Page 1 of 58

ALABAMA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................24

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................24

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................26

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................46

Applicability of Special Rules ...........................................................................................................48

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................49

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................49

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................49

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................53

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................54

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................57

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................58
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 58

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data.

23 U.S.C. 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 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 58

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

all public roads in Alabama. 

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

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

SHSPs to incorporate a bottom up approach. The Rural/Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) served as 

the geographical boundary for the four Regional Plans that were developed. Specific emphasis areas were 

identified by local stakeholders to develop performance measures with proven countermeasures. The RPO 

regions were selected to represent various geographical areas of the state and ensure a mix of urban and rural 

traffic and safety challenges. Alabama’s 4th edition SHSP must be completed by July 2022, and ALDOT has 

decided to pursue a different approach that should be more effective since the regional coalitions were not as 

effective as hoped. ALDOT hosted a virtual SHSP Evaluation workshop facilitated by FHWA in September 

2020. The output from that workshop along with three years of experience with the 3rd edition SHSP will guide 

the direction of the 4th edition SHSP.

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

continued with our goal from previous SHSPs to reduce fatalities by 50% within 20-years. Fatal crashes had 

dropped significantly over the past decade from 2009 to 2015 but saw a significant increase in fatalities in 

2016, along with most of the United States. Since 2016 Alabama had a steady decline in the number of 

fatalities and the fatality rate, but we have not achieved a return to pre-2016 number of fatalities. 

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

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

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

Administration (NHTSA) programs, which focus on human behavior. The SHSP incorporate ADECA’S 

Statewide Highway Safety Plan address the safety program behavioral elements including occupant restraint 

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

HSIP projects have generally focused on (3) three areas: Infrastructure Countermeasures 

(construction/supportive programs), Driver Behavior (safety outreach campaigns and overtime enforcement 

efforts), and Traffic Safety Information Systems (crash data analysis), but FAST ACT legislation made most 

non-infrastructure projects ineligible for HSIP funding. Driver behavior projects are no longer eligible for HSIP 

funding, but traffic safety information systems projects are still eligible, therefore the majority of HSIP funds are 

spent on infrastructure projects. 

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

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

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

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

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

HSIP program also continued the Roadway Departure Focus State Program which applies information from indepth evaluation of roadway departure crashes applied to a set of roadway departure countermeasures such 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 58

as the Horizontal Curve Resigning Program. ALDOT personnel and other safety partners continue to use 

ALDOT developed resources including our Roadway Safety Assessment Manual, HSIP Management Manual, 

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

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

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

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

program is ongoing, and ALDOT is in the process of letting a project for the West Central Region. Also, TSOS 

has initiated a Hazard Elimination Rail Program which recently solicited Alabama’s Regions for project 

locations. 

The ALDOT has also implemented targeted marketing and media campaigns focused on High-Risk Driver 

Behavior. Public information campaigns using social media, radio, and outdoor advertising focused on 

distracted driving, seatbelt safety, speeding, and driving under the influence. In addition, our CARE Program 

(Critical Analysis Reporting Environment) identified impaired driving hotspots which resulted in our 

stakeholders implementing focused enforcement, educational programs and engineering fixes at these 

locations. These outreach campaigns utilized HSIP funding under existing projects that were created under 

previous transportation legislation when such non-infrastructure programs were eligible. 

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

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

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

from all licensed EMS agencies. 

The Interstate Median Barrier Program and the Shoulder Widening Program were established in 2002 and 

2006, respectively. The Interstate Median Barrier program addresses median cross over crashes by installing 

median cable along selected sections of interstate with a high pattern of median cross over crashes. The 

shoulder widening program addresses the addition of two (2) feet of shoulder during maintenance resurfacing 

along state routes (where feasible). The department’s efforts in both programs are ongoing.

In 2015, the Horizontal Curve Safety Program (HCSP) was the next systemic HSIP project developed and 

implemented. This program is evaluating horizontal curves on state-maintained roads and is developing 

recommendations for traffic signing and pavement marking in accordance with the MUTCD 2009. In addition, 

high crash sites and roadway departure locations are undergoing road safety assessments (RSAs) to 

determine appropriate safety enhancements and countermeasures. Each of Alabama’s Regions currently have 

ongoing projects addressing this program. 

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

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

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

construction, operation, and maintenance of roundabouts in Alabama. 

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

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

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

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

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

tools, the project selection and evaluation process will be enhanced. As funding permits, the department will 

continue to add to its Alabama specific SPFs. 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 58

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

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

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

guidance on how to apply for HSIP funds. 

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

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

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

planning, design and operations through practical guidance specifically geared to local/rural roads. The 5th 

annual Alabama Safety Conference was an all roads conference with a track for county engineers and the 6th 

annual will be the same, but virtual. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Plan (SHSP) and the Alabama Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. STACC’s focuses on the reduction 

of local road roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries along with 

facilitating local road peer to peer assistance, networking, technical assistance and the dissemination of safety 

related resources to the local roads community. 

Prior to adoption of the FAST Act, TSOS non-infrastructure safety efforts focused on Driver Behavior and 

Traffic Safety Information Systems per Alabama’s current SHSP.

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

development of the Speed Management Manual and Road Safety Assessments (RSA) Manual, and continue 

to be engaged. For example, in 2019 ALDOT hosted a Traffic Engineering Fundamentals Workshop for law 

enforcement. Their perspective and experience plays an important role in targeting effective countermeasures 

for the safety of the traveling public. 

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

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

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

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

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

seasons. 

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

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

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

to reduce fatalities and serious injuries throughout the state of Alabama.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 58

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Design

The Alabama Department of Transportation Design Bureau Traffic Engineering Division contains the Traffic 

Safety and Operations Section (TSOS). HSIP staff is located within the TSOS.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 58

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

 SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

planning, design and operations through practical guidance specifically geared to local/rural roads. The 5th 

annual Alabama Safety Conference was an all roads conference with a track for county engineers and the 6th 

annual will be the same, but virtual. We have averaged 125 participants per conference who have learned from 

various subject matter experts including the Road Safety 365 workshop, which was a one-day training session 

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

into their day-to-day activities and project development process. Participants also learned how to use the 

CARE system, to develop countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections, Work Zone Safety for Local 

Roads, Measures to Improve Roadside Safety etc. The workshops and conferences have all been very 

successful for both internal and external outreach focusing on creating and maintaining a safety culture in our 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 58

state. 

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

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

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

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

and serious injuries and grow the safety culture. 

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

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

LRSPs. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

 Other-ALDOT County Transportation 

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the identification of state routes that are being widened. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

part of Alabama. The project was then expanded statewide while ALDOT Computer Services developed a 

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

with training of ALDOT users. 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is beneficial in obligating HRRR and HSIP funds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system. Four counties have been selected for the development of the conflation process and then the 

university will then complete the final 63 counties. Currently the Link and Node features have been fully 

migrated to reference the ALDOT eGIS LRS. Link and Node now reside in the eGIS production database and 

are registered as internal events against the production LRS at ALDOT. This allows for the events (Link and 

Node) to always be in sync with any route updates. Lastly, the university has also been charged with 

developing an interactive Viewer/Editing program for the Links and Nodes and future changes to the data. 

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Academia/University 

 FHWA 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Law Enforcement Agency 

 Local Government Agency 

 Local Technical Assistance Program 

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

 Other-County and Local Govt 

 Other-Ala Dept of Public Health 

 Other-Ala Dept of Public Safety 

 Other-Ala Dept of Education 

 Other-Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

(3) Alabama Governors Highway Safety Office, (4) Alabama Local Technical Assistance Program, (5) Regional 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Describe HSIP program administration practices that have changed since the last 

reporting period.

The distribution of HSIP funding has been adjusted in hopes that the department will have more participation 

from our Regions to utilize safety countermeasures in their projects. Each Region is allotted $3 million to use 

on approved projects each fiscal year to allow for a consistent safety program and may additionally apply for 

statewide competitive funding.

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

elaborate. 

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

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

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

resolution to roadway safety concerns.

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

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

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

funds in a timely manner.

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

manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 Bicycle Safety

 Horizontal Curve

 HRRR

 Intersection

 Local Safety

 Median Barrier

 Pedestrian Safety

 Roadway Departure

 Shoulder Improvement
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 58

 Sign Replacement And Improvement 

 Wrong Way Driving 

Program: Bicycle Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume  Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

No

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Recently authorization project for Vulnerable Users Handbook

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 58

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology:1/2/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: HRRR

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

Page 14 of 58

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 58

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-ALDOT Region selection of Candidates

 Other-Safety and Operations Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/22/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 58

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

 selection committee

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:9/13/2011

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 58

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

 Median width

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

 Other-Use of HSM methodology

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Probability of specific crash types

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Crash Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:50

Other-Projects are ranked by priority:50

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Traffic  Roadside features
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 58

 Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Lane miles

 Horizontal curvature

 Roadside features

 Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 58

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

 Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding:50

Cost Effectiveness:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/2/2006

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes

 Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

 Traffic

 Volume

 Lane miles

 Horizontal curvature

 Roadside features

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

Page 20 of 58

 Crash frequency

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

 Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 All crashes  Traffic

 Volume

 Horizontal curvature

 Functional classification

 Roadside features

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 58

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-HRRRP

 Other-MUTCD REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

 Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

 Other-Wrong Way Crashes  Functional classification

 Other-Interchange Form

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Other-HSM Methodologies

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

program?

Yes
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 58

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Other-Crash Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 60

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Horizontal curve signs

 Pavement/Shoulder Widening

 Rumble Strips

 Upgrade Guard Rails

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis

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

 Engineering Study

 Road Safety Assessment

 Stakeholder input

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Yes

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

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

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

Traffic Safety and Operations Section. The HSM, and in particular Part A, B & D are used in the evaluation of 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 58

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

department.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 58

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $37,277,000 $37,277,000 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$5,414,000 $5,414,000 100%

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)

$20,000 $20,000 100%

State and Local Funds $4,242,000 $4,242,000 100%

Totals $46,953,000 $46,953,000 100%

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

safety projects?

10%

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

10%

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

5%

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

5%

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

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

$42,900,000
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 58

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

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

$4,000,000

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

the future.

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

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

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

funds.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 58

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

RS & SAF. SIDE SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS ON I-65 FROM 

1 MI S. CR-61 OVERPASS TO CHILTON CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 8.02 Miles $111684

6.92

$181767

28.78

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

38,9

77

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

GUIDE RAIL INSTALL ON I-65 FROM N. OF COBBS FORD 

RD TO THE CHILTON CO. LINE

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.8 Miles $178491

2.73

$178491

2.73

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

62,5

81

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

PLANING, RS, STRIPING, MARKINGS & SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS TO G.R. & E.A. ON I-65 FROM MOUNT 

OLIVE INTERCHANGE TO .78 MI N. OF SR-160

Roadway Roadway - other 13.4 Miles $204495

.61

$233988

53.85

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialInterstate

66,7

92

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INTERSTATE MEDIAN BARRIER ON I-20 FROM ST. 

CLAIR CO. LINE TO 0.30 MI W. OF MAHAFFEY RD

Roadside Barrier - concrete 13.296 Miles $115982

0.4

$115982

0.4

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

51,8

10

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL & ACCELERATION LANE 

EXTENSION AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR-3 (US-31) 

AND OLIVE ST

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $500000 $167233

8.95

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,1

61

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & SAF. WIDENING ON SR-173 FROM JUST N. OF THE 

INTERSECTION OF SR-134 IN HEADLAND TO 

NEWVILLE SOUTH TOWN LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 4.2 Miles $176640

.51

$196267

2.33

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

2,86

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

GUIDE RAIL INSTALL ON I-59 FROM GREENE CO. LINE 

TO .25 MI S. OF SR-6 (US-82)(MCFARLAND BLVD)

Roadside Barrier - cable 17.651 Miles $248912

.48

$248912.

48

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialInterstate

59,6

41

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INTERSECTION MODIFICATION ON SR-251 AT CR-83 

(LINDSAY LANE) TO INSTALL ROUNDABOUT

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $123164

6.68

$123164

6.68

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7,44

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS (SHOULDER WIDENING,PVMT 

SCORING, SIGNING & STRIPING) ALONG HOBBS 

ISLAND RD FROM HUNTSVILLE CITY LIMITS TO VANN 

RD

Roadway Roadway - other 6.099 Miles $159896

1.5

$159896

1.5

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Minor 

Arterial

3,37

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL OF WRONG WAY ENTRY TREATMENTS I-65 

INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDGEMONT 

AVE AND OAK ST

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - new 

or updated

1 Locations $51005 $51005 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,41

5

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

INSTALL OF WRONG WAY ENTRY TREATMENTS I-65 

INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDGEMONT 

AVE AND OAK ST

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - new 

or updated

1 Locations $25000 $25000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

3,41

5

25 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON I-85 AT EXIT 58 AND EXIT 

60

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs and 

traffic control - other

2 Interchanges $182045

3.82

$182045

3.82

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialInterstate

58,6

42

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, STRIPE & 2' SAF. WIDENING SR-22 FROM 

ALEXANDER CITY E. CITY LIMIT MP 120.715 THROUGH 

NEWSITE TO SR-49 MP 130.599

Roadway Roadway - other 9.884 Miles $693668 $346834

0

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

4,03

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-22 FROM JUST E. OF SR49 N. MP 130.599 TO THE W. TOWN LIMITS OF 

DAVISTON MP 137.813

Roadway Roadway - other 7.214 Miles $428442 $214221

0

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

1,01

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF 

SAM SUTTON RD AND SR-6 (US-82).

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $127851

.68

$127851.

68

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

23,1

73

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON SR-8 

FROM SR-219 (LANDLINE RD) TO SR-41 (TEN 

INTERSECTIONS) IN SELMA

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs and 

traffic control - other

4.374 Miles $208798

3.07

$208798

3.07

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

23,7

85

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING SR-12 (ENTERPRISE BYPASS) 

FROM JUNCTION OF SR-88/SR-192 (N. MAIN ST) TO SR134 (EAST PARK AVE)

Roadway Roadway - other 3.408 Miles $144254

.59

$480848

6.18

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

33,3

98

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING SR-167 (ENTERPRISE BYPASS) 

FROM JUNCTION OF SR-88/SR-192 (PLAZA DR) TO SR134 (EAST PARK AVE)

Roadway Roadway - other 1.003 Miles $108394

.81

$108394

8.13

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

24,3

30

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (ROUNDABOUT) AT 

CAMPBELLTON HWY (CR-203) AND TAYLOR RD (CR-64)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $11078.

93

$11078.9

3

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,88

5

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

PLANING, RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-165 FROM CR39 TO SR-1 (US-431)Roadway Roadway - other 3.584 Miles $374161

.1

$249440

7.32

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

17,2

38

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, PLANING, PATCHING & VARIOUS SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS SR-6 (US-82) FROM E. OF BEL AIRE 

ESTATES TO JUST E. OF 5TH ST

Roadway Roadway - other 3.932 Miles $497972

.28

$497972

2.76

HSIP 

(23 

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

29,8

92

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

U.S.C. 

148)

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING SR-14 FROM THE HALE CO. 

LINE TO MARION W. CITY LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 9.725 Miles $819209

.95

$585149

9.65

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,92

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-14 FROM SR-17 TO THE 

GREENE CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 6.825 Miles $581218

.4

$387478

9.39

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,98

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-32 FROM THE 

MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO SR-17

Roadway Roadway - other 3.594 Miles $379178

.19

$252785

4.56

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

657 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-154 FROM 0.8 MI W. OF 

OTIS HARE RD TO 0.7 MI E. OF CR-167 (FIRE TOWER 

RD)

Roadway Roadway - other 5.3 Miles $422180

.75

$168872

3

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

275 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-53 (US-231) FROM THE 

BLOUNT CO. LINE TO THE MARSHALL CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 3.56 Miles $102567

.71

$205135

4.14

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialOther

7,39

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (ROUNDABOUT) AT 

CAMPBELLTON HWY (CR-203) & TAYLOR RD (CR-64)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $160308

.31

$160308.

31

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,88

5

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-114 FROM THE 

CHOCTAW CO. LINE TO SR-69

Roadway Roadway - other 4.831 Miles $214796

.65

$153426

1.75

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,10

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HFST FOR WEST CENTRAL REGION ROAD SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT SITES *

Roadway Pavement surface - 

high friction surface

5 Locations $835787

.57

$835787.

57

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

17,2

90

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot HFST FOR 

WEST 

CENTRAL 

REGION ROAD 

SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

SITES

Other

SCORING CENTERLINE & EDGELINE, STRIPING, 

MARKINGS & RAISED PVMT MARKERS FOR WCR ROAD 

SAFETY ASSESSMENT SITES *

Roadway Rumble strips - edge 

or shoulder

46 Locations $804227

.61

$804227.

61

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

17,2

90

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-1 (US-431) FROM THE 

BRIDGE END AT LITTLE WILLS CREEK TO THE BRIDGE 

END AT LINE CREEK

Roadway Roadway - other 4.115 Miles $245357

.73

$281129

9.97

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialOther

20,6

62

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-53 (US-231) FROM N. 

ARAB CITY LIMIT TO THE MORGAN CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 7.94 Miles $448883

.38

$593646

7.29

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialOther

11,9

51

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS SR-73 FROM SR-71 TO THE TENNESSEE STATE 

LINE, TO INCLUDE SAF. INSTALL OF HFST & 

REPLACEMENT OF G.R. W/ STEEL BLOCK OUTS

Roadside Barrier - other 11.22 Miles $113402

.13

$312433

6.01

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,46

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS ON SR-211 FROM SR-1 (US-431) TO SR-7 (US-11), 

INCLUDING G.R. RESET (SAF. REPLACEMENT FOR 

STEEL BLOCKOUTS) & GUARDRAIL RETROFIT

Roadside Barrier - other 4.61 Miles $11539.

35

$216503

3.91

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,7

47

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

STATEWIDE ROAD SAFETY & OPERATIONS 

INTEGRATION

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 STATEWIDE 

ROAD 

SAFETY & 

OPERATIONS 

INTEGRATIO

N

$303196

.16

$303196.

16

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

STATEWIDE 

ROAD SAFETY 

& 

OPERATIONS 

INTEGRATION

STATEWIDE 

ROAD SAFETY 

& 

OPERATIONS 

INTEGRATION

Other

RS, PLANING, STRIPING, LEVELING, PATCHING & 2' 

SAF. WIDENING ON SR-7 (US-11) FROM SR-23 TO 533' 

N. OF SWEATT RD

Roadway Roadway - other 9.939 Miles $505016

.25

$336677

5

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,10

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS ON I-65 FROM N. OF SR-13 (US-43) (MP 19.923) TO 

SR-225 (MP 32.054) & BRIDGE RAISING AT LISTER 

DAIRY RD. (GUARDRAIL WITH STEEL BLOCK OUTS)

Roadside Barrier - other 12.131 Miles $14766.

09

$349438

3.05

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialInterstate

24,9

44

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF SR-2 (US-72) AND SR-79

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

2 Intersections $160100 $160100 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

13,6

61

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

WRONG WAY DRIVING CRASHES PREDICTIVE MODELS 

& COUNTERMEASURES EVALUATION (PHASE 2)

Noninfrastructu

re 

Data/traffic records 1 WRONG WAY 

DRIVING 

PREDICTIVE 

MODELS & 

COUNTEMEA

SURES 

EVALUATION

$75750 $75750 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING 

CRASHES 

PREDICTIVE 

MODELS & 

COUNTERME

ASURES 

EVALUATIONS

WRONG WAY 

DRIVING 

CRASHES 

PREDICTIVE 

MODELS & 

COUNTERME

ASURES 

EVALUATIONS

Other
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

INTERSECTION MODIFICATION ON SR-3 (US-31) AT SR225 TO INSTALL OFFSET LT TURN LANESIntersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $253510

.32

$253510.

32

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

23,7

05

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

INTERSECTION RELOCATION & TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

INSTALL ON SR-16 (US-90) AT SR-59 IN LOXLEY

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $290000 $290000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

21,2

93

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS (SHOULDER WIDENING, PVMT 

SCORING, SIGNING & STRIPING) ALONG RYLAND PIKE 

FROM SR-2 (US-72) TO EVERETT RD

Roadway 3.014 Miles $924850

.39

$924850.

39

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Urban Major 

Collector

8,98

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-185 FROM THE BUTLER 

CO. LINE TO SR-3 (US-31)

Roadway Roadway - other 8.212 Miles $663827

.33

$301739

6.96

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,64

3

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

ACTIVE DILEMMA ZONE PROTECTION PROJECTS Speed 

managem

ent

Speed detection 

system / truck 

warning

7 Intersections $151500 $151500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot ACTIVE 

DILEMMA 

ZONE 

PROTECTION 

PROJECTS

Other

ROUNDABOUT AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR-147 

(NORTH COLLEGE STREET) & CR-72 (FARMVILLE RD)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $261349 $261349 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

10,5

89

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & G.R. (STEEL BLOCK OUTS) SAF. IMPROVEMENTS 

ON I-22 FROM EXIT 16 (MP 16.8000) TO EXIT 22 (MP 

22.600)

Roadway Roadway - other 5.8 Miles $28245.

2

$828968

7.17

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

13,5

86

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

ROUNDABOUTS, SIGNING & STRIPING ON I-59/I-20 ONRAMPS & OFF-RAMPS AT EXIT 79 (SR-7/US-11 

INTERSECTION)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

2 Intersections $252500 $252500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialInterstate

59,6

00

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

ROUNDABOUTS, SIGNING & STRIPING ON I-22 ONRAMPS & OFF-RAMPS AT EXIT 70 (CR-22 

INTERSECTION)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

2 Intersections $252500 $252500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

25,8

27

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

ROUNDABOUTS, SIGNING & STRIPING ON I-65 ONRAMPS & OFF-RAMPS AT EXIT 208 (CR-28 

INTERSECTION)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

2 Intersections $255025 $255025 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialInterstate

40,9

08

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

INT. SAF. IMPROVE. ON SR-25 (US-411) @ WALMART, 

OFFSET LT TN LN, SIG. UPGRADE W/ FLASHING 

YELLOW (ST FORCES), STRIPING & MARKINGS

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $21210 $21210 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

15,3

09

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS ON SR-38 (US-280) FROM 0.46 MI 

W. OF OLD SYLACAUGA HWY (MP 36.844) TO 0.20 MI E. 

OF OLD BIRMINGHAM HWY (MP 39.519)

Access 

managem

ent

Change in access - 

close or restrict 

existing access

2.675 Miles $239726

6.24

$239726

6.24

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

24,9

01

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot ACCESS 

MANAGEMEN

T

Other

SAF. & OPERATIONS STUDY ON SR-4 (US-78) FROM SR9 TO SR-46 AND FROM SR-46 TO BENNETT ST IN 

HEFLIN

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

2 Locations $65000 $65000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,01

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot SAFETY & 

OPERATIONS 

STUDY

Other

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING INSTALL OF A 

COMPACT ROUNDABOUT ON SR-181 AT GEORGE 

BISHOP LANE

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $90900 $90900 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

4,15

3

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

ROUNDABOUT CONSTRUCTION AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF SR-7 (US-11) & SR-300 (HOLLEY 

SPRINGS LANE) IN FOSTERS

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $200000 $200000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,37

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS, STRIPING, & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-1 (US-431) 

FROM FIVE POINTS TOWN LIMIT (MP 169.783) TO THE 

RANDOLPH CO. LINE (MP 177.470)

Roadway Roadway - other 7.687 Miles $737280

.73

$368640

3.63

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Principal 

ArterialOther

6,26

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-22 FROM E. END OF 

BRIDGE OVER HILLABEE ST (MP 117.175) TO 0.48 MI E. 

OF HILLABEE HILLS RD (MP 122.476)

Roadway Roadway - other 5.301 Miles $453378

.56

$266693

2.68

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Minor 

Arterial

5,92

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, 2' SAF. WIDENING, & STRIPING ON SR-9 FROM 0.82 

MI N. OF FIREHOUSE RD (MP 170.073) TO 0.10 MI N. OF 

ARMORY RD (MP 180.994)

Roadway Roadway - other 10.921 Miles $747228

.65

$393278

2.37

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,98

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, TRAFFIC STRIPE & RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR1 (US-431) FROM SR-9 (MP 212.504) TO 0.14 MI N. OF 

THE CALHOUN CO. LINE (MP 221.141)

Roadway Roadway - other 8.637 Miles $156743

.62

$391859

0.55

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

6,71

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-69 FROM .3 MI S. OF CR31 (WEST BEND RD) TO TALLAHATTA CREEKRoadway Roadway - other 7.555 Miles $476867

.44

$190746

9.76

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

409 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-28 FROM SR-8 (US-80) 

TO CR-21

Roadway Roadway - other 7.228 Miles $568969

.16

$227587

6.61

HSIP 

(23 

Rural Major 

Collector

1,04

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

U.S.C. 

148)

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-69 FROM SR-177 TO 

0.608 MI N. OF CR-23 (SALT WORKS RD)

Roadway Roadway - other 6.92 Miles $435875

.79

$167644

5.34

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,59

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-102 FROM THE FAYETTE 

CO. LINE AT MP 17.367 TO JUST W. OF SR-124 AT MP 

24.227

Roadway Roadway - other 6.9 Miles $385004

.49

$481255

6.08

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,44

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-171 FROM N. OF SR-102 

AT MP 41.590 TO N. OF STOUGH RD AT MP 47.101

Roadway Roadway - other 5.511 Miles $619691

.41

$387307

1.31

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,47

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING & CENTERLINE SCORING ON 

SR-86 FROM .62 MI E. OF GLEN ECHO RD TO SR-6 (US82)

Roadway Roadway - other 6.786 Miles $847702 $446158

9.5

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,23

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, 1' SAF. WIDENING & CENTERLINE SCORING ON SR17 FROM 0.371 MI N. OF MORMON HOLLOW RD AT MP 

260.479 TO THE MARION CO. LINE AT MP 266.954

Roadway Roadway - other 6.48 Miles $646855

.64

$462039

7.44

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,27

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-6 (US-82) FROM THE 

TUSCALOOSA CO. LINE TO 0.27 MI W. OF HAYSOP 

CHURCH RD AT MP 74.00

Roadway Roadway - other 3.328 Miles $361873

.78

$452342

2.27

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

5,44

2

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-6 (US-82) FROM 0.27 MI 

W. OF HAYSOP CHURCH RD AT MP 74.000 TO WILSON 

RD AT MP 78.000

Roadway Roadway - other 4 Miles $490126

.35

$644903

0.98

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

6,76

1

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

DEVELOPMENT OF ALABAMA-SPECIFIC SAFETY 

PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 AL SPECIFIC 

SPF FOR 

INTERSECTI

ONS

$341894

.09

$341894.

09

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

0 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS, PLANING, STRIPING, LEVELING, PATCHING, & 2' 

SAF. WIDENING ON SR-25 (US-411) FROM SR-53 (US231) TO THE ETOWAH CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 10.416 Miles $509662

.92

$339775

2.78

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,81

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC 

$380266

.01

$380266.

01

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC 

REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC 

Other
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY 

PLAN

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLAN

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLAN

INTERSECTION SAF. IMPROVEMENTS AT SR-22 & CR81Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $992355

.81

$992355.

81

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,49

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING OF SR-123 FROM INT. OF SR-51 

IN ARITON TO THE INT. OF SR-53 (US-231)

Roadway Roadway - other 3.607 Miles $395422 $197711

0.01

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

801 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-100 FROM THE INT. OF 

E. 3 NOTCH ST TO THE INT. OF SR-12 (US-84) 

COVINGTON CO. (THREE NOTCH RR)

Roadway Roadway - other 1.643 Miles $182272

.89

$867966.

14

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,03

3

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-51 FROM JUST S. OF 

BULL RD IN CLIO TO APPROX 0.3 MI N. OF W. ST IN 

LOUISVILLE

Roadway Roadway - other 7.158 Miles $464586

.76

$244519

3.47

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,03

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

ROUNDABOUT INSTALL AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR55 AND SR-12 (US-84)Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $227250 $227250 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

6,63

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY 

PLAN

$380266

.01

$380266.

01

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLAN

REGIONAL 

IMPLEMENTA

TION OF THE 

STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY 

SAFETY PLAN

Other

INSTALL ROUNDABOUTS ON SR-126 AT BOTH I-85 EXIT 

16 RAMPS, & AT SR-126/SR-8 (US-80) INTERSECTION, & 

ON SR-8 (US-80) AT MARLER RD *

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

3 Intersections $240653

.71

$240653.

71

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,97

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

RS & STEEL BLOCKOUT REPLACEMENT I-65 FROM 0.5 

MI S. OF SR-97 TO THE RELIEF BRIDGE S. OF PINTLALA 

CREEK

Roadside Barrier - other 9.326 Miles $6945.6

5

$507938

1.38

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

36,2

01

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS, TRAFFIC STRIPE & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-77 

FROM SR-22 (MP18.969) TO THE CLAY CO. LINE (MP 

25.206)

Roadway Roadway - other 6.237 Miles $458754

.37

$254863

5.38

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,11

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

RS ON I-65 FROM CR-40 (WALLACE RD) TO CR-6 THE 

CASTLEBERRY INTERCHANGE/EXIT 83. HSIP FUNDING 

FOR GUARDRAIL WITH STEEL BLOCK OUTS.

Roadside Barrier - other 9.37 Miles $71928.

73

$640294

5.72

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialInterstate

24,6

40

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL, RELOCATE, & REMOVE CURVE WARNING 

SIGNS SR-187,101,36,247,243,237,172,19,17,13,33, & 20 

W/IN THE MOULTON DISTRICT (TUSCUMBIA AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

12 Locations $296920

.87

$296920.

87

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

7,60

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ. CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPROVE. ST RTS 

3,12,13,15,16,17,21,41,42,59,83,113,158,161,163,180,181,

182,188,193,213,217,225,287 MOBILE AREA *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

24 Locations $639601

.37

$639601.

37

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

9,97

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ. CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPROVE. ST RTE 5 

8,10,12,13,17,21,25,28,41,47,56,59,69,114,136,154,156,16

2,177,178,221,265,295 GROVE HILL AREA *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

24 Locations $131009

3.21

$131009

3.21

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

6,17

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

CONSTRUCT OFFSET LT TURN LANES ON FOLEY 

BEACH EXPRESS AT CR-12

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $26500 $26500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

18,3

75

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

DEVELOPMENT OF ALABAMA-SPECIFIC RURAL 4-LANE 

DIVIDED HIGHWAYS SAFETY KNOWLEDGE BASE

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 4-LANE 

DIVIDED AL 

SPECIFIC 

SAFETY 

KNOWLEDGE 

BASE

$199539 $199539 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

DEVELOPMEN

T OF 

ALABAMASPECIFIC 

RURAL 4-

LANE DIVIDED 

HIGHWAYS 

SAFETY 

KNOWLEDGE 

BASE

DEVELOPMEN

T OF 

ALABAMASPECIFIC 

RURAL 4-

LANE DIVIDED 

HIGHWAYS 

SAFETY 

KNOWLEDGE 

BASE

Other

INSTALL,RELOCATE,& REMOVE CURVE WARN SGN SR2,13,17,20,64,99,101,133,157,207,251,3,127,67,53,36 & I65 W/IN THE TUSCUMBIA AREA DISTRICTS 1 & 4Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

18 Locations $197666

.61

$197666.

61

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

7,60

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

CONSTRUCTION OF ROUNDABOUT AT THE 

INTERSECTION OF CR-13 AND CR-44

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $130000 $130000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,41

6

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON COLUMBUS 

PARKWAY AT 4TH, 6TH AND 7TH STREETS

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $168000 $168000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,0

59

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS ON SR-2 (US-72) AT COUNTY PARK RD 

IN THE CITY OF SCOTTSBORO

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $116600 $116600 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

31,2

84

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

LEVELING, WIDENING, STRIPING, SIGNAGE & SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS ON CR-65 (EASTER FERRY RD) ON A 

CURVE N. OF SULPHUR CREEK

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Curves $22777.

78

$22777.7

8

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

640 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

LIGHTING UPGRADES AT I-85 EXIT 58 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

1 Locations $3600 $3600 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialInterstate

58,6

42

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

LIGHTING UPGRADES AT I-85 EXIT 58 Lighting Site lighting - 

interchange

1 Locations $578136

.2

$578136.

2

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialInterstate

58,6

42

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

INSTALL, RELOCATE & REMOVE CURVE WARNING 

SIGNS ON STATE ROUTES 1, 2, 7, 35, 40, 65, 68, 71, 73, 

75, 79, 117, 146, 168, 176, 227, AND 277 *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - new 

or updated

17 Locations $501296

.13

$501296.

13

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL, RELOCATE & REMOVE CURVE WARNING 

SIGNS ON STATE ROUTES 

1,3,53,62,67,69,74,75,79,91,168,179,205, & 227 *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - new 

or updated

14 Locations $170944

.88

$170944.

88

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL, RELOCATE, & REMOVE CURVE WARNING 

SIGNS ON ST RTS 

1,9,25,35,68,74,77,132,179,205,211,273 & 759 *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - new 

or updated

13 Locations $155656

.99

$155656.

99

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

REALIGNING SR-171 & ADD TURNING LANE AT 

PREWITT LOOP RD

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $150000 $150000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,77

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

INSTALL TWO WAY LT TURN LANE & 

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY SHLDRS ON SR-16 

(US-90) FROM THE E. END OF COCHRAN BRIDGE TO W. 

OF BANKHEAD TUNNEL

Roadway Roadway - other 2.26 Miles $540000 $540000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

ArterialOther

19,5

27

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

HSIP PROJECT APPLICATION SPREADSHEET UPDATE Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 HSIP 

APPLICATIO

N UPDATE

$55000 $55000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

HSIP 

PROJECT 

APPLICATION 

SPREADSHEE

T UPDATE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

APPLICATION 

SPREADSHEE

T UPDATE

Other
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN INT. ON SR-8 (US-80) 

& SR-25 (MP 49.3 & MP 49.9)

Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $250000 $250000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

ArterialOther

1,75

8

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS, SIGNING & RUMBLE STRIP 

INSTALL SITE 1 - ON CR-40 FROM CR-21 FOR 0.111 MI; 

AND SITE 2 - AT THE INT. OF CR-40 & CR-57

Roadway Rumble strips - edge 

or shoulder

2 Locations $5738 $5738 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,07

9

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS ON CR-35, CR-34, AND CR-36; 

INCLUDING STRIPING, RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS, 

RUMBLE STRIPS, TRAFFIC CONTROL MARKINGS & G.R. 

**

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

17.6 Miles $306335 $306335 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,26

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

SAF. IMPROVE. INCLUDING STRIPING, RAISED PVMT 

MARKERS, RUMBLE STRIPS, TRAF. CONT. 

MARKINGS/SIGNS, & G.R. ON CR-24 CALHOUN CO LINE 

TO CR-3

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

2.017 Miles $102390

.94

$188768.

69

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

2,50

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

SAF. IMPROVE. STRIPING RAISED PVMT 

MARKERS,RUMBLE STRIPS,PVMT SCORING,TRAF. 

CONT. MARKINGS/SIGNS/DEVICES, & G.R. ON CR12 

FROM SR17 (US43) TO DAN ST

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

2.77 Miles $319754

.82

$319754.

82

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

968 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

TRAFFIC STRIPE, PVMT MARKINGS, & HORZ CURVE 

WARNING SIGNS ON CR-77 FROM SR-79 TO THE 

MARSHALL CO. LINE.

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

1.872 Miles $65098.

28

$65098.2

8

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

1,37

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. @ ON CR-87 OVER THE STYX 

RIVER; ON HOYLE BRYARS RD OVER I-65; & ON 

SCRANAGE RD OVER HORSENECK CREEK **

Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Locations $184870 $269053.

5

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

806 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. ON CR-31 OVER STINKING CREEK; 

ON CR-26 OVER JACKSON CREEK; ON JACK JONES RD 

OVER PEA RIVER; & ON CR-36 OVER WHITE CREEK **

Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Locations $125761

.48

$125761.

48

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

390 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN004836) ON CR-16 ON ROCKY 

CREEK; SITE 2 - (BIN 004839) ON CR-16 OVER 

PERSIMMON CREEK RELIEF *

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $112767

.2

$112767.

2

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

Rural Local Road 

or Street

6,79

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

148(g)(1

))

G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN 010766) ON CR-644 OVER 

TIGHT EYE CREEK; SITE 2 - (BIN 007951) ON CR-342 

OVER BIG CREEK *

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $156031

.41

$156031.

41

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

7,60

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

G.R. & E.A. ON CR-4 HORSEHEAD CREEK; OVER 

TRIBUTARIES TO HORSEHEAD CREEK; BIG CREEK; & 

LARKIN CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 6 Locations $166815

.37

$166815.

37

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

552 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN 007702) ON CR-30 

OVER PINEY WOODS CREEK; SITE 2 - (BIN 007703) ON 

CR-30 OVER BLUE CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $99210 $126471.

69

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

291 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. ON CR-83 OVER MULBERRY 

CREEK; ON CR-74 OVER SOAPSTONE CREEK; ON CR11 OVER TATUM CREEK; ON CR-29 OVER DRY CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Locations $221612 $294827.

24

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

517 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN 009087) ON CR-24 OVER 

SCARHAM CREEK; SITE 2 - (BIN 003088) ON CR-51 

OVER BIG WILLS CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $176748

.06

$176748.

06

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

3,15

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. ON SEWELL RD OVER WEOKA 

CREEK; ON BALTZER RD OVER CALLAWAY CREEK; & 

ON PEACE CHURCH RD OVER BRENSON BRANCH

Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Locations $158686

.68

$158686.

68

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

396 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN 005402) ON CR-10 OVER 

EIGHT MILE CREEK; SITE 2 - (BIN 007577) ON CR-1 

OVER NATURAL BRIDGE CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $84986.

53

$112387.

86

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Minor 

Collector

224 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

G.R. & E.A. AT (BIN 010222) ON CR-46 OVER ABBIE 

CREEK

Roadside Barrier- metal 1 Locations $38096.

16

$38096.1

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Minor 

Collector

454 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. AT SITE 1 - (BIN 001657) ON 

CHERRY TREE RD OVER GOOSE CREEK; AND SITE 2 - 

(BIN 001658) ON CHERRY TREE RD OVER UNNAMED 

TRIBUTARY

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Locations $84168.

21

$84168.2

1

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

649 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. @ CR-1296 OVER COTACO CREEK 

(BIN 010117) & HUGHES CREEK (BIN 011515); & (BIN 

007160) ON CR-1252 OVER SHOAL CREEK **

Roadside Barrier- metal 3 Locations $165224 $165224 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

772 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. ON CR-1165 OVER YOUNGBLOOD 

CR; ON CR-3339 OVER WHITEWATER CR; ON CR-5534 

OVER UNNAMED CR; ON CR-1111 OVER BEEMAN CR **

Roadside Barrier- metal 6 Locations $223638

.6

$223638.

6

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

470 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. ON KELLY CREEK RD OVER KELLY 

CREEK *

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

1 Locations $38816.

8

$38816.8 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

8,26

5

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

G.R. & E.A. ON CR-12 OVER POTTS & SANUSI CRKS; ON 

CR-42 OVER COTAHAGA CRK; ON CR-10 OVER 

THORNTON & KINTERBISH CRKS **

Roadside Barrier- metal 4 Locations $354828

.92

$354828.

92

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

360 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL G.R. & E.A. CR-399 CHEAHA CR & 

CHOCCOLOCCO CR; CR-326 CHOCCOLOCCO CR; CR211 ALLADEGA CR; CR-207 TALLADEGA CR; CR-9 FOUR 

MILE CR **

Roadside Barrier- metal 5 Locations $282006 $363723.

49

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Major 

Collector

1,83

1

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

INSTALL TRAFFIC STRIPING, RAISED PVMT MARKERS, 

TRAFFIC CONTROL MARKINGS & LEGENDS ON CR-4 

(BRADLEY RD) FROM SR-15 (US-29) TO COVINGTON CO 

LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 17.7 Miles $103674

.9

$103674.

9

HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1

))

Rural Major 

Collector

579 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

SAF. IMPR. (CLEARING, SCORING, & PVMT MARKERS) 

ON CR-26 FROM WALKER RUN TO SR-70 IN 

COLUMBIANA

Roadway Roadway - other 5.9 Miles $127488

.7

$127488.

7

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,68

2

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

SAF. IMPR. (LEVEL,WIDEN,RS,SCORE,STRIPE,PVMT 

MARKERS, G.R. & E.A. @ BIN 011304 CAMP CREEK; ON 

CR-21 FROM 0.953 MI W. OF SR-12(US-84) E. FOR 1500' 

*

Roadway Roadway - other 0.284 Miles $287069

.21

$287069.

21

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Local Road 

or Street

8,26

5

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

CRASH MODIFICATION FACTOR (CMF) GUIDANCE FOR 

AL HSIP

Noninfrastructu

re 

Non-infrastructure - 

other

1 CRASH 

MODIFICATIO

N FACTOR 

(CMF) 

GUIDANCE 

FOR AL HSIP

$38000 $38000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

CRASH 

MODIFICATIO

N FACTOR 

(CMF) 

GUIDANCE 

FOR AL HSIP

CRASH 

MODIFICATIO

N FACTOR 

(CMF) 

GUIDANCE 

FOR AL HSIP

Other

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (NR - GUNTERSVILLE AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 GUNTERSVIL

LE AREA

$50000 $50000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

9,02

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (NR - TUSCUMBIA AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 TUSCUMBIA 

AREA

$250000 $250000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

7,60

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (SER - MONTGOMERY AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 MONTGOME

RY AREA

$486000 $486000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

9,50

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (SER - TROY AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 TROY AREA $489000 $489000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (SWR - GROVE HILL AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 GROVE HILL 

AREA

$338500 $338500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

6,17

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (SWR - MOBILE AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 MOBILE 

AREA

$281100 $281100 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

9,97

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (WCR - TUSCALOOSA AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 TUSCALOOS

A AREA

$368000 $368000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

10,4

50

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 58

PROJECT NAME

IMPROVE

MENT 

CATEGO

RY

SUBCATEGORY OUTP

UTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJE

CT 

COST($

)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDIN

G 

CATEG

ORY

LAND 

USE/AR

EA TYPE

FUNCTION

AL 

CLASSIFIC

ATION

AA

DT

SPE

ED

OWNER

SHIP

METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRAT

EGY

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (ECR) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 EAST 

CENTRAL 

REGION

$100000 $100000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

21,0

90

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING ON SR-223 FROM .5 MI S. OF 

CR-28 TO SR-6 (US-82)

Roadway Roadway - other 10.95 Miles $100375

3.94

$401501

5.77

HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,13

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. PROGRAM FY 

2019/2020 (WCR - FAYETTE AREA) *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1 FAYETTE 

AREA

$100000 $100000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

6,84

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

ROUNDABOUT INSTALL @ CANAL ST & BROAD ST Intersectio

n geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/

unspecified

1 Intersections $40000 $40000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,84

8

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersec

tions

HORZ CURVE RDWY SIGNING IMPR. ON ST RT 4, 34, 77 

AND 235 IN TALLADEGA *

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

4 Locations $29000 $29000 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

4,50

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORIZONTAL CURVE SIGN IMPROVEMENTS ON 45 

STATE ROUTES IN THE SOUTHEAST REGION *, ***

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

45 Locations $319500 $319500 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

HORIZONTAL CURVE SIGN IMPROVEMENTS ON 37 

STATE ROUTES IN THE SOUTHEAST REGION *, ****

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

37 Locations $308463 $308463 HSIP 

(23 

U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple/

Varies

Multiple/Vari

es

8,07

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadwa

y 

Departu

re

* AADT was not available at the time of submission and was estimated and adjusted based off the statewide mean AADT. 

** AADTs were available for multiple site locations and the greatest AADT was used for reporting. 

*** These are the state routes addressed in this project: ST RTS 3,5,6,8,9,10,14,15,21,22,26,38,41,49,50,51,63,66,81,89,94,97,106,108,110,111,120,126,140,143,147,165,169,170,185,186,199,219,223,229,239,245,293,I65 & I85 

**** These are the state routes addressed in this project: ST RTS 9,10,12,15,27,30,51,52,53,54,55,85,87,92,93,95,97,103,105,106,109,123,125,130,131,134,137,153,165,166,167,173,189,198,239,285 & 605
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 58

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 899 865 852 820 849 1,088 948 954 930

Serious Injuries 0 9,266 8,564 7,960 8,540 8,152 7,480 6,990 6,687

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.380 1.330 1.310 1.250 1.240 1.600 1.380 1.350 1.314

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 14.250 13.170 12.140 13.020 12.000 10.640 11.080 9.479

Number nonmotorized fatalities89 86 64 103 105 127 121 115 120

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

0 331 322 264 274 258 249 231 242
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 58

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

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

9000

10000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 43 of 58

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 44 of 58

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

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

Rural Minor Arterial

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

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

Page 45 of 58

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

Urban Minor Arterial

Urban Minor Collector

Urban Major Collector

Urban Local Road or 

Street
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 58

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

0 0 0 0

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

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

crash database (CARE) structure. As the CARE database is improved, the ability to summarize crashes by 

functional class may be accessible in future reporting years.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:961.0
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 58

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

Based on 5-year moving average from forecast trendline of actual fatalities.

Number of Serious Injuries:6595.0

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

Based on trendline forecast of 5-year moving average for serious injuries.

Fatality Rate:1.360

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

Forecast fatalities/VMT with forecast zero growth after 2018

Serious Injury Rate:9.355

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

Serious injuries (extrapolated from 5-year moving average trendline values) / VMT with forecast zero growth 

after 2018

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:366.0

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

Based on trendline forecast of 5-year moving average for fatal and serious injuries for pedestrian and cyclists.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

metropolitan planning area.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 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 932.0 953.8

Number of Serious Injuries 8469.0 7569.8

Fatality Rate 1.330 1.377

Serious Injury Rate 12.080 11.244
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 58

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

394.0 368.4

Alabama met targets relating to Serious Injuries and non-motorized road users, but unfortunately failed to meet 

targets related to total fatalities in the state for the 5-year moving average from 2015-2019. 2015 marked the 

end of a remarkable downward trend in fatalities. The 5-year moving average is also compounded by the 

anomalous spike in fatalities which occurred in 2016 that have so far remained unexplained. Alabama has 

since resumed a slight downward trajectory in fatalities beginning in 2017.

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

128 153 145 179 182 134 159

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

1,521 1,249 1,437 1,385 1,344 584 604

Due to a miscommunication between TSOS and CAPS, there has been incorrect data reported in previous 

reporting cycles.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 58

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

 Benefit/Cost Ratio

 Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations.

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

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

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

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

coming years.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

 # miles improved by HSIP

 # RSAs completed

 Increased focus on local road safety

 More systemic programs

 Organizational change

 Policy change

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 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)

Roadway Departure Run-off-road 550 2,802 471.6 3,002

Intersections Intersections 339 2,406 288.2 3,001

Pedestrians All 113 224

Bicyclists All 6 40

Older Drivers All 122 460 110.2 556.6

Motorcyclists All 89 417

Work Zones All 17 102
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 58

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Data All 930 5,103
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 58

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

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

8000

9000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 52 of 58

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 53 of 58

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

N/A
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 58

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/18/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier

(12) [12]

10 15

Route Number (8) 

[8]

50 75

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

95 85

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

80 45

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

50 50

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 15

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

75 80

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

75 80

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

75 80

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

100 50

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 45
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 58

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

50 50

Access Control (22) 

[23]

60 65

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

75 80

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

60 80

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 99 100 2

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

75 80

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 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 58

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 73.89 65.22 0.00 0.00 18.18 18.18 11.11 0.22 0.00 0.00

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

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

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

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

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

of the data elements functional per year to be collected in regards to MIRE Fundamental Data collection. 

Another essential partnership is with the ALDOT's development of an Enterprise GIS (EGIS) system. ALDOT's Enterprise GIS (EGIS) is comprised of a Linear Referencing System for all the roads in the state of Alabama and its 

associated data attributes. EGIS's primary function has been to help process inventory data required for FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). TSOS has a representative on the EGIS committee who gives a 

perspective on safety data related needs. TSOS has submitted an extensive list of Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data elements to the committee for consideration in the ALDOT's Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) 

data collection process. 

TSOS is currently researching additional funding opportunities to support the MIRE collection efforts, and looking into partnerships with state universities for help in the processing of data that is collected.
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 57 of 58

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Alabama HSIP Application Guide July2020.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 58 of 58

Glossary

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

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

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

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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