities and project development process. Participants also 

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

Work Zone Safety for Local Roads, etc. The workshop and conference was very successful and another 

one is scheduled for October 2015.

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

Design

Planning
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-ALDOT County Transportation

Other: Other-ALDOT Computer Services

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

 

OSO has several safety program partnerships with the ALDOT Maintenance Bureau. The initial safety 

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

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

crashes 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 OSO in the identification of state routes that are being widened.

Additionally, ALDOT's Maintenance Bureau has been given the task of upgrading signage to meet the 

current MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). As an effort to improve safety, OSO 

is collaborating by identifying high crash horizontal curve locations for enhanced signage upgrades. HSIP 

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

 

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

signalized intersections. The pilot provided a mixture of urban and rural collections of traffic data 

inventory. The purpose of this study would be to collect data at each location for both the OSO and the 

ALDOT Maintenance Bureau. OSO used would be for the safety performance functions (SPFs) perform of 

Highway Safety Manual and the purpose of the Maintenance Bureau would be to populate the data 

fields include in the Maintenance Bureau Traffic Signal Inventory GIS Database (TSID). The project has 

now expanded statewide and ALDOT Computer Services will develop a database for the use of ALDOT 

Region personnel also. 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

OSO has had other similar partnerships with ALDOT’s County Transportation Bureau. This partnership 

was initially developed with the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) and has expanded. Now 

ALDOT’s County Transportation Bureau in 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 County Transportation Bureau assisted and participated in the Local Rural Roads 

Conference which was held in September 2014 and the upcoming conferenced scheduled for October 

2015. 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. OSO 

has a representative on the EGIS committee and who gives a perceptive of the Safety Data related 

needs. OSO 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.

 

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. Four counties have been selected for the 

development of the conflation process and then the university will then complete the final 63 

counties. 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 Highway Safety Improvement Program planning. 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-County and Local Govt

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Health

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Safety
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Education

Other: Other-Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs

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

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Implementing HSIP/Safety Operations Manual

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

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

would like to elaborate. 

The Office of Safety Operations’ 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. OSO 

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

resolution to roadway safety concerns. 

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

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

available HSIP funding. OSO 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, OSO 

manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner. 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Other: 

Shoulder Improvement Segments

 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2003

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Use of HSM 

methodology
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Crash Analysis
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Projects are ranked by priority 50

 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2000

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other-Safety and Operations Analysis

Other-ALDOT Region selection of Candidates

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Methodology being developed 100

 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-No of lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1996

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Use of the CARE system

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Data Available Statewide 100

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

 

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1993

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-HRRRP
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Other-MUTCD REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 2/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 25

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 25

 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

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

Yes
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Recently authorized project_Vulnerable User 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

 

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

 

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/3/1993

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

Other-RANKING

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

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

50

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

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

Marking Program

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

Alabama. 

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

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

target more local entities to assist in the TZD initiative for the state. 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 16313304 18 % 33324160 21 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 163898 0 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer 

Section 164

–

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other 

Funds 

Federal-aid 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

76402350 82 % 124552303 79 %

State and Local Funds 0 0 % 0 0 %
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

Totals 92715654 100% 158040361 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

1 %

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

0 %

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

2 %

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

period?

0 %
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

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

period? 

20 %

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

overcome this in the future. 

At this time, there are no obligation impediments of HSIP funds in Alabama.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None at this time
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total Cost Funding 

Categor

y 

Functional 

Classificati

on

AADT Spee

d 

Roadway 

Ownershi

p 

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strateg

y 

SR-255 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

2.375, 

MADISON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

2 Miles 190336 1464125.

93

Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s 

48690 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-132 FROM 

MP 9.74 TO 

MP 17.44, 

ETOWAH 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 472802 2781188.

65

Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1360 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-7 FROM 

MP 215.34 TO 

MP 223.95, 

DEKALB 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

9 Miles 399599 2219993 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

Rural Major 

Collector 

3368 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

 

 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

other NHPP)

SR-7 FROM 

MP 192.41 TO 

MP 208.24, 

ETOWAH 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

16 

Miles 

911096 3796235 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

2090 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-2(US-72) 

FROM MP 

102.748 TO 

MP 105.65, 

MADISON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

7 Miles 396941 2089163 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

22635 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-1(US 431) 

FROM MP 

321.24 TO MP 

327.14, 

MADISON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 805637 3836365 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

11476

0 

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

ROUNDABOUT 

AT SR-53(US 

231) AND SR25(US411)/CR-33 IN 

ST. CLAIR, PE 

BUDGET

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - 

modification

s to 

1 

Numbe

rs

150000 150000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

3425 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

roundabout

ROUNDABOUT 

AT SR-79 AT 

SR-160, 

BLOUNT 

COUNTY, PE 

BUDGET

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - 

modification

s to 

roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

115385 115385 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

4360 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

RESURFACING

, CROSS SLOPE 

CORRECTION, 

GUARDRAIL 

AND 

GUIDERAIL 

INSTALLATIO

N ON I-59 

FROM MP 

174.75 TO MP 

181.056, 

ETOWAH AND 

ST. CLAIR 

COUNTIES

Roadside 

Barrier end 

treatments 

(crash 

cushions, 

terminals) 

6 Miles 492609 14274592 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

25380 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

SR-2(US 72) 

AT SR-17 (US 

43, 11TH AVE, 

JACKSON 

HWY), 

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

1 

Numbe

rs

294067 294067 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

23230 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

COLBERT 

COUNTY

control -

other

MEDIAN 

CROSSOVER 

PROTECTION 

ON I -65 IN 

CULLMAN, 

MORGAN, AND 

LIMESTONE 

COUNTIES, 

FROM MP 

313.10 TO MP 

341.50

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

29 

Miles 

519389 1630500 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

30520 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

SR-20 FROM 

MP 29.04 TO 

MP 29.32, 

COLBERT 

COUNTY

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

acceleration 

lane

1 

Numbe

rs

150000 1006732 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

16700 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR-4(US-78) 

FROM MP 105 

TO MP 

111.716, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

7 Miles 691894 4612625 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

23920 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-20 FROM MP 

188 TO MP 

Roadside 

Barrier - 

17 8350 25050 Other 

FederalRural Principal 

35520 70 State 

Highway 

Lane 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

205, 

CALHOUN 

AND 

CLEBURNE 

COUNTIES, PE 

BUDGET

cable Miles aid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial -

Interstate

Agency Departure

SR-9 FROM 

MP 203. 168 

TO MP 

213.592, 

CLEBURNE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

10 

Miles 

787869 4377050 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2595 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-20 FROM MP 

164.70 TO MP 

173.3, 

TALLADEGA 

COUNTY, PE 

BUDGET

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

9 Miles 8350 25050 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

39903 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

SR-49 FROM 

MP 60.234 TO 

MP 68.577, 

CLAY COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 495230 2606474 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1620 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-49 FROM 

MP 20.524 TO 

MP 29.743, 

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

9 Miles 637795 2551181 Other 

Federalaid 

Rural 

Minor 

4603 55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

TALLAPOOSA 

COUNTY

shoulder -

paved or 

other

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial Agency

SR-169 FROM 

MP 10.272 TO 

MP 16.017, 

RUSSELL AND 

LEE COUNTIES

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 557399 2933680 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

3157 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-46 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

4.875, 

CLEBURNE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

5 Miles 255994 1706626 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1880 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-74 FROM 

MP 148.535 

TO MP 

155.576, 

CALHOUN 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

7 Miles 681505 3104634 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

4147 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-215 FROM 

MP 32.74 TO 

MP 40.482, 

BIBB COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

8 Miles 588707 2803368 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1005 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

other NHPP)

SR-96 FROM 

MP 19.74 TO 

MP 21.545, 

LAMAR 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

3 Miles 167388 1506494 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1370 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-171 FROM 

MP 23.63 TO 

MP 34.50, 

FAYETTE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

11 

Miles 

554901 3963581 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2375 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-22 FROM 

MP 51.77 TO 

MP 58.25, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

7 Miles 388272 2589815 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2655 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-118 FROM 

MP 9.17 TO 

MP 17.13, 

LAMAR 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 377033 2513550 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2383 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

SR-191 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 6, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 466943 3112950 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

910 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

ROUNDABOUT 

AT SR-5 AND 

CR-58, BIBB 

COUNTY--PE 

BUDGET

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - 

modification

s to 

roundabout

1 Miles 138683 138683 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

5280 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

I-59 FROM MP 

55.352 TO MP 

73.003, 

TUSCALOOSA 

AND GREENE 

COUNTIES--PE 

BUDGET

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

18 

Miles 

79733 159467 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

50980 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

I-85 FROM MP 

49.50 TO MP 

79.80, LEE 

AND 

CHAMBERS 

COUNTIES--PE 

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

30 

Miles 

8350 25050 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

32500 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

BUDGET

SR-110 FROM 

MP 24.684 TO 

MP 32.259, 

BULLOCK 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 526355 3096209 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

3540 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-110 FROM 

MP 4.65 TO 

MP 14.127, 

MONTGOMER

Y COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

9 Miles 224025 4480507 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

2750 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-53 FROM 

MP 101 TO MP 

105.307, 

MONTGOMER

Y COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

4 Miles 662635 3897851 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

57540 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-3 FROM 

MP 187.055 

TO MP 

192.735, 

AUTAUGA 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 486927 4869268 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

14468 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

SR-9 FROM 

MP 73.933 TO 

MP 83.50, 

MONTGOMER

Y COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

10 

Miles 

726720 4037335 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

4066 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-106 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

9.45, BUTLER 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

10 

Miles 

750955 750955 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Collector 

897 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-8 FROM 

MP 100.143 

TO MP 

106.018, 

LOWNDES

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 412798 2948558 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

7555 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-15 FROM 

MP 541.492 

TO MP

543.672, 

COVINGTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

2 Miles 120285 1202850 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2885 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-54 FROM 

MP 9.222 TO 

MP 15.0995, 

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

7 Miles 557339 3278467 Other 

Federalaid 

Rural 

Minor 

890 55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

GENEVA 

COUNTY

shoulder -

paved or 

other

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial Agency

SR-85 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

12.299, 

GENEVA/DAL

E COUNTIES

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

12 

Miles 

110889

3 

5040425 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1607 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-105 FROM 

MP 0 T0 MP 

9.5, DALE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

10 

Miles 

749101 2996404 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

3525 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-95 FROM 

MP 32.878 TO 

MP 42.17, 

HENRY 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

9 Miles 112637

9 

4897300 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector 

670 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-105 MP 0 

TO MP 18.905, 

DALE/BARBO

UR COUNTIES

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs and 

19 

Miles 

50000 50000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

1927 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

traffic 

control - 

other

SR-10 FROM 

MP 187.36 TO 

MP 192.854, 

BARBOUR 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 433558 2064564 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2136 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-12 FROM 

MP 215.076 

TO MP 

215.462, 

HOUSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

1 Miles 407796 407796 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

19510 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-55 FROM 

MP 10.182 TO 

MP 23.54, 

COVINGTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

14 

Miles 

113655

8 

3919167 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

2855 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-87 FROM 

MP 24.1 TO 

MP 31.78, 

COFFEE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

8 Miles 814373 3877966 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1013 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

other NHPP)

SR-167 FROM 

MP 12.3 TO 

MP 15.208, 

DALE COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

3 Miles 333447 1587842 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2870 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-47 FROM 

MP 30.316 TO 

MP 32.592, 

MONROE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

2 Miles 147307 545581 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

405 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-83 FROM 

MP 21.627 TO 

MP 24.274,

MONROE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

3 Miles 161107 537023 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

220 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-56 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

12.948, 

WASHINGTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

13 

Miles 

854118 2372549 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1550 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

SR-21 FROM 

MP 78.985 TO 

MP 84.078, 

WILCOX 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

5 Miles 363122 1513009 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

668 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

CR-358 FROM 

THREE NOTCH 

RD TO DAWES 

LANE, MOBILE 

COUNTY

Intersection 

geometry 

1 

Numbe

rs

700709 700709 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street 

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SR-163 FROM 

MP 0 TO 

2.525, MOBILE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

3 Miles 69634 980760 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

8003 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-16 FROM 

MP 68.28 TO 

MP 68.49, 

BALDWIN 

COUNTY

Intersection 

geometry 

1 

Numbe

rs

175000 175000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

4320 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

GUARDRAIL 

AND 

GUARDRAIL 

END ANCHORS 

ON CR-67 IN 

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

1 

Numbe

rs

0 163898 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street 

45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

JACKSON 

COUNTY

SR-41 FROM 

MP 74.057 TO 

MP 80.611, 

WILCOX AND 

MONROE 

COUNTIES

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

7 Miles 391868 1399529 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

577 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-68 FROM 

MP 22.95 TO 

MP 30.33, 

CHEROKEE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 324640 2318860 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

10460 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-65 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

3.47, JACKSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

4 Miles 182429 729717 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural Major 

Collector 

1760 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

I-65 FROM MP 

198.021 TO 

MP 209.405, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

11 

Miles 

268218 812782 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

34410 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

I-65 FROM MP 

209.405 TO 

MP 255.948, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

17 

Miles 

400153 1212584 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

38091 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

I-59 FROM MP 

0 TO MP 27, 

SUMTER 

COUNTY (PE 

BUDGET)

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

27 

Miles 

114650 343950 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

19670 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

SR-170 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 

11.68, 

ELMORE 

COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

12 

Miles 

809734 4763142 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES 

4818 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-6 FROM 

MP 171.45 TO 

MP 179.35, 

MONTGOMER

Y COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

8 Miles 582019 3233440 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1280 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

SR-153 FROM 

MP 0 TO MP 9, 

GENEVA 

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

9 Miles 949462 3956089 Other 

Federalaid 

Rural 

Minor 

1693 55 State 

Highway 

Roadway 

Departure
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

COUNTY shoulder -

paved or 

other

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial Agency

SR-125 FROM 

MP 19.4 TO 

MP 25.65, 

PIKE COUNTY

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

6 Miles 476917 2167805 Other 

Federalaid 

Funds 

(i.e. STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

1287 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

INTERCHANG

E 

MODIFICATIO

N ON SR-17 AT 

SR-158 

RAMPS, 

MOBILE 

COUNTY (PE 

BUDGET)

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - 

modification

s to 

roundabout

1 

Numbe

rs

312000 312000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressway

s 

State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersectio

ns

SAFETY 

OUTREACH 

CAMPAIGNS 

AND OTHER 

SAFETY 

ACTIVITIES FY 

2014

Noninfrastructur

e Outreach

1 

Numbe

rs

500000 500000 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

SAFETY 

OUTREACH 

EFFORTS

ALDOT AND 

ALABAMA 

Noninfrastructur1 

Numbe

125000

0 

1250000 HSIP 

(Section 

State 

Highway 

Enforceme

nt Efforts
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

DEPT OF 

PUBLIC 

SAFETY 

OVERTIME 

ENFORCEMEN

T EFFORTS FY 

2014

e 

Enforcement

rs 148) Agency

PURCHASE OF 

HORIZONTAL 

CURVE 

ASSESSMENT 

DEVICES FOR 

COUNTY AND 

ALDOT 

PERSONNEL

Miscellaneo

us 

125 

Numbe

rs

640000 640000 HSIP 

(Section

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

DEVELOPMEN

T OF SAFETY 

PERFORMANC

E FUNCTION 

(SPF) AND 

PART C CRASH 

MODIFICATIO

N FACTORS 

ON RURAL 

LOCAL ROADS 

IN ALABAMA

Noninfrastructur

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

1 

Numbe

rs

308626 308626 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Data

PHASE I OF 

THE 

Noninfrastructur1 

Numbe

350305 350305 HSIP 

(Section 

State 

Highway 

Developme

nt of SHSP
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLAN 

(SHSP)

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

rs 148) Agency

ALDOT 

STATEWIDE 

WRONG-WAY 

INTERCHANG

E 

ASSESSMENT

Noninfrastructur

e 

Transportati

on safety 

planning

1 

Numbe

rs

381405 381405 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

State 

Highway 

Agency

Data
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 999 937 888 864 859

Number of serious injuries 18757 15705 12949 10609 9174

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.63 1.51 1.41 1.35 1.32

Serious injury 

HMVMT)

rate (per 30.75 25.47 20.81 16.63 14.1

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Year - 2014

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

Classification

RURAL PRINCIPAL 47 343 0 0

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

RURAL PRINCIPAL 2 6 0 0

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

RURAL PRINCIPAL 84 612 0 0

ARTERIAL - OTHER

RURAL MINOR 79 536 0 0

ARTERIAL

RURAL MINOR 0 0 0 0

COLLECTOR

RURAL MAJOR 29 199 0 0

COLLECTOR

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 0 0 0 0

STREET

URBAN PRINCIPAL 39 343 0 0

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3 28 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

67 859 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

37 383 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

10 66 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

69
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

73

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 480 7971 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 261 2449 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 113 1997 0 0

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

74
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

75
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

76
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

77
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

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

Alabama has had a steady decline in both the number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries. 

This year's report shows a continuing decline also. 

Alabama is still incorporating highway functional class into the crash data system administered through 

the CARE system. The rolling average for 2014 was calculated for this report. However the rate of 

fatalities and serious injuries for highway functional classification and/or roadway classification is still 

not available.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.744 0.708 0.718 0.788 0.79

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

8.918 8.196 7.05 5.946 5.052

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

9.658 8.9 7.766 6.734 5.842

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

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

Report File and the number of serious injuries from Alabama’s CARE system are added together. That 

amount is then divided by the number of people in Alabama who are 65 years of age and older 

compared to the total State population to determine the rate for that particular year, i.e. 2005.

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

for 2005

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

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

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

calculated as below.

Example:

(2005 RATE) + (2006 RATE)+ (2007 RATE) +(2008 RATE) +(2009 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2009
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

(2006 RATE) + (2007 RATE)+ (2008 RATE) +(2009 RATE) +(2010 RATE) /5= ROLLING AVERAGE FOR 2010

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

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

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

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

No significant program changes since the last report.
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 357 2763 0 0 0 0 0

Intersections Intersections 226 3691 0 0 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 95 617 0 0 0 0 0

Data All 855 9202 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Median Barrier Interstate 

Median Barrier

10 27 0 0 0 0 0

Crash Data All 855 9202 0 0 0 0 0

Intersection All 226 3691 0 0 0 0 0

Roadway 

Departure

STATE 

ROUTE_ROR

87 601 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic improvement Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious 

injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Cable Median Barriers Interstate 

Median Barrier

10 27 0 0 0 0 0

Pavement/Shoulder 

Widening

State Routes 87 601 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

93
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

94
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

95
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

96
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

97

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

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

integrating operations and safety into multimodal planning efforts, reviews statewide, regional, corridor 

and sub-areas opportunities, then will conclude with a final workshop and study documentations. 

 
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

98

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

99

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

100

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities. 

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic safety improvement means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk 

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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