Page 1 of 60

GEORGIA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 60

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................23

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................25

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................41

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................41

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................47

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................49

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................50

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................50

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................51

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................55

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................56

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................59

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................60
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 60

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data. 

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

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

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

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

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

surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning 

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

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

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

not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for 

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

such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 60

Executive Summary

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

data-driven process that identifies and reviews specific traffic safety issues around the state to identify 

locations for potential safety enhancements. The ultimate goal of the HSIP process is to eliminate all roadway 

fatality crashes and reduce serious injury crashes on all Georgia’s roadways through the implementation of 

engineering solutions. 

Each year, the Department sets aside safety funding to implement safety projects. The total HSIP funds 

allocated in a given fiscal year (FY) is approximately $ 100 million. In addition to this amount, the Department 

delivered an additional $76.6 million in safety focused projects for FY 20. These additional projects included 

approximately 2850 miles of rumble strips, approximately 200 miles of cable barrier, and several wrong way 

signage projects that span across several districts. This past year, 2019, indicated a third year of leveling off in 

motor vehicle fatalities following the previous two-year rise. Georgia’s total number of fatalities decreased 

almost one percent (-0.9%) from the previous year considering an estimated 0.3% rise in statewide travel. It is 

projected that Georgia’s statewide fatalities will continue to flatten in 2020, but unclear on how the current 

health crisis will impact annual travel estimates. These trends are closely monitored by all highway safety 

professionals in Georgia and remain the focus of the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). 

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

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

develop specific countermeasures. These teams have continued their work over the past year and remain a 

critical part of the SHSP, HSP and HSIP collaborative. 

Over the past FY we successfully advertised and selected three engineering consulting firms for three new 

safety design contracts. These contracts have additional capacity when compared to the existing contracts. 

The Safety Program intends to complete work on already established task orders under the existing contract. 

As part of these contracts, we are aggressively identifying and implementing safety projects to meet our HSIP 

goals. Projects that comprise the HSIP are usually moderately-sized projects that include safety improvements 

in the follow areas; intersection, pedestrian and bicycle, roadway departure, corridor, off-system, and high-risk 

rural roads. In addition, safety improvements identified through Road Safety Audits (RSA)s are pursued 

through district resources, local agencies, and capital projects. Safety projects may be nominated or identified 

from a large number of sources. One of the most common resources leveraged in the program is a data-driven 

analysis of vehicle crash locations and types. 

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

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

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

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

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

warning devices, and most intersection improvements. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are an important 

feature of the safety program, which is eligible for safety enhancement projects. Once a location has been 

identified, a crash screening is performed to confirm if there is a viable safety project. If viable, an intersection 

control evaluation (if applicable) and traffic engineering study is performed to confirm a safety benefit/cost for a 

potential project. 

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

continues to look for still more ways to improve safety. Redefining our processes, revision of guidelines, and 

continued enhancement of our WEB based data analytics platform is a highlight of these efforts. GDOT worked 

with FHWA, engineering consultants and local governments to test and validate the tools using examples from 

daily work to ensure the tools will support their efforts to identify potential safety project locations throughout 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 60

the state on all public roads. The new tools have already provided significant safety benefits by reducing the 

time it takes to analyze and locate potential safety projects.

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

eliminate fatality crashes and reduce serious injuries crashes. This past year GDOT has been working closely 

with our safety partners including GOHS and local law enforcement to improve the reporting accuracy in the 

State’s Motor Vehicle Crash Report. As part of the effort, GDOT developed crash reporting performance tools 

to analysis reporting completeness, timeliness and accuracy by agency. These tools were developed in 

cooperation with GOHS, TRCC and NHTSA following the State’s Traffic Records Assessment. The effort to 

improve reporting accuracy will further advance the identification of potential safety enhancement opportunities 

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

of the Governor’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Cumulatively, GDOT has advanced several initiatives to promote safety on all Georgia roadways. We are 

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

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

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

installing bicycle lanes and installing pedestrian accommodations to make our roads safer for all users.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 60

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on our available funding capacity. 

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

overlap: 

Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety ($10-12.5 million) 

Intersection Safety ($35-44 million) 

Roadway and Lane Departure ($20-30 million) 

High Risk Rural Roads ($6.5 million) 

Off System Safety ($7 million) 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations

The HSIP staff is located within the Safety section of the Office of Traffic Operations. 

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

 SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

 Other-systemic 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 60

 Other-Data Driven Safety Analysis 

 Other-Off System Safety 

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

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

established Off System Safety (OSS) Program that works through the District coordinators. The Department 

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

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

District coordinators use a data-driven approach to identify potential safety enhancements on off-system roads 

and intersections. Score-cards for each county is developed as a part of the Safety Program’s data-driven 

approach. The score-card ranks named roads based on a weighted scale. Additionally, we have been working 

with FHWA and pilot counties to develop Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP) where local DOTs develop their own 

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

road safety. Like our traditional approach, local governments would develop a list of roads and 

countermeasures based upon the LRSP. 

Once potential off-system safety projects are identified, the list is prioritized and selected by a review team. 

The cost of planned safety improvements is taken into consideration as well as the effectiveness of each 

countermeasure. The Department dedicates at least $1 million annually for each of the state's seven districts 

for off-system safety projects. This money is solely used to fund our off-system safety program. Additionally, 

larger HRRR projects are individually programmed using HSIP funds. The work normally consists of installing 

retro-reflective signage, applying pavement markings, installing rumble strips, intersection improvements or 

guardrail. GDOT has also programmed HRRR roundabout projects and will be starting off system sharp curve 

projects in the coming year. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

 Other-Office of Environmental Services 

 Other-Other-District traffic engineers 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

The Safety Program works closely with GDOT Maintenance and District Traffic Operations. Each month we 

meet with each of our seven districts and our safety design consulting teams. We work together to identify sites 

based on local knowledge and crash data. Additionally, as road maintenance plans are being developed the 

district traffic operations teams review sites and plans to ensure signs and pavement markings meet current 

specifications. We are also working with these teams to advance rumble strips and safety edge as part of all 

resurfacing projects. The traffic operations teams and HSIP/Safety Section work with our Off-System Local 

State Aid Coordinators to identify viable project locations using the data driven county report cards. 

The Office of Program Delivery (OPD) plays a large role in the delivery of safety projects for the Department. 

The Safety Program coordinates weekly with OPD to discuss ongoing safety projects, task orders, and 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 60

upcoming safety projects to be transitioned. Coordination with other offices, such as Environmental Services, 

Utilities, Railroad Safety, Roundabout and Alternative Intersection Design (RAID), and Engineering Services, is 

key in the development and delivery of safety projects. 

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

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

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

rumble strip/stripe details and the Design Policy Manual, when needed. We work with our Planning Office to 

educate MPOs on our 5 core performance measures and their roles. Lastly, the Safety Program works with our 

GDOT Materials and Testing partners to explore updates in our high friction surface treatment standards. 

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

efforts. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 FHWA 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Local Government Agency 

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

 Other-Public Safety & Local Law Enforcement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia’s SHSP Key Emphasis Areas are as follows:

Occupant Protection - Seatbelts and Air Bags 

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

Median Crashes 

Impaired Driver 

Distracted Driving 

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

Non-motorized User - Pedestrians, Bicyclists 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 60

Vehicle Type - Heavy Trucks, Motorcycles

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

teams goals.

Trauma System/Increasing EMS Capabilities

Traffic/Crash Records and Data Analysis

Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME)

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

Office of Planning, District Offices and directly to the Office of Traffic Operations. They can present project 

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

fit and eligible for HSIP funding. GDOT continues to work closely with the State's GOHS and MPOs to develop 

the state's safety performance targets. The process includes multiple presentations and working sessions. The 

crash data queries and data forecasting methodology was presented to local FHWA and NHTSA 

representatives last year and adopted by the TRCC working group. Over the past year GDOT has successfully 

launched a crash data query and analysis platform by partnering with Numetric Inc. The tools allow for graphic, 

spatial and tabular views of the states crash data. We have given multiple presentations to both internal and 

external partners. One example, GDOT Safety worked closely with FHWA and local government engineers to 

support the development of Local Road Safety Plans. We have also allowed both FHWA and local engineers 

to participate in our weekly conference call with Numetric Inc. This example highlights how Georgia's safety 

partners collaborate across organizational boundaries to advance safety for all road users.

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period.

see response to question number 12 below

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

elaborate. 

The State is continuing the enhancement of a web-based crash and network screening application that is 

available to all our safety partners. This tool promotes the rapid identification and analysis of all public road 

locations applying the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). This approach is improving how safety projects are 

identified for the Safety Program. New upcoming features are the auto-generated crash collision diagrams and 

intersection analysis tool. Additionally, we continue to improve our safety project tracking database (GOASIS). 

This database is accessible to GDOT and our engineering teams. The interface allows for tracking of projects 

as they work their way through the Plan Development Process (PDP). 

The Safety Program is also in the development of a new process to deliver a certain safety projects in a more 

efficient manner. Projects that have no right-of-way, limited environmental impact, and follow HSIP procedures 

might have the ability to be delivered through an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type process. This 

new process is being explored within the Department and in coordination with FHWA for a potential Special 

Experimental Project (SEP)-14.

The Safety Program also redefined several procedures in the past year. The process for which a safety project 

is developed has been redefined into several steps to ensure the most viable safety projects are selected for 

Georgia’s roadways. The process starts by identifying a potential safety concern. A crash screening is a new 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 60

tool that was developed recently by the Safety Program. This document main purpose is to confirm a safety 

justification. If a strong justification is not provided the location goes into a monitoring status for a determined 

period. The crash screening provides high level information on a location’s geometric characteristics, 

evaluation of other projects in the area, probe speed data, GIS information, and traffic volumes. More 

importantly the crash screening provides a detailed review of the crashes at a given location by breaking out 

manner of collision, severity, and time. This analysis provides a look into what the potential crash trends are. 

The last section of a crash screening is the alternative analysis. Given the crash trends at the intersection 

alternatives are proposed and a preliminary benefit-cost is provided.

If the crash screening provides a justification for a safety project the analysis is moved to an intersection 

control evaluation (ICE), if applicable. Alternatives proposed in the crash screening are evaluated and 

confirmed in stage 1 ICE. The most viable safety alternatives are selected for stage 2 ICE. The ICE tool ranks 

the final alternatives and provides a more defined benefit-cost. The alternative that has the highest ranking and 

benefit-cost, and shows to be a competitive safety project, is selected to move to the next stage, a traffic 

engineering (TE) study. A TE study can be performed once an alternative is selected from the ICE. The TE 

study takes the information gathered so far in the process and provides more details on the proposed project. 

For example, site visits are conducted to gain exact measures, update crash analysis, provide operational 

analysis, develop a layout, review of alternatives found in stage 2 ICE and recommendations. In addition, risk 

factors such as environmental, ROW, and utility are examined. 

A project is transitioned to OPD once a TE study has been signed. This is when the project is assigned a 

project identification (PI) number. A transition meeting is scheduled to discuss the project and what 

coordination needs to take place with other offices or agencies. Depending on the project size and complexity, 

additional meetings can be scheduled. A full or limited concept report is developed for most projects. This 

document provides additional information to confirm all applicable offices agree with the scope. Design on a 

project can start once a concept report is approved. Design may include one or several field plan meetings, 

scheduled at different stages of the design. This is to ensure the design is being done correctly. When the 

project package is complete the project is ready for construction letting. Once approved for letting, the project 

is sent out to GDOT prequalified contractors. All completed safety projects are reviewed to gain a bettering 

understanding of their effectiveness on Georgia roadways. A project is evaluated once there is an adequate 

amount of safety data for a project. Any improvements during this review are documented and can be used for 

similar future safety projects.

The RSA process was also revised to ensure the best process is in place to select locations using a safety 

data-driven and collaborative process. In addition to 14 RSA, additional RSAs performed under the Safe 

Routes to School Program each year. These RSAs are focused on segments of roadways that are near 

schools and have documented crash trends. A top ten list of potential RSA locations for the upcoming fiscal 

year is developed for each District in the final quarter of a fiscal year. The projects are ranked in terms of safety 

benefit, which is directly derived from the frequency and severity of crashes along a segment of roadway. The 

list of potential RSA locations is shared with the corresponding District and other essential stakeholders. The 

goal is to select at least two RSAs per District. The Safety Program’s RSA team then collects data and 

performs preliminary analysis. All RSAs are performed in the first two quarters of a fiscal year to ensure there 

is enough time to develop recommendations and deliver a final report.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 60

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Bicycle Safety 

 Horizontal Curve 

 HRRR

 Intersection 

 Local Safety 

 Median Barrier 

 Pedestrian Safety 

 Roadway Departure 

 Skid Hazard 

 Wrong Way Driving 

 Other-Off System Safety 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2018

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Other-Bicycle Crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 60

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

Other-stakeholder interest:3

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 60

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

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Ranking based on B/C:1

Other-District / Commitee:2
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 60

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Ranking based on B/C:1

Total Relative Weight:1

Program: Local Safety
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 60

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Local Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Other-Ownership

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Local Safety Plans

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 FHWA focused approach to safety
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 60

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Median width

 Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 60

 All crashes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3

Other-stakeholder interest:2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 60

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Critical rate

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

 Relative severity index

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Horizontal curvature

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 60

 Crash frequency

 Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

 Other-GDOT Focus

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Other-Available Funding

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Other-Interchange Design

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Probability of specific crash types

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

program?

No
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 60

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Systemic

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Program: Other-Off System Safety

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Other-Ownership

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Relative severity index

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

Because this is Off System Safety, State owned roads can't compete 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 60

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Other-stakeholder interest:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 46

HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

 Cable Median Barriers 

 Clear Zone Improvements 

 Horizontal curve signs 

 Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

 Install/Improve Signing 

 Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

 Rumble Strips 

 Wrong way driving treatments 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

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

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 Other-ICE 

This past year, we partnered with Numetric Inc. to provide analytic tools to our safety teams. We successfully 

loaded our road data, boundary data and crash data into a single application that provides graphical, spatial 

and tabular views of data. Additionally, it supports network screening and local road safety plan development. 

Based on the analysis, the tools also provides countermeasure suggestions including CMFs. 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 60

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

new web based crash analysis tools developed by Numetric Inc. As part of the standard ranking criteria, the 

Numetric tools also include Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) estimates for roads and road segments 

as well as a Relative Severity Index (RSI) and crash rate.

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting 

period.

The Safety Program also redefined several procedures in the past year. The process for which a safety project 

is developed has been redefined into several steps to ensure the most viable safety projects are selected for 

Georgia’s roadways. The process starts by identifying a potential safety concern. A crash screening is a new 

tool that was developed recently by the Safety Program. This document main purpose is to confirm a safety 

justification. If a strong justification is not provided the location goes into a monitoring status for a determined 

period. The crash screening provides high level information on a location’s geometric characteristics, 

evaluation of other projects in the area, probe speed data, GIS information, and traffic volumes. More 

importantly the crash screening provides a detailed review of the crashes at a given location by breaking out 

manner of collision, severity, and time. This analysis provides a look into what the potential crash trends are. 

The last section of a crash screening is the alternative analysis. Given the crash trends at the intersection 

alternatives are proposed and a preliminary benefit-cost is provided.

The RSA process was also revised to ensure the best process is in place to select locations using a safety 

data-driven and collaborative process. In addition to 14 RSA, additional RSAs performed under the Safe 

Routes to School Program each year. These RSAs are focused on segments of roadways that are near 

schools and have documented crash trends. A top ten list of potential RSA locations for the upcoming fiscal 

year is developed for each District in the final quarter of a fiscal year. The projects are ranked in terms of safety 

benefit, which is directly derived from the frequency and severity of crashes along a segment of roadway. The 

list of potential RSA locations is shared with the corresponding District and other essential stakeholders. The 

goal is to select at least two RSAs per District. The Safety Program’s RSA team then collects data and 

performs preliminary analysis. All RSAs are performed in the first two quarters of a fiscal year to ensure there 

is enough time to develop recommendations and deliver a final report.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 60

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $92,000,000 $93,005,084 101.09%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$6,299,452 $6,823,998 108.33%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $73,786,452 0%

State and Local Funds $0 $0 0%

Totals $98,299,452 $173,615,534 176.62%

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

safety projects? 

$7,000,000

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

$6,072,837

Georgia typically invest more than the seven million dollar goal each year. This past year, our estimates were 

inflated and the resulting annual investment fell below our target. The state will continue to pursue off system 

safety projects and meet our annual goals. 

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

1%

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

1%

Funding for data systems and data development is considered within the response. 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 60

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

during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$73,786,452

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

the future.

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

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

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

and identification by executing our safety design contracts. This has allowed the HSIP team to actively seek 

out quality safety projects and advance them to the plan development process. By working closely with our 

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

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

commitments. 

We have accomplished these improvements to deliver and mitigate project delivery delays and scheduling 

impacts by working with the Office of Program Delivery (OPD) to ensure an efficient hand-off between the 

offices and clarify the plan delivery process.. A project is transitioned from OTO Safety to OPD once a TE 

study has been signed. This is when the project is assigned a project identification (PI) number. A transition 

meeting is scheduled to discuss the project and what coordination needs to take place with other offices or 

agencies. Depending on the project size and complexity, additional meetings can be scheduled. A full or 

limited concept report is developed for most projects. This document provides additional information to confirm 

all applicable offices agree with the scope. Design on a project can start once a concept report is approved. 

Design may include one or several field plan meetings, scheduled at different stages of the design. This is to 

ensure the design is being done correctly. When the project package is complete the project is ready for 

construction letting. Once approved for letting, the project is sent out to GDOT prequalified contractors.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 60

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0000003 All Counties 

Identified CST-Safety 

CST

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$2544168.65 $2544168.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0000001 All Counties 

Identified PE-Safety 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$12745422.4

7

$12745422.4

7

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016447 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS - 

REGION B - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016455 All Counties 

SAFETY PROGRAM 

CONCEPT 

DEVELOPMENT - 

REGION B - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016456 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS - 

REGION A - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$400000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016459 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

ENGINEERING 

STUDIES - REGION 

A - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016882 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

OPERATIONS 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - 

REGION A - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$295000 $295000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016883 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

OPERATIONS 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - 

REGION B - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$472000 $472000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016884 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

OPERATIONS 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - 

REGION C - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$295000 $295000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016999 All Counties 

SAFETY PROGRAM 

CONCEPT 

DEVELOPMENT - 

REGION C - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$550000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0017005 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

ENGINEERING 

STUDIES - REGION 

C - FY 2020 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$550000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0017212 All Counties 

TRAFFIC 

OPERATIONS 

PROGRAM 

SUPPORT - 

REGION A - FY 

2020-2021 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$500000 $500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0017240 All Counties 

CRASH DATA 

SOFTWARE & 

ANALYSIS 

SERVICES 

Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$199159.09 $199159.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0000002 All Counties 

Identified ROWSafety ROW

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

$9482025 $9482025 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 All roads or 

projects 

considered

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Data Data driven 

safety

0016858 Jeff Davis 

CR 331 @ 1 LOC - 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY IN JEFF 

DAVIS COUNTYHRRR Shoulder 

Work

Roadside Roadside grading 1 County 

Roads

$683770.37 $683770.37 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017213 All Counties 

STATEWIDE 

SAFETY 

EQUIPMENT 

PURCHASE Equip. 

Purchase

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic signal - 

modernization/replaceme

nt

1 Signal 

equipment 

inventory for 

upgrades

$1000000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 1000 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity 

ofintersectio

n crashes

0016460 All Counties 

ROAD SAFETY 

AUDITS - REGION A 

- FY 2020 Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Research to 

ID RSAs in 

region

$150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Road 

Safety Audit

Improve 

safety for all 

road users

0017006 All Counties 

ROAD SAFETY 

AUDITS - REGION C 

- FY 2020 Preliminary 

Engineering

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 1 Research to 

ID RSAs in 

region

$150000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Road 

Safety Audit

Improve 

safety for all 

road users

0016468 Fulton I-75 

SB @ I-85 NB RAMP 

Interchange

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Ramps $700071.54 $700071.54 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate100,00

0

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0013332 Bibb SR 22 

@ CR 740/FULTON 

MILL ROAD - HRRR 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$370000 $370000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 9,250 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity 

ofintersectio

n crashes

0015589 Effingham 

SR 17 @ CR 

156/BLUE JAY 

ROAD - HRRR 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$490000 $490000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 6,900 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity 

ofintersectio

n crashes

0016350 Barrow SR 

211 @ CR 1/CR 

326/COUNTY LINE 

AUBURN ROAD - 

HRRR Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 11,800 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity 

ofintersectio

n crashes
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016357 Laurens SR 

26 @ CR 

68/BETHLEHEM 

CHURCH ROAD - 

HRRR Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Minor Arterial 6,650 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity 

ofintersectio

n crashes

0011730 Liberty SR 

38/US 84 @ CR 

73/OLD SUNBURY 

ROAD Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection traffic control 

- other

1 Intersection

s

$1650000 $1650000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther31,700 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016347 Banks SR 

98 @ SR 164 

Intersection 

Improvement 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Major Collector 8,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0009880 Tattnall SR 

23/US 25/US 301 @ 

SR 196 Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$530000 $530000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0009949 Lumpkin SR 

9 @ SR 52 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3096963.94 $3096963.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,760 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0013682 Dawson SR 

9 @ CR 194/CR 

252/DAWSON 

FOREST ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$4577082.47 $4577082.47 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 8,800 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0013686 DeKalb, 

Henry SR 155 @ CR 

672/PANOLA ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$490000 $490000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther20,800 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0015883 Barrow SR 

211 @ CR 47/OLD 

HOG MOUNTAIN 

ROAD Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$3450791.15 $3450791.15 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 16,100 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016111 Houston SR 

247 @ SR 247 SPUR 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$760000 $760000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,670 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016319 McDuffie 

SR 17/US 1 @ CR 

159/WIRE ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$350000 $350000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate4,850 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016349 Barrow SR 

211 @ CR 38/DEE 

KENNEDY ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,800 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016351 Barrow SR 

8/SR 53 @ CR 

139/JACKSON 

TRAIL ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$700000 $700000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,070 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016359 Troup SR 

219 @ CR 

407/BARTLEY 

ROAD Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$550000 $550000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 5,780 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017139 Troup SR 

219 @ CR 

419/WARES CROSS 

ROAD/CAMERON 

MILL ROAD 

Roundabout

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersection

s

$560000 $560000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,860 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0013061 DeKalb, 

Fulton SR 42 FROM 

CS 

1795/MANSFIELD 

AVE TO CS 

3694/DEKALB AVE 

Bicycle/Ped. Facility

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and bicyclists

1 Intersection

s

$2050612.37 $2050612.37 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther43,200 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

safety for all 

road users

0013956 Wayne SR 

27 FM CS 

1005/BAMBOO 

STREET TO CS 

796/EAST CHERRY 

STREET Pedestrian 

Crossings

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Modify existing crosswalk 1 Intersection

s

$382004.69 $382004.69 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Improve 

safety for all 

road users

0016861 Fulton CS 

562; CS 1384 & CS 

5043 - OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

3 City Streets $8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

0017071 Morgan, 

Oglethorpe RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

5 @ 3 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3 State Roads $616328.91 $616328.91 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016888 Talbot OFFSYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

4 LOCS IN TALBOT 

CO - HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4 County 

Roads

$386104.82 $386104.82 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016887 DeKalb 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

4 LOCS IN DEKALB 

COUNTY Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

4 County 

Roads

$8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017102 Fulton SR 

6;SR 14 ALT;SR 14 

CONN & SR 70 @ 4 

LOC - CABLE 

BARRIER Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 4 State Roads $2448268.11 $2448268.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 100,00

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017069 Burke, 

Emanuel, Jefferson, 

Jenkins RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

3 @ 5 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

5 State Roads $1055462.23 $1055462.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017068 Bleckley, 

Dodge, Laurens, 

Treutlen RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

2 @ 6 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6 State Roads $1124189.25 $1124189.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017070 Columbia, 

McDuffie, Richmond, 

Wilkes RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6 State Roads $778560.79 $778560.79 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

4 @ 6 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

0017085 Bacon, 

Brantley, Charlton, 

Ware RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

2 @ 6 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6 State Roads $1213076.23 $1213076.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017066 

Habersham, Rabun, 

Union, White 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 1 - AREA 

4 @ 7 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 State Roads $1239549.11 $1239549.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017067 Baldwin, 

Hancock, Putnam, 

Wilkinson RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 2 - AREA 

1 @ 7 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 State Roads $1624354.66 $1624354.66 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017087 Bulloch, 

Effingham, Evans, 

Screven RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

4 @ 7 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 State Roads $1334476.2 $1334476.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017089 Bartow, 

Gordon, Pickens 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 6 - AREA 

1 @ 7 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

7 State Roads $1013986.38 $1013986.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017104 Dougherty, 

Lowndes, Tift 

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

@ 7 LOCS IN 

DISTRICT 4 Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

7 Interchange

s

$178230.02 $178230.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0017081 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

3 @ 8 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

8 State Roads $789951.87 $789951.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017064 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 1 - AREA 

1 & 2 @ 9 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

9 State Roads $1063865.34 $1063865.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017065 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 1 - AREA 

3 @ 9 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

9 State Roads $1507723.96 $1507723.96 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017103 All Counties 

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

@ 10 LOC IN 

DISTRICT 3 Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

10 Interchange

s

$1342633.48 $1342633.48 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0016886 Rabun 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

11 LOCS IN RABUN 

CO - HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

11 County 

Roads

$154950.96 $154950.96 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016860 Cherokee 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

11 LOCS IN 

CHEROKEE 

COUNTY Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

11 County 

Roads

$261260.24 $261260.24 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017074 Marion, 

Stewart, Webster 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

2 @ 11 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

11 State Roads $1736007.65 $1736007.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 60 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0017084 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

1 @ 11 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

11 State Roads $1933882.36 $1933882.36 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016885 Coweta, 

Heard OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

12 LOC IN 

HEARD/COWETAHRRR Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

12 County 

Roads

$267492.5 $267492.5 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017091 Carroll, 

Haralson, Paulding, 

Polk RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 6 - AREA 

3 @ 12 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

12 State Roads $1164886.36 $1164886.36 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017090 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 6 - AREA 

2 @ 13 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

13 State Roads $1117163.39 $1117163.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016853 Appling 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

14 LOCS IN 

APPLING COUNTY 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

14 County 

Roads

$342880.31 $342880.31 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017092 Chattooga, 

Dade, Floyd, Walker 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 6 - AREA 

4 @ 14 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

14 State Roads $1247267.41 $1247267.41 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017073 

Chattahoochee, 

Harris, Muscogee 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

2 @ 15 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

15 State Roads $1840220.43 $1840220.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0017075 Dooly, 

Houston, Pulaski 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

3 @ 15 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

15 State Roads $1380803.13 $1380803.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017077 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

4 @ 15 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

15 State Roads $977165.3 $977165.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017086 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

3 & 5 @ 15 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

15 State Roads $1676472.32 $1676472.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017076 Macon, 

Schley, Sumter 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

3 @ 16 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

16 State Roads $931253.5 $931253.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017082 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

4 @ 16 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

16 State Roads $1756896.38 $1756896.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017093 Cobb, 

DeKalb, Douglas, 

Fulton RUMBLE 

STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 7 - AREA 

1; 2 & 3 @ 16 

ROUTES Rumble 

Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

16 State Roads $1108203.35 $1108203.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016880 Marion 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

17 LOCS IN MARION 

CO - HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

17 County 

Roads

$364138.3 $364138.3 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016854 Bartow 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

17 County 

Roads

$350190.08 $350190.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

17 LOCS IN 

BARTOW COUNTY 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

and 

Systemic

0017079 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

1 @ 17 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

17 State Roads $1456827.38 $1456827.38 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017080 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

2 @ 17 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

17 State Roads $1438138.55 $1438138.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017083 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

5 @ 17 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

17 State Roads $1891495.85 $1891495.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016856 Whitfield 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

18 LOCS IN 

WHITFIELD 

COUNTY Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

18 County 

Roads

$313541.74 $313541.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016857 Douglas 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

19 LOCS IN 

DOUGLAS COUNTY 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

19 County 

Roads

$116108.8 $116108.8 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016851 Brooks 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

20 LOCS IN 

BROOKS CO - 

HRRR Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

20 County 

Roads

$292091.56 $292091.56 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

0016879 Madison 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

20 LOCS IN 

MADISON COHRRR Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

20 County 

Roads

$312551.59 $312551.59 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016848 Lincoln 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

21 LOCS IN 

LINCOLN CO-HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

21 County 

Roads

$408095.25 $408095.25 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016852 Turner 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

21 LOCS IN 

TURNER CO - HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

21 County 

Roads

$371245.25 $371245.25 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017072 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

1 @ 22 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

22 State Roads $1125074.85 $1125074.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017078 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 3 - AREA 

5 @ 24 ROUTES 

Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

24 State Roads $1767388.03 $1767388.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017105 All Counties 

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

@ 24 LOC IN 

DISTRICT 6 Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

24 Interchange

s

$355728.95 $355728.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0016850 Berrien 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

25 LOCS IN 

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25 County 

Roads

$271115.51 $271115.51 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

BERRIEN - HRRR 

Signingand 

Pavement Marking

0016847 Emanuel 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

25 LOCS IN 

EMANUEL COUNTY 

Signing and 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

25 County 

Roads

$482019.13 $482019.13 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0017106 Clayton, 

Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton 

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

@ 27 LOC IN 

DISTRICT 7 Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

27 Interchange

s

$804935.92 $804935.92 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0016881 Stephens 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

39 LOCS IN 

STEPHENS 

COUNTY Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

39 County 

Roads

$326838.39 $326838.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 1,000 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016849 Putnam 

OFF-SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 

76 LOCS IN 

PUTNAM CO - 

HRRR Signingand 

Pavement Marking

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - remarking

76 County 

Roads

$352441.82 $352441.82 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road or 

Street

500 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Combinatio

n of Spot 

and 

Systemic

Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0015782 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

1 & 2 Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

8 State Roads $1595757.93 $1595757.93 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0015783 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

1 & 4 Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2 Numbers $2037363.65 $2037363.65 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016434 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 5 - AREA 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3 Numbers $1777572.94 $1777572.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

2; 3 & 5 Rumble 

Strips

0016435 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

3 Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

6 State Roads $1430237.85 $1430237.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0016436 All Counties 

RUMBLE STRIPS IN 

DISTRICT 4 - AREA 

4 & 5 Rumble Strips

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

12 State Roads $2281724.06 $2281724.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 20,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0014085 Coweta, 

Harris, Meriwether, 

Troup I-85 FROM 

ALABAMA STATE 

LINE TO CR 

548/COLLINSWORT

H ROAD Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

52 Miles $6524651.18 $6524651.18 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0014086 All Counties 

I-75 FROM FLORIDA 

STATE LINE TO CR 

361/FARMERS 

MARKET ROAD 

Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

100 Miles $7394197.86 $7394197.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0014089 Troup I-185 

FROM SR 1/US 27 

TO I-85 Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

39 Miles $1818417.09 $1818417.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0014091 Clayton, 

DeKalb, Henry I-675 

FROM I-75/HENRY 

TO I-285/DEKALB; 

INC I-285 RAMPS 

Signing

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

10 Miles $2981712.19 $2981712.19 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0015786 All Counties 

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS 

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

15 Interchange

s

$653268.89 $653268.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate150,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Improve 

signing and 

navigation

Reduce 

crashes by 

older, 

impaired, 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

IN DISTRICT 1 

Signing

distracted 

and 

inexperience

d drivers

0017098 All Counties 

I-20 @ 5 LOCS & I520 @ 1 LOC - 

CABLE BARRIER 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 60 Miles $7978362.06 $7978362.06 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate200,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017099 Meriwether, 

Muscogee, Troup I85 @ 1 LOC; I-185 @ 

2 LOCS & SR 22 @ 1 

LOC - CABLE 

BARRIER Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 25 Miles $3962886.85 $3962886.85 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate200,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017100 All Counties 

I-95 @ 1 LOC & SR 

21 @ 1 LOC - CABLE 

BARRIER Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 100 Miles $4817920.43 $4817920.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate200,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0017101 Dade I-59 

FROM ALABAMA 

STATE LINE TO I-24 

- CABLE BARRIER 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 20 Miles $2431009.4 $2431009.4 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate200,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0015814 Gwinnett I85 FM S OF SR 317 

TO N OF CR 

134/HAMILTON 

MILL RD@34 LOCS 

Guardrail

Roadside Barrier- metal 34 Locations $330000 $330000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate200,00

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016353 Hall SR 

365/US 23 FROM SR 

52 TO SR 369 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 8 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

36,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016354 

Habersham, Hall SR 

365/US 23 FROM SR 

52 TO SR 384 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 10 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

25,300 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0016355 Habersham 

SR 365/US 23 FROM 

SR 384 TO SR 17 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 11 Miles $300000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

23,500 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 60

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

departure 

crashes

0017097 Barrow, 

Gwinnett, Oconee 

SR 316 @ 3 LOCS - 

CABLE BARRIER 

Barriers

Roadside Barrier - cable 25 Miles $3708351.18 $3708351.18 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

30,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

severity of 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

0008314 Pickens SR 

136 FROM SR 136 

CONN TO SR 515 

Realignment

Roadway Roadway - other 2 Miles $14039146.7

8

$14039146.7

8

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 5,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Keeping 

vehicles on 

th eroad

0015595 Fulton SR 9 

FROM SR 9 SO TO 

CS 361/WINDSOR 

PKWY CST

Roadside Removal of roadside 

objects (trees, poles, etc.)

1 Miles $3799348.35 $3799348.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 20,500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Improve 

safety for all 

road users
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 60

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 1,226 1,192 1,180 1,164 1,432 1,556 1,540 1,504 1,491

Serious Injuries 4,797 4,884 4,694 4,446 4,896 5,206 5,370 6,401 7,308

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.165 1.151 1.110 1.072 1.245 1.299 1.250 1.170 1.155

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.556 4.714 4.417 4.094 4.257 4.347 4.359 4.979 5.663

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

152 188 209 183 226 265 274 296 269

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

308 430 254 265 281 292 370 334 433
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 60

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 60

Fatality data is from FARS and serious injury data has been updated based upon CODES and TRCC analysis. 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

57.8 438 0.75 5.67

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

115.2 460 1.86 7.33

Rural Minor Arterial 129.8 624.6 2.25 10.72

Rural Minor Collector 30.6 146.2 1.76 7.49

Rural Major Collector 152.8 694.2 6.86 35.33

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 60

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

82.8 500.8 1.87 11.13

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

154 480.2 0.63 1.97

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

18.4 62.6 0.52 1.78

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

269.8 793.8 1.57 4.6

Urban Minor Arterial 267.8 819.4 1.42 4.34

Urban Minor Collector 104.4 286.2 1.44 3.93

Urban Major Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or 

Street

121 530.2 0.51 2.22
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 60

Year 2019

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

977.2 3,761.6 1.32 5.06

County Highway 

Agency

426.4 1,689.8 1.24 4.87

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

101 384.8 0.58 2.19

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends. 

Georgia DOT has been working with the SHSP TRCC / CODES and Data task teams to evaluate the coding of 

(A) Suspected Serious Injury data recorded on the state’s crash reports. We studied the consistency and 

alignment to EMS and hospital data. Based upon our findings, we reached out to our local FHWA and NHTSA 

representatives and advised them that we would be updating our (A) Suspected Serious Injury quantities. It is 

the state’s desire to continually improve the quality of our reporting, and this report reflects the revisions to our 

(A) Suspected Serious Injury data. 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 60

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1715.0

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average traffic fatalities under the projected 1,715 (2017-2021) 5-year average 

by December 2021. (source FARS data) see narrative below

Number of Serious Injuries:6407.0

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average serious traffic injuries under the projected 6,407 (2017-2021) 5-year 

average by December 2021. (source state's crash database GEARS) see narrative below

Fatality Rate:1.230

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average traffic fatalities per 100MVMT under the projected 1.23 (2017-2021) 5-

year average by December 2021. (source FARS data and States VMT estimates) see narrative below

Serious Injury Rate:4.422

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average serious injury per 100MVMT under the projected 4.42 (2017-2021) 5-

year average by December 2021. (source state's crash database GEARS and VMT estimates) see narrative 

below

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:686.5

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

To maintain the 5-year moving average serious injury and fatalities among non-motorist under the projected 

687 (2017-2021) 5-year average by December 2021. (source state's crash database GEARS and FARS data) 

see narrative below

Support for the SHSP Vision Zero:

The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee working with other state agencies, law enforcement, federal 

partners, and MPOs have shared the status of our performance metrics. By communicating these measures 

annually, it is our expectation that we will build a common appreciation for the hazards associated with motor 

vehicle travel. This acknowledgement will encourage safety investment and cooperation between safety 

advocates. 

Serious Injury Data Considerations:

The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC), Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), and 

Crash Outcomes Data Evaluation System (CODES) are making great strides in improving the quality of traffic 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 60

serious injuries reporting in Georgia. After expanding the serious injury definitions (more detailed and specific 

for law enforcement) to meet the requirements of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 

KABCO scale in2013, GDOT modified the Georgia Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Report and conducted a 

series of training for law enforcement. Part of the training emphasized how to properly report critical accident 

fields (such as the new ‘suspected’ serious injury definitions) and how to submit crash reports (electronic 

and/or paper) to GDOT. In addition to the police training, the data subcommittee is developing a process for 

checking police-reported serious injuries in the crash database by cross-referencing the queried values with 

Emergency Medical Services data and Hospital Records. Additionally, CODES is performing data linkages 

across all three data sources to assess the quality of recent crash reports and to re-calibrate the values from 

serious injury values in previous years. In June 2020, the data subcommittee took the first step towards 

redefining and re-calibrating the ‘suspected serious injuries’ from 2009 to 2019.

KABCO scale is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash. K-Fatal Injury, 

A-Suspected Serious Injury, B-Suspected Minor Injury, C-Possible Injury, and O-No Apparent Injury.

Other Considerations

The FY2021 targets did not include the assessment of external or unforeseen circumstances that can impact 

traffic safety outcome measures, such as the Corona-virus (COVID-19) events and changes in police 

monitoring, government responses, hospitalization rates, etc.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

approach to GDOT Planning and the State's MPOs. Additionally, we held separate meeting with FHWA and 

NHTSA regional representatives to discuss our serious injury data analysis efforts. We highlighted how the 

updates to the serious injury data will impact to our performance measures and data reporting. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 1652.0 1504.6

Number of Serious Injuries 24324.0 5836.2

Fatality Rate 1.310 1.224

Serious Injury Rate 18.900 4.721

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

1126.0 608.0
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 60

Because the state has updated the serious injury data, it will be necessary for the state to update all targets 

that contain serious injury calculations. We look forward to working with FHWA and NHTSA in the coming year 

to update these targets.

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

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

evidence indicates that we will continue to meet our near term performance targets

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

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

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

pedestrian safety and bicycle safety programs as needed.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

150 139 206 229 226 207 238

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

274 290 298 314 344 406 556
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 60

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Benefit/Cost Ratio 

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

 Other-Fatality Rates 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

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

teams. This approach has promoted improved communication and coordination between the department’s 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for curve signing and are scheduling implementation with our districts and engineering consultants. We have 

launched our Numetric Inc. safety analytics software that incorporates the HSM EB methodology for ranking 

road segments and provides data analysis for our safety community. We have delivered an updated 

Pedestrian Streetscape Guide and Pedestrian Safety Action Plan to enhance pedestrian safety. Lastly, we 

have developed a Road Safety Audit Manual that will improve the selection and execution of RSAs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

wrong way driving crashes. 

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

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

users and support our Vision Zero goal. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 # RSAs completed 

 Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

 Increased focus on local road safety 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 60

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 280.2 746.8 0.22 0.59

Roadway Departure 741.2 1,351.8 0.59 1.07

Intersections 349.8 1,470.6 0.28 1.16

Pedestrians 241.4 378.4 0.19 0.3

Bicyclists 23.6 41.4 0.02 0.03

Older Drivers 188.4 358.2 0.15 0.28

Motorcyclists 154.6 508 0.12 0.4

Work Zones 43.6 264.6 0.03 0.21

Data 1,504.6 5,836.2 1.23 4.6
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 60

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 60

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

No

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 60

The majority of the state's effort over the past year has been to make data more accessible and develop tools 

for both better project identification and simplify the evaluation of program effectiveness. The state has also 

redefined several procedures in the past year. The process for which a safety project is developed has been 

redefined into several steps to ensure the most viable safety projects are selected, including the RSA process 

that was revised to ensure the best process is in place to select locations using a safety data-driven and 

collaborative process. It is anticipated that the improved data platform and project identification will fully

support future countermeasure analysis.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 60

Project Effectiveness 

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

0008457 Lee SR 

3/US 19 @ CR 

101/CENTURY 

ROAD - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

8.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 12.00 11.00 24:1

0000410 Spalding 

SR 362 @ CR 

507/ROVERWILLIAMSON 

ROADS - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

realignment to 

align offset cross 

streets

4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 10.00 7.00 17:1

0008542 Henry 

SR 42 FM CR 

328/ROBERTS 

RD TO CR 

648/LOCUST 

GROVE GRIFFIN 

RD - 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

24.00 12.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 33.00 14.00 7:1

0008627 Hall CR 

1300/UNION 

CHURCH ROAD 

@ MULBERRY 

CREEK 

Urban Major 

Collector

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

17.00 14.00 2.00 8.00 6.00 27.00 20.00 3:1

0008884 Monroe 

SR 18 @ SR 87 

ROUNDABOUT

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

10.00 5.00 7.00 2.00 17.00 7.00 3:1

0009846 Colquitt 

SR 33/US 319 @ 

SR 33 SO - 

ROUNDABOUT

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

31.00 4.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 43.00 5.00 11:1

0013266 Hart 

OFF SYSTEM 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS 

@ 99 LOCS IN 

HART COUNTY 

Rural 

Collectors and 

Rural Local 

Roads

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

209.00 227.00 2.00 1.00 26.00 16.00 83.00 93.00 320.00 337.00 92:1

All projects used for analysis had at the least three years of data from before and after construction.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 60

Compliance Assessment

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

 05/24/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2019 To: 2021

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

 2021

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

20 20

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 60

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

AADT Year (80) [82]

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 60

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roads, and the 5 required FDE for the unpaved roads.
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 59 of 60

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Program Final-2016 FAST.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 60 of 60

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

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

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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