Page 1 of 58

ALABAMA
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 11

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

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

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

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 38

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 38

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

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 45

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

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

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

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 52

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 53
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 58

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) through the Design Bureau, Traffic Design 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) 2nd Edition, version 

2012. The SHSP was updated in July 2017. The 3rd Edition of the of the Alabama SHSP will focus on 

implementing regional SHSPs following the Rural/Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) as the geographical 

boundaries for each region. Specific emphasis areas will be 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 other eight Regional Safety Coalitions not represented in the 3rd Edition are 

currently being developed and will be completed 2018.

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 2003 to 2012. 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.

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 (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.

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
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 58

2016 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 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 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 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 provides 

guidance on how to apply for HSIP funds.

TSOS in conjunction with FHWA also hosted the first annual Rural Road Safety Conference in 2014, with the 

3rd conference completed in October, 2017. The Conference focuses on local safety issues and provided 

training on various roadway safety topics.

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 Design Bureau, Traffic Design Division, Safety Management 

Section (SMS).
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 58

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 plays 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” 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.
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 58

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. All HSIP project funding decisions are based on a safety cost-effectiveness using a 

benefit/cost ratio.

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
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 58

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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. 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 (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 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 two 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 4th Annual Local Rural 
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 58

Road Safety Workshop and Conference is scheduled for October 2017. We have averaged 125 participants per 

conference who have learned from various subject matter experts 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. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Districts/Regions

Local Aid Programs Office/Division

Other-ALDOT County Transportation

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

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 signage 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. 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 TSOS and the ALDOT Maintenance Bureau. 

TSOS is using this database to develop Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) for use with the Highway Safety 

Manual. Additionally, the Maintenance Bureau will be using the data to advance maintenance, operations, and 

financial management of the State's Traffic Signal Inventory. The project has now expanded statewide and 

ALDOT Computer Services will develop a database for the use of ALDOT Region personnel also. To date, 

approximately 1/3 of the signalized intersections along the state-maintained system have been inventoried.

TSOS 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 is active in the HSIP review committee of county applications and provides valid 
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 58

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 has been actively involved in subsequent conferences. 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. 

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 HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Technical Assistance Program

Academia/University

FHWA

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

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

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 
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 58

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.

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

period?

No

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

Yes

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

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

ALDOT HSIP Program Management Manual_02 03 16.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Horizontal Curve

Bicycle Safety

Roadway Departure

Sign Replacement And Improvement
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 58

Pedestrian Safety

Shoulder Improvement

HRRR

Wrong Way Driving

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Roadside features 

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

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
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 58

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

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

Program: Horizontal Curve 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2012 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

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? [Check all that apply]

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 58

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-B/C 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 50

Ranking based on net benefit : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

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

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2005 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

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.

State roads are ineligible.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2000 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

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? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

State roads are ineligible.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1

Available funding : 2

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

Program: Median Barrier 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2003 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Median width 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Use of HSM methodology 

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

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?

Yes

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

State roads are ineligible.

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

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

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 58

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

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

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

State roads are ineligible.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable 

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

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

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

State roads are ineligible.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

Other-Crash Analysis, Road Safety Assessments, HSM Methodologies

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

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

Page 20 of 58

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

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? [Check all that apply]

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

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

State roads are ineligible.

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).
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 1

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

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

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

State roads are ineligible.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-HRRRP
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

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

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

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Wrong Way Crashes Functional classification 

Other-Interchange Form 

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

Crash frequency

Other-HSM Methodologies

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?

Yes
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

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

State roads are ineligible.

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).

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 50

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Clear Zone Improvements

Horizontal curve signs

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments

Other-Horizontal Curve Signing and Marking Program

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

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

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

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

Stakeholder input

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

Page 24 of 58

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

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

Yes

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

The 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 

Office of Safety Operations. 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. 

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $31,930,101 $18,051,525 56.53%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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))

$6,442,461 $2,126 0.03%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $38,372,562 $18,053,651 47.05%

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

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

5%

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

5%

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

5%

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

5%

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

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?

$10,000,000

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

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

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.

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

No
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

DEVELOPMENT OF 

ALSAFE: PHASE II 

CONTINUED 

PROGRAM 

DEVELOPMENT FOR 

SAFETY PLANNING 

TOOLS FOR MPOS 

ON A STATEWIDE 

BASIS

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning $252500 $252500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

DEVELOPMENT OF 

USRAP (PHASE III); 

COVERING THE 

STATE

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits $375965 $375965 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

STOP CONTROLLED 

INTERSECTION 

SAFETY REVIEW 

PILOT PROJECT 

INCLUDES 

EVALUATION OF 49 

STOP CONTROLLED 

INTERSECTIONS IN 

THE ALDOT NORTH 

REGION

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled47 Intersections $71769 $71769 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

ROUNDABOUT 

CONVERSION 

STUDY: OLD 

MONROVIA ROAD 

AND PROVIDENCE 

MAIN STREET

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $29347 $29347 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

8,530 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 2 

FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR1(US-431) FROM 

JUST SOUTH OF 

OLD HWY 431 TO 

JUST SOUTH OF 

VICTORIAN LANE

Roadway Roadway - other 4.96 Miles $587553 $2554577 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,940 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-117 FROM 

THE GA STATE LINE 

TO SR-7(US-11) IN 

HAMMONDVILLE

Roadway Roadway - other 10.38 Miles $1315432 $6501601 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,360 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2 

FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR227 FROM DEKALB 

CR-400 TO THE 

MARSHALL / 

DEKALB COUNTY 

LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 2.63 Miles $87718 $797433 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

780 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-227 FROM 

THE MARSHALL / 

DEKALB COUNTY 

LINE TO SOUTH 

SAUTY ROAD AND 

SR-62

Roadway Roadway - other 5.19 Miles $135232 $1502578 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

500 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL 

INTERSTATE 

MEDIAN SAFETY 

BARRIER ON I-59 

FROM SR-117 AT MP 

231.40 TO THE 

GEORGIA STATE 

LINE AT MP 241.20

Roadside Barrier - cable 11.9 Miles $382871 $382871 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

13,450 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-227 FROM 

SR-68 IN 

CROSSVILLE TO SR75 IN GERALDINE

Roadway Roadway - other 5.41 Miles $266752 $1778349 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,530 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

ADDITION OF LEFT 

TURN LANE ON SR69 AT CR1545(GOLDRIDGE 

ROAD)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

10,180 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-74 (US-278) 

FROM JUST WEST 

OF I-65 TO SR-3 (US31) IN CULLMAN

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

2.29 Miles $294120 $1554695 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,150 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-69 FROM SR3 (US-31) TO SR-74 

(US-278) IN 

CULLMAN

Roadway Roadway - other 3.062 Miles $516461 $2052328 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

17,840 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INTERSECTION 

MODIFICATION ON 

SR-251 AT CR-83 

(LINDSAY LANE) TO 

INSTALL 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

7,540 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MEDIAN 

CROSSOVER 

PROTECTION ON I65 FROM NORFOLK 

SOUTHERN RR 

OVERPASS (MP 

341.40) TO 0.1 MILE 

SOUTH SR-3 (US-31) 

(MP 354.1) AND 

FROM 1.3 MILES 

NORTH SR-53 

Roadside Barrier - cable 24.9 Miles $1164199 $1164199 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

32,680 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

UNDERPASS (MP 

366.20) TO 

TENNESSEE STATE 

LINE (MP 366.30) 

LIMESTONE 

COUNTY

MEDIAN 

CROSSOVER 

PROTECTION ON I565 FROM SPRING 

BRANCH (MP 0.10) 

TO CR-1036 

(MADISON 

BOULEVARD 

OVERPASS) (MP 

13.30) LIMESTONE 

AND MADISON 

COUNTIES

Roadside Barrier - cable 13.2 Miles $866486 $866486 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

58,750 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INTERSECTION 

MODIFICATION ON 

CR-109 (EAST 

LIMESTONE ROAD) 

AND CR-36 

(CAPSHAW ROAD) 

TO INSTALL 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,120 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

INTERCHANGE 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

I-65 AT CR-55 TO 

INCLUDE 

ROUNDABOUTS AT 

INTERCHANGE 

RAMPS AND 

INTERSECTION OF 

CR-55 AND BUSTER 

ROAD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Interchanges $116523 $600000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,000 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 2 

FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR7(US-11) FROM SR53(US-231) TO THE 

SOUTH STEELE 

TOWN LIMIT

Roadway Roadway - other 4.96 Miles $141876 $1418758 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,650 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-174 FROM 

SR-25(US-411) 

SOUTH OF 

ODENVILLE TO SR53(US-231) NORTH 

OF PELL CITY

Roadway Roadway - other 10.157 Miles $587382 $2349526 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,690 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway

Departure

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION AT 

SR-53 (US-231) AND 

SR-25 (US-411)/CR33 INTERSECTION

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $73860 $73860 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,030 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION AT 

SR-79 AND SR-160 

INTERSECTION

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $46020 $46020 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,230 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

PLANING, 

RESURFACING AND 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ALONG SR-155 

FROM 780' NORTH 

OF SR-25 TO SR-119 

IN MONTEVALLO

Roadway Roadway - other 0.378 Miles $19146 $319099 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

6,580 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING, 

SAFETY WIDENING 

AND SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

ALONG SR-3 (US-31) 

FROM LOCUST 

FORK BLACK 

WARRIOR RIVER TO 

BLOUNT COUNTY 

LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 4.616 Miles $49257 $703664 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,080 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

UPGRADE AT SR-63 

AND MAIN STREET 

IN ALEXANDER 

CITY, AT NORFOLK 

SOUTHERN 

RAILROAD/CENTRAL 

OF GEORGIA 

RAILROAD

COMPANY 

CROSSING DOT# 

728-229W

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

railroad preemption

1 Intersections $299326 $299326 RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 

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

Urban Major 

Collector

3,390 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-46 FROM 

SOUTH SIDE OF I-20 

MP 5.005 TO MP 

10.954

Roadway Roadway - other 6.35 Miles $646212 $3590064 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,500 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-1 (US-431) 

NORTH OF 

LAFAYETTE CITY 

LIMITS MP 161.640 

TO SOUTH TOWN 

LIMITS OF FIVE 

POINTS MP 169.779

Roadway Roadway - other 8.195 Miles $762357 $3811783 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,230 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-22 FROM MP 

89.308 TO JCT OF 

SR-21 (US-231) MP 

95.965

Roadway Roadway - other 6.657 Miles $667719 $2903124 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,320 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-4 (US-78) 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.407 Miles $478078 $2276561 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,250 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

FROM MP 166.715 

TO JUST WEST OF 

CLEBURNE COUNTY 

LINE MP 171.122

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-77 FROM JCT 

SR-49 MP 34.215 TO 

JUST WEST OF 

ASHLAND SQUARE 

MP 43.860

Roadway Roadway - other 9.645 Miles $453974 $2389334 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,250 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-22 FROM MP 

153.109 TO MP 

157.853

Roadway Roadway - other 4.744 Miles $356060 $1873998 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,640 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-14 

FROM BEGINNING 

OF 2 LANE SECTION 

MP 196.177 TO MP 

198.849

Roadway Roadway - other 2.672 Miles $383769 $1744405 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,320 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-49 FROM JCT 

OF SR-14 MP 8.990 

TO MP 14.354 

(SOUGAHATCHEE 

CREEK)

Roadway Roadway - other 5.364 Miles $640225 $2910115 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,580 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

I-20/59 INTERSTATE 

MEDIAN BARRIER 

FROM MISSISSIPPI 

STATE LINE TO 

TOMBIGBEE RIVER 

DUAL BRIDGES

Roadside Barrier - cable 27 Miles $1696836 $1696836 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

22,050 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING OF 

SR-39 WITH 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

FROM THE NORTH 

END OF FACTORY 

CREEK BRIDGE AT 

MP 5.603 TO THE 

TOMBIGBEE RIVER 

BRIDGE AT MP 

11.161

Roadway Roadway - other 5.55 Miles $527583 $2637915 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING SR-5 

FROM N. OF SR-183 

(MP 58.787) TO S. OF 

SR-14 (MP 63.062) 

AND SR-183 FROM 

SR-5 (MP 20.268) TO 

SR-14 (MP 21.273)

Roadway Roadway - other 9.35 Miles $598330 $2991650 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,150 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

RESURFACING AND 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR216 FROM JUST 

EAST OF LOCK 17 

RD TO CR-9

Roadway Roadway - other 4.01 Miles $397461 $3057390 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

3,640 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-8 (US-80) AT SR28 AND CR-25

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,900 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

SR-293 FROM SR110 TO SR-126

Roadway Roadway - other 2.5 Miles $83264 $594743 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

650 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

SR-126 FROM THE 

JCT OF ATLANTA 

HIGHWAY TO THE 

JCT OF CHANTILLY 

PARKWAY. 

EXCLUDING THE 

MONTGOMERY 

OUTER LOOP BASE 

AND PAVE PROJECT 

LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 10.74 Miles $163410 $2042618 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

7,530 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

PLANING, 

RESURFACING, 2' 

WIDENING, AND 

GUARDRAIL 

RETROFIT ON SR-8 

(US-80) FROM THE 

JCT OF CR-40 TO 

THE BEGINNING OF 

DIVIDED 4 LANE

Roadway Roadway - other 9.76 Miles $476226 $2801326 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,500 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALLATION OF A 

ROUNDABOUT AT 

THE INTERSECTION 

OF REDLAND ROAD 

(CR-8) AND 

FIRETOWER/DOZIER 

ROAD (CR-59).

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

1 Intersections $142500 $142500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,800 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

SR-3 (US-31) FROM 

JUST NORTH OF CR37 TO THE EXISTING 

JOINT (MP 133.3) 

PLANING, 

RESURFACING AND 

2' WIDENING

Roadway Roadway - other 7.85 Miles $597660 $3320332 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,350 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

SR-97 FROM JUST 

NORTH OF I-65 

DENIED ACCESS 

LIMITS TO NORTH 

OF THE JUNCTION 

OF SR-21, PLANING, 

RESURFACING AND 

WIDENING

Roadway Roadway - other 8.766 Miles $612554 $4375386 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,590 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

RESURFACING AND 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR111 FROM HOGAN 

ROAD TO SR-143

Roadway Roadway - other 5.522 Miles $199778 $1248615 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

2,880 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 1' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

SR-169 FROM THE 

JCT OF SR-1 (US431) TO THE JCT OF 

SR-8 (US-80)

Roadway Roadway - other 9.705 Miles $249691 $2496913 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,760 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-51 FROM 

THE RUSSELL 

COUNTY LINE(MP 

98.120) TO THE 

OPELIKA CITY 

LIMITS (MP 111.980)

Roadway Roadway - other 13.86 Miles $888334 $5552090 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-94 FROM 

THE EAST TOWN 

LIMITS OF RAMER 

TO THE JCT. OF SR53 (US-231)

Roadway Roadway - other 13.143 Miles $768000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,120 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I65 FROM NORTH OF 

COBBS FORD ROAD 

TO THE CHILTON CL

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.8 Miles $101000 $101000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

54,350 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2 

FT SAFETY 

WIDENING SR-15 

(US-29) FROM THE 

PIKE COUNTY LINE 

TO SR-197 (TRUCK 

RT 29)

Roadway Roadway - other 19 Miles $953301 $953301 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,810 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-81 FROM 

THE JUNCTION OF 

SR-8 (US-80) TO THE 

JUNCTION OF SR-14

Roadway Roadway - other 10.429 Miles $544387 $4536556 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,200 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I65 FROM 0.5 MILE 

NORTH OF CR-28 TO 

CATOMA CREEK

Roadside Barrier - cable 48.2 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

69,930 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I65 FROM THE 

CONECUH CL TO 0.5 

MILE NORTH OF CR28

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.5 Miles $15000 $15000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I85 FROM SR-229 TO 

CR-36 OVERPASS

Roadside Barrier - cable 7 Miles $20000 $20000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

38,920 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING OF 

SR-27 FROM 

JUNCTION SR-52 TO 

JUNCTION CR-8

Roadway Roadway - other 2.479 Miles $197852 $1099177 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

7,100 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING SR-52 

FROM SR-196 TO 

GENEVA EAST CITY 

LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 3.515 Miles $151800 $1897497 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

12,300 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-55 

FROM PAVING 

JOINT SOUTH OF 

POPLAR STREET TO 

YELLOW RIVER

Roadway Roadway - other 8.692 Miles $739582 $3361738 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,630 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-95 

FROM CR-46 IN 

ABBEVILLE TO 

NORTH OF CR-92

Roadway Roadway - other 7.826 Miles $508323 $2541615 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,120 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

TRIPLE LAYER 

SURFACE 

TREATMENT AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-92 FROM SR167 TO SR-12 (US84)

Roadway Roadway - other 11.019 Miles $367774 $2043187 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

3,270 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

WIDENING (2' 

SAFETY WIDENING) 

ON SR-1 (US-431) 

FROM JUST SOUTH 

OF SR-131 TO 

NORTH OF SR-6 

(US-82). BRIDGE 

RAIL RETROFITTING 

THE NORTH AND 

SOUTH BOUND 

BRIDGES OVER 

CHENEYHATCHEE 

CREEK AND 

BARBOUR CREEK.

Roadway Roadway - other 5.467 Miles $556134 $5561338 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,450 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING OF SR-52 

FROM EAST OF CR55 TO GEORGIA 

STATE LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 8.383 Miles $608970 $3205105 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,030 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

2 FT. SAFETY 

WIDENING (2-LANE), 

AND RESURFACING 

ON SR-8 (US-80) 

FROM HALE CL TO 

PERRY CL.

Roadway Roadway - other 7.402 Miles $134182 $2236371 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,790 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING 

(PARTIAL) AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-56 FROM EAST 

OF CR-1 TO WEST 

OF SR-13 (US-43) 

INTERSECTION, MP. 

12.948 TO MP. 

27.661

Roadway Roadway - other 14.712 Miles $244937 $4082281 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,620 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR - 5,FROM 

MOCCASIN CREEK 

TO 0.32 MILES 

NORTH OF SR-10

Roadway Roadway - other 1.987 Miles $154170 $1027801 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,210 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2 FT. SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-13(US-43)FROM 

0.78 MILE NORTH OF 

SR-10 TO SOUTH OF 

CR-30

Roadway Roadway - other 3.633 Miles $336066 $1120220 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,410 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-69 FROM THE 

CLARKE CO LINE TO 

NORTH END OF 

HORSE CREEK BR

Roadway Roadway - other 5.239 Miles $443875 $1431853 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,410 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING SR41 FROM 0.130 MI 

SOUTH CR-230 TO 

0.160 MI SOUTH OF 

CR-17

Roadway Roadway - other 2.5 Miles $201000 $913636 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

540 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING SR221 FROM SR-10 TO 

SR-28

Roadway Roadway - other 4.425 Miles $371537 $1376063 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

1,380 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-69 FROM 

TALLAHATTA CREEK 

TO BASHI CREEK

Roadway Roadway - other 2.234 Miles $196978 $820740 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

290 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

SR-13 (US-43) 

RESURFACING AND 

SAFETY WIDENING 

AND 

IMPROVEMENTS 

FROM NEAR CR10(WALKER 

SPRINGS RD) TO 0.2 

MILE NORTH CR-3

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

2.363 Lanes $2783594 $4093520 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,900 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Add Lanes Other

CONSTRUCT 

OFFSET LEFT TURN 

LANES AND A WEST 

BOUND RIGHT TURN 

ON SR-42 (US-98) AT 

THE INTERSECTION 

OF MCCRARY ROAD 

(CR-27)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - modify left-turn 

lane offset

1 Intersections $750000 $750000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

17,600 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT ON 

TANNER WILLIAMS 

ROAD (CR-70) AT 

ELIZA JORDAN 

ROAD (CR-523) TO 

INCLUDE 

ADDITIONAL LANES 

AND UTILITIES 

RELOCATIONS 

GRADE, DRAIN, 

BASE, AND PAVE

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $750892 $750892 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,530 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT ON 

TANNER WILLIAMS 

ROAD (CR-70) AT 

ELIZA JORDAN 

ROAD (CR-523) TO 

INCLUDE 

ADDITIONAL LANES 

AND UTILITIES 

RELOCATIONS

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $20406 $20406 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

8,530 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

RESURFACING AND 

2FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-18 

FROM SR-17 AT MP 

9.849 TO CR-49 AT 

MP 16.304

Roadway Roadway - other 6.455 Miles $261768 $3272094 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,450 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-5 FROM 20TH 

AVENUE EAST TO 

JUST WEST OF 1ST 

STREET NORTH 

EAST

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add 

acceleration lane

0.24 Miles $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,170 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I59 FROM JUST 

NORTH OF SUMTER 

COUNTY LINE AT MP 

27.282 TO 

Roadside Barrier - cable 28.06 Miles $1827217 $1827217 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

27,900 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 58

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

TUSCALOOSA 

COUNTY LINE AT MP 

55.352

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-7 

FROM THE END OF 

THE CURB AND 

GUTTER SECTION 

AT MP 44.654 TO 

JUST SOUTH OF CR208 AT MP 49.011

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

4.357 Miles $444682 $2964544 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

7,620 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

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

The Alabama Department of Transportation currently does not have a complete and accurate database that stores it's state highway's speeds. Three safety planning non-infrastructure projects are referenced above which we have shown to 

have an AADT of zero. In addition, ALDOT's Transportation Planning Section was unable to provide AADT information on two projects which are also listed to have an AADT of zero.
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 964 848 862 899 865 852 820 849 1,088

Serious Injuries 0 0 0 0 9,266 8,564 7,960 8,540 8,152

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.630 1.380 1.340 1.380 1.330 1.310 1.250 1.240 1.600

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.250 13.170 12.140 13.020 12.000

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

76 71 68 89 86 64 103 105 127

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

0 0 0 0 331 322 264 274 258
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 58

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 40 of 58

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 41 of 58

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

Definition for Serious Injury changed in the CARE database for 2009 and forward, so the Five Year Average is 

incorrect. Data for Fatality Rate and non-motorized fatalities taken from Alabama Crash Facts Book. Serious 

injury rates and number for non-motorized serious injuries is unavailable for this reporting year.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2011

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 42 of 58

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 -

Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural Local Road or Street

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or Street
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 58

Year 2011

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

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

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

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

The breakdown of fatalities and serious injuries by Roadway Functional Class is not possible given 

the current crash database (CARE) structure. Due to personnel turnover, it is unknown how the 

previous numbers were derived. We further question the accuracy of the previous values 

provided and are working to resolve the issue for future report submittals. As the CARE database 

is improved, the ability to summarize crashes by functional class may be accessible in future years.

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

elaborate?

No
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 58

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 1010.0

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

Performance targets were determined through an analysis of Alabama employment, 

unemployment, economic activity, and younger individual employment rates to 

determine trends that effect the occurrence of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized 

crashes. The targets support the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or 

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term crash 

trends. 

Number of Serious Injuries 8369.0 

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

Performance targets were determined through an analysis of Alabama employment, 

unemployment, economic activity, and younger individual employment rates to 

determine trends that effect the occurrence of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized 

crashes. The targets support the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or 

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term crash 

trends. 

Fatality Rate 1.490 

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

Performance targets were determined through an analysis of Alabama employment, 

unemployment, economic activity, and younger individual employment rates to 

determine trends that effect the occurrence of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized 

crashes. The targets support the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or 

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term crash 

trends. 

Serious Injury Rate 12.420 

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

Performance targets were determined through an analysis of Alabama employment, 

unemployment, economic activity, and younger individual employment rates to 

determine trends that effect the occurrence of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized 

crashes. The targets support the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or 
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 58

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term crash 

trends. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 390.0 

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

Performance targets were determined through an analysis of Alabama employment, 

unemployment, economic activity, and younger individual employment rates to 

determine trends that effect the occurrence of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized 

crashes. The targets support the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or 

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term crash 

trends. 

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

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

targets. 

The Safety Performance Targets where developed through a complex series of negotiations with 

the SHSO. MPOs have been involved through training and workshops. Additionally, ALDOT staff 

has attended some MPO meetings with others to follow. Final targets will be sent to the MPOs, to 

include, estimates of what their targets would be, if they chose to develop their own set of safety 

performance targets. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

106 89 109 111 71 109 94

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

961 652 650 595 629 576 609

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 58

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

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

level evaluations.

Fatal crashes are up year over year, as with most states. We are refocusing our 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 of 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

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Policy change

Organizational change

Increased focus on local road safety

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 58

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 499 2,708

Intersections Intersections 287 2,556
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 50 of 58

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

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Roadway Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Roadway Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 51 of 58

No

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

Page 52 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A

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

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

No
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 58

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

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 0 0

Route/Street Name (9) 0 0

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

0 0

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

0 0 0 0

Surface Type (23) 0 0 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

0 0 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 0 0

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 0 0
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 0 0

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

0 0

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

0 0 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

0 0 0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

0 0

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

The Alabama Department of Transportation is in the process of collecting the MIRE fundamental data elements for all National Highway System (NHS) routes in our state, but this data is incomplete at this time. The department has not 

committed to any future projects that would collect this data on any non NHS routes.

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.

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.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No See below. Yes See below. Yes

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No See below. Yes See below. Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is working with the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee to modify the appropriate forms, manuals, databases, and data dictionaries to have the identifier name changed to Serious Injury, as 

appropriate.

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

Page 56 of 58

Alabama defines a Serious Injury as an Incapacitating Injury. This means that the victim must be carried or otherwise helped from the scene of a crash, e.g., severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood; broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg); crush injuries; suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations; significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or 

more of the body); unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene; or paralysis.

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

No

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

2018

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

The Alabama Department of Transportation's Traffic and Safety Operations Section (TSOS) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are in the process of partnering to complete two program/process reviews which are being 

conducted at this time. These will not be completed by the time of the filing of this report.
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

ALDOT HSIP Program Management Manual_02 03 16.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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