Georgia

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: GA
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 3

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 6

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 45

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 45

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 48

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 60

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 60

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 74

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................76

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 77

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 82

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 87

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 93

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 96
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

the implementation of engineering solutions.

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

Safety Improvement Program allocation fell to approximately $32,714,305 because of limited federal 

availability during Fiscal Year 2015. This past year represented the ninth consecutive year of lower 

fatalities after reaching a 32-year high in 2005. Georgia’s total number of fatalities decreased 1.0% from 

the previous year. Despite no discernible change in statewide travel, Georgia’s statewide fatality rate 

continues to decrease. 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) develops and supports the SHSP. The plan has specific 

Emphasis Area Task Teams that are organized to develop specific emphasis area countermeasures.

Countermeasures are represented in proposed safety projects. Combining existing highway safety plans 

represented in HSIP and professional efforts of the task team members has successfully leveraged many 

existing resources to address the safety emphasis target areas. The multi-disciplinary safety teams have 

succeeded in engaging the four safety E’s into their efforts to identify safety projects.

Projects that comprise the HSIP are usually moderately-sized projects that include intersection 

improvements, signal upgrades (LEDs), ramp improvements, corridor improvements, turn lanes, signage, 

corridor improvements and traffic engineering studies. All public roads are included in one or more of 

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

number of sources. One of the most common methods is by an analysis of vehicle crash locations and 

types.

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

emergency agencies and metropolitan planning organizations are all accepted for analysis. A project 

may qualify as a safety project because of a positive impact on an existing safety problem, because of 

evidence that it will prevent a hazardous condition, or because, it falls into one of several pre-approved 

categories of improvements that are known to provide safety benefits. Examples of this last category 

include guardrail, traffic signals, railroad crossing warning devices, and most intersection improvements. 

Public pedestrian and bicycle facilities and traffic calming projects may also be eligible for hazard 

elimination projects. Once a project has been identified, a benefit/cost analysis is performed.
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and local governments are encouraged to develop high 

crash lists for local roads that can be used to identify hazard elimination projects. City and county 

engineers and local public agencies are encouraged annually to examine local road systems and 

recommend safety projects. These projects will be submitted to the District Traffic Engineer for approval 

and recommendation for project concept and project programming in the Office of Traffic Operations in 

exactly the same manner as projects on the State Routes.

As Georgia highway fatalities continue to decline at 4 to 5% per year, the nation’s highway fatalities 

slightly declined three percent in 2013 to approximately 30,057 (FARS). The aggressive safety emphasis 

by Georgia DOT, the Department of Public Safety and the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety continue 

to keep the state’s numbers trending downward. 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. The Office of Traffic Operations is refining and utilizing our crash data and road safety audits to 

improve safety and reduce fatalities, injuries and crashes. We are building roundabout intersections, 

increasing the use of cable barrier on divided roadways, raising center concrete median barriers, 

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

coordinating traffic signal timing and installing pedestrian accommodations to make our roads safer.
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

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

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

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

and local government to identify a group of roads that are not part of the state highway system and 

have safety deficiencies. Once the roads are selected, the list is prioritized and selected by a review 

team. The cost of the planned safety improvements are taken into consideration as well as the 

effectiveness of each countermeasure. The Department dedicates $1 million annually for each of the 

state's seven construction districts. This money is solely used to fund our off-system safety program. 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

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 or 

guardrail.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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 measureable 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 hold quarterly Safety Program Leadership Meetings for the Executive 

Board and task team leaders. GDOT’s Safety Action Plan is executed to implement engineering solutions 

to highway safety problems. GDOT’s Safety Action Plan is a key component 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, Minimizing
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Consequences of Leaving Road, Work Zones

Aggressive Driving/Super Speeder

Impaired Driver

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

Non-motorized User - Pedestrians, Bicyclists

Vehicle Type - Heavy Trucks, Motorcycles

Trauma System/Increasing EMS Capabilities

Traffic/Crash Records and Data Analysis

Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME)

We also work closely with GDOT Maintenance and District Traffic Operations. As road maintenance 

plans are being developed the district TO teams review sites and plans to ensure signs and pavement 

marking meet current specifications. The TO teams and HSIP/Safety Section work with our Off System 

Coordinators to identify good project locations using the data driven county report cards. These 

activities are critical pieces to support the goals of the Serious Crash Type Task Team and promote the 

alignment between HSIP and SHSP. 

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: Other-Public Safety & Local Law Enforcement

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other: Other-Previously our off system safety projects were “local let” projects. We have pulled the 

project engineering back in house and we are letting the off system safety projects the same as our 

other GDOT HSIP projects. 

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

would like to elaborate.

Over the past year Georgia DOT has completed our crash location data process. This process is a critical 

part of our program administration. Having improved crash location information that is tied to our road 

center line network will allow Georgia to better manage the HSIP program and improve our 

responsiveness in selecting the best projects.

Georgia has selected a vendor to house and coordinate our crash reporting. Many of the lessons learned 

over the past five years have already been used to guide our data base design, customer service and 

quality assurance efforts. Some of the items that we will focus on in the latest contract with Appriss will 

be:

Geo Coding crash locations

Cross referencing FARS

Establishing separate production and reporting databases

Develop graphical QA tools

Promoting data analytics for our customers

Using “heat maps” to highlight focus points.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

minimum severity index 1

Program: Safe Corridor

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

severity index 2

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other-Bicycle Crashes Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 2

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

If yes, are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Yes

No

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

These projects are generally more systemic in nature 

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 100

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Red Light Running Prevention
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Other-identification of crashes that may be correctable by red-light cameras

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

27

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

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

29

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Right Angle Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Program: Left Turn Crash

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2013

 

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

39

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

40

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

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

0

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

Over the past year we have been working with our GDOT Maintenance Office and Environmental Office 

to incorporate specific safety counter measures like safety edge, rumble strips and pavement markings 

into our resurfacing projects. 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 70000000 100 % 32714305 100 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU)

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP)

State and Local Funds
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Totals 70000000 100% 32714305 100%

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

$7,000,000.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$1,270,981.00

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

$550,000.00

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

$550,000.00

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

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

period? 

$0.00

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

overcome this in the future.

Safety is a core responsibility of Georgia DOT. We build safety into all of our programs. HSIP is only a 

part of the Department’s total program and safety effort. Until this year, the available funding for HSIP 

has been increased. The greatest hurdle has been the lack of a long term federal transportation bill that 

will clearly establish funding levels. We will continue to work with our federal partners to identify 

funding needs and work through these issues.

Over the past year we established a process to incorporate proven safety countermeasures into the 

maintenance resurfacing program. We will continue to seek opportunities to promote safety into our 

core programs.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

There are no other comments
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improveme

nt Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundi

ng 

Categ

ory

Function

al 

Classifica

tion

AAD

T

Spe

ed

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

0000410 Spalding SR 362 

@ CR 507/ROVERWILLIAMSON ROADSTURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

right-turn 

lane (freeflow)

1 

Numb

ers

2787077

.34

2787077

.34

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

9100 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0007311 Fulton CR 

3266/Bell Road @ CR 

72/Boles Road

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

499481 499481 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Local 

Road or 

Street

1221

9

45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

0007495 

Lumpkin/Towns/Unio

n/White PEDESTRIAN 

UPGRADES @ 19 SR 

LOCATIONS IN 

DISTRICT 1-PED 

UPGRADE

Pedestrians 

and 

bicyclists 

Crosswalk

20 

Numb

ers

2527721

.14

2527721

.14

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Pedestria

ns

Making 

walking 

and 

street 

crossing 

easier

0008457 Lee SR 3/US 

19 @ CR 101/CENTURY 

ROAD - INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

1 

Numb

ers

816020.

3

816020.

3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

1862

5

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0008542 Henry SR 42 

FM CR 328/ROBERTS 

RD TO CR 648/LOCUST 

GROVE GRIFFIN RD -

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

2 

Numb

ers

1899750

.23

1899750

.23

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

2040

0

45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009218 Paulding SR 

61 @ NEBO 

ROAD/MAYFIELD 

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

1 

Numb

2892062

.98

2892062

.98

HSIP 

(Sectio

Urban 

Minor 

9910 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

ROAD Intersection 

traffic 

control -

other

ers n 148) Arterial Agency and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009620 Murray SR 

225 @ MT Carmel 

Road/Mitchell Bridge 

Road - ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

300000 300000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

6810 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009846 Colquitt SR 

33/US 319 @ SR 33 SO 

- ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

2767835

.73

2767835

.73

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

8250 45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009870 Effingham SR 

17 @ SR 119

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

1 

Numb

ers

640000 640000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

7800 35 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Modify 

control - allway stop to 

roundabout

Agency and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009953 Walton SR 81 

@ CR 461/CR 

462/BOLD SPRINGS 

ROAD-ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control -

two-way 

stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

710000 710000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

9700 45 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0009993 Appling 

SHARP CURVE

TREATMENTS @ SEV 

LOCS IN DISTRICT 1

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface -

high friction 

surface

8.19 

Miles

3567444

.09

3567444

.09

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 0 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0010292 Dougherty SR 

520/US 82 @ CR 

459/COUNTY LINE 

Miscellaneo

us 

0.36 

Miles

550000 550000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

1420

0

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

ROAD - INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENT

Other Agency and

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0010364 Bulloch SR 26 

@ CR 

585/BURKHALTER 

ROAD

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control -

two-way 

stop to 

roundabout

1 

Numb

ers

828602.

91

828602.

91

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

8950 55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0010925 Fulton I-285 

Ramps at Riverside 

Drive RoundaboutsROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

control -

modificatio

ns to 

roundabout

2 

Numb

ers

4397308

.67

4397308

.67

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1924

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0010925 Fulton I-285 

Ramps at Riverside 

Drive RoundaboutsIntersection 

traffic 

control 

2 

Numb

ers

510000 510000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

1924

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

ROUNDABOUT Modify 

control -

modificatio

ns to 

roundabout

Agency and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0010939 Cobb SR 3 @ 

SR 92

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometry -

other

1 

Numb

ers

490000 490000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

3877

0

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0011832 Chatham SR 

26 from McKenzie St to 

15th St - 14 Locs -

RRFB

Intersection 

traffic 

control 

Modify 

traffic 

signal - add 

flashing 

yellow 

arrow

14 

Numb

ers

290776 290776 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

0 30 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Intersecti

ons

Improvin

g the 

design 

and 

operatio

n of 

highway 

intersecti

ons

0012870 Fulton SR 

9/US 19 FROM CS 

164/DEERING ROAD 

Roadway 

Roadway 

narrowing 

1 

Numb

ers

200000 200000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

4110

0

35 State 

Highwa

y 

Pedestria

ns

Making 

walking 

and 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

TO CS 3377/PHARR 

ROAD

(road diet, 

roadway 

reconfigura

tion)

Other Agency street 

crossing 

easier

0013236 Banks OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 15 

CR LOCS IN BANKS 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

20 

Miles

275000 275000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013266 Hart OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 99 

LOCS IN HART COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

20 

Miles

275500 275500 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013300 Bartow OFF Roadway 2 25000 25000 HSIP Project 0 45 County Roadway Reducing 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 17 

LOCS IN BARTOW 

COUNTY

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

Miles (Sectio

n 148)

on 

multiple 

poads

Highwa

y 

Agency

Departur

e

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013326 Whitfield OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 74 

LOCS IN DALTON

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

22 

Miles

25000 25000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013328 Gordon OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 6 

CR LOCS IN GORDON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

2 

Miles

25000 25000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

e

0013329 Bulloch OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 7 

LOCS IN BULLOCH 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

2 

Miles

40000 40000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013330 Bryan OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMEMTS @ 6 

LOCS IN PEMBROKE

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

2 

Miles

8000 8000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013331 Tattmall OFF Roadway 2 18000 18000 HSIP Project 0 45 County Roadway Reducing 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 5 

LOCS IN TATTNALL 

COUNTY

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

Miles (Sectio

n 148)

on 

multiple

poads

Highwa

y 

Agency

Departur

e

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013349 Baldwin OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 9 

LOCS IN BALDWIN 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

2 

Miles

20000 20000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

0013351 Burke OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 6 

LOCS IN BURKE 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

2 

Miles

40000 40000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

e

0013354 Newton OFF 

SYSTEM SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS @ 5 

CR LOCS IN NEWTON 

COUNTY

Roadway 

Roadway -

restripe to 

revise 

separation 

between 

opposing 

lanes 

and/or 

shoulder 

widths 

2 

Miles

20000 20000 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Project 

on 

multiple 

poads

0 45 County 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

M004782 Fulton SR 

154/SR 166 from CS 

2995/Barge Rd to 

West of CS 

2353/Sylvan Rd

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

1 

Numb

ers

695024.

43

695024.

43

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

2820

0

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e

M005308 Fulton 403 

(I-85) SR 74 TO 

METROPOLITIAN 

PKWY (MP61 - MP 76)

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

2 

Miles

2511561

.55

2511561

.55

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

1130

00

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

or other roadway 

departur

e

M005310 Fulton SR 

400 from Nancy Creek 

to SR 140

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips -

unspecified 

or other

2 

Miles

1962139

.3

1962139

.3

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressw

ays

1518

00

55 State 

Highwa

y 

Agency

Roadway 

Departur

e

Reducing 

serious 

crash 

types -

roadway 

departur

e
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 1482 1388.4 1298.4 1233.4 1207.4

Number of serious injuries 4655 4042.2 3468 2974.4 2661.6

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.33 1.26 1.19 1.13 1.1

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

4.18 3.67 3.18 2.73 2.43

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

61
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

To the maximum extent possible, present performance measure* data by functional classification and ownership. 

Year - 2014

Function 

Classification

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

73.8 85.6 0.84 1.03

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

94.2 129 1.5 2.12

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

136.8 180 2.28 2.99

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

37.2 43.8 3.09 3.07

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

166.2 189.2 3.11 3.59

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

95.2 135.6 1.77 2.63

URBAN PRINCIPAL 95.4 260.8 0.48 1.29
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

64

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

10.6 31.2 0.34 1.2

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

150.4 512 1.17 3.92

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

177.8 589.6 1.17 3.83

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

52 164.2 1 3.13

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

118.6 340.6 0.62 2.25
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

68
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Year - 2014

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 720.8 1578.8 1.09 2.4

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 341 749.6 1.18 2.6

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 145.4 333.4 1.06 2.42

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

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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

There are no other comments

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.54 0.54 0.47 0.38 0.31

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

0.75 0.73 0.61 0.5 0.4

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

(F+SI 65+ 2011/2011 population figure)+(F+SI 65+ 2010/2010 pop. Figure)+...../5 equation and it looks 

like this:

2009 - 2013 ((367/103)+(332/106)+(284/110)+(391/115)+(330/119))/5 = 3.09

2007-2011 ((463/99)+(331/101)+(367/103)+(332/106)+(284/110))/5 = 3.45
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: Other-Annual reduction in the total number of fatalities

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 

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

n/a
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Lane Departure 171.2 553.6 0.16 0.51 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 229.2 598.6 0.21 0.55 0 0 0

Intersections 411.4 1632.4 0.38 1.5 0 0 0

Pedestrians 159.2 206.4 0.15 0.19 0 0 0

Bicyclists 19.2 41 0.02 0.04 0 0 0

Older Drivers 191 266.8 0.18 0.24 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 137.4 317 0.13 0.29 0 0 0

Work Zones 16.2 73.2 0.02 0.07 0 0 0

Data 1233.2 3248 1.13 2.98 0 0 0
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

78
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

79
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

80
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

81
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

82

Groups of similar project types

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

Year - 2013

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier 6.2 15.4 0.01 0.01 0 0 0

Pedestrian Safety 159.2 206.4 0.15 0.19 0 0 0

Red Light Running 

Prevention

19 55.4 0.02 0.05 0 0 0

Intersection 411.4 1632.4 0.38 1.5 0 0 0

Rural State 

Highways

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

86
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Cable Median 

Barriers

26.2 102.2 0.02 0.09 0 0 0
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

The state continues to aggressively promote highway safety through education, emergency response, 

enforcement and engineering. GDOT worked closely with our Governor’s Office of Highway Safety to 

complete the 2015 SHSP. In this process we updated our goals for pedestrian, intersection, lanedeparture and bicycle safety. To support this effort we examined our implementation planes and all of 

these are nearing final revision. This wok has led us to further promote effective countermeasures.

Over the year we worked with our maintenance office to develop the steps and processes to ensure the 

implementation plan countermeasures are incorporated as needed into our resurfacing project. Safety 

edge, rumble strips, signs, shoulder improvements and pavement markings will be reviewed and added 

as needed. Additionally, the state continues the median cable barrier installation program by 

identifying the next segments for treatment on our state highways. The Interstate corridors and 

freeways that showed the occurrence of median crossovers were identified and prioritized. Going 

forward, we will continue to target limited access facilities and other applicable divided highways to 

install cable barriers. We have also worked through the identification and location of sub-standard 

guardrail end treatments. These locations have been mapped and will be programed in the coming 

year.
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functiona

l Class

Improveme

nt Category

Improveme

nt Type

BefFata

l

BefSeriou

s 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injurie

s

BefPD

O

BefTota

l

AftFata

l

AftSeriou

s 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injurie

s

AftPD

O

AftTota

l

Evaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

SR 193 @ CR 

835/HAPPY 

VALLEY ROAD 

Walker County

Urban 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 14 14 17 45 0 1 1 13 15 55% 

reduction of 

total 

crashes93% 

reduction of 

serious 

injury 

crashesBefor

e Data: 

2009-

2011After 

Data: 2012-

2014

SR 46 @ SR 67 

Bulloch County

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 4 4 7 15 0 1 1 1 3 82% 

reduction of 

total 

crashes75% 

reduction of 
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

94

serious 

injury 

crashesBefor

e Data: 

2009-

2011After 

Data: 2012-

2015

SR 81 @ CR 

376/RACETRAC

K RD Henry 

County

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry -

other

0 17 17 17 51 0 0 0 15 15 39% 

reduction of 

total 

crashes65% 

reduction of 

serious 

injury 

crashesBefor

e Data: 

2009-

2011After 

Data: 2012-

2016
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

95

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached
2015 Georgia Highway Safety Improvement Program

96

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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