Page 1 of 48

MISSISSIPPI

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 48

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 12

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 14

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 17

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 17

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 30

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 32

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 34

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 34

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 43
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 48

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lists, or data.” 
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 48

Executive Summary 

The State of Mississippi's HSIP, housed within the Traffic Engineering Division of the Mississippi Department 

of Transportation (MDOT), has completed another year of programming and prioritizing projects that support 

the state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Over the last 12 months, the Mississippi HSIP has made great 

strides in supporting the goal of reducing (and hopefully one day eliminating) fatal and serious injury crashes 

by programming safety projects that are both aggressive in reducing targeted crash types and innovative in 

their approach. These advancements of the last year include, but are not limited to, the following highlights:

Data Enhancements

The MDOT continued its efforts this past year in working towards making significant updates to its crash data 

analysis system. Once in place, this new system will provide the Mississippi HSIP and its project managers 

with the ability to conduct better network screening statewide, the ability to better analyze and assess potential 

project locations with the use of state-calibrated SPFs, and conduct up-to-date crash data analyses using 

advanced mapping and GPS-located crashes.

Systemic Safety

MDOT has for years prioritized the use of systemic safety improvements such as Safety Edge and Rumble 

Stripe/Strips as a part of larger construction and mobility projects. More recently, the HSIP has worked to 

obligate more of its own funding towards supporting the installment of systemic measures, such as FYA 

installment along corridors, systemic resigning and striping of selected routes, and even systemic access 

management. Over the next year, MDOT intends to continue implementing safety more from a systemic 

approach in the hopes of preventing more crashes statewide, and treating more affected routes and 

intersections.

Innovative Countermeasures

The HSIP, with the support of MDOT's Administration and Districts, has continued its pursuit of implementing 

innovative countermeasures to address serious crash concerns. Over the past year, MDOT has programmed

more funding towards countermeasures such as roundabouts and RCUTs where crash data and volumes have 

warranted, and it intends to continue this trend into next year.

SHSP Update

Mississippi is currently working on an update to its existing SHSP, which was put in place in January of 2014. 

The MDOT will have the new plan in place by January 2019. As a part of the ongoing development process, 

MDOT has worked hand in hand with other state and local agencies to ensure that all voices statewide are 

heard and encapsulated in the plan. We look forward to producing a document that can be used by all of our 

valued partners in making the state's roadways safer.

A Culture of Safety

While MDOT has worked to address safety through quantifiable efforts such as safety projects, it has also 

worked over the past year to further institute a culture of safety across the entire department. The last year has 

seen MDOT Districts and its supporting Division personnel progress in how they give consideration to 

innovative countermeasures, as well as the mindset for safety in everyday maintenance and construction 

activities. More and more, the state is seeing MDOT employees looking to incorporate needed safety 

improvements as a part of all MDOT projects, whether they are safety funded or not.

The following report for the state of Mississippi will show how MDOT has programmed its money to continue 

improving safety across the state, as well as how the completed projects have been performing to support 

those efforts. We feel strongly that not all safety successes in the state will necessarily be captured in the 

report as the information was requested, but we know that in the last year, the MDOT has worked tirelessly 

department-wide to ensure that Mississippi's roadways become safer for our fellow drivers than they were the 

year before.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 48

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program staff includes full-time engineers, as well as supporting data 

analysts and clerical staff, all housed within the Mississippi DOT's Traffic Engineering Division. On a day-today basis, the HSIP staff works hand-in-hand with other MDOT Divisions in aiding the MDOT Districts towards 

advancing safety on Mississippi Highways. These regular efforts include data analysis, countermeasure 

discussion and coordination, as well as the administration of regular safety meetings to keep in contact with the 

Districts regarding safety matters and concerns.

One of the initiatives that the Mississippi HSIP staff has taken on in the last few years is holding regular safety 

meetings with its Districts. These meetings are an informal time for HSIP staff to go out into the Districts and 

discuss locations of concern that are showing up in data analysis, as well as locations that the Districts are 

fielding calls from the public, community leaders, and elected officials. These meetings have proven invaluable 

in establishing a rapport between District staff and the HSIP, which has aided in the identification of locations 

of need that might not have been found as quickly by data analysis alone. The HSIP has also seen these 

relationships promote a level of trust in the selection of alternative intersection countermeasures, as well as 

more progressive and non-typical countermeasures that are being implemented across the United States.

The second initiative that directly impacts HSIP projects in Mississippi are the Safety Countermeasure 

Selection Team meetings. These meetings were established by internal policy in the last several years to 

ensure that applicable MDOT Divisions (Roadway Design Division, Construction Division, Environmental 

Division, Planning Division, etc.) and District personnel are extensively involved in the countermeasure 

selection process for HSIP projects. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP 

funding, any and all possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a formalized meeting format. 

Site visits are conducted as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location 

information, countermeasure recommendations, and a benefit to cost analysis - is recorded and summarized in 

report format. This formal report is then submitted for review and approval by meeting attendees as well as 

senior MDOT Officials. This ensures that HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi are fully vetted by MDOT 

staff, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner possible.

Once projects are selected, programmed, and constructed using HSIP funds, the MDOT ensures that their 

performance - in terms of realized crash reductions - is tracked and reported as a part of the HSIP Reporting 

process. The Mississippi HSIP typically conducts a five year before and after data analysis of each project in 
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 48

order to provide a healthy set of data to determine the performance of the project's countermeasure(s). In 

many cases, the state also continues to track projects beyond the five year window to ensure the 

countermeasure still works and/or other changes are not needed beyond the initial project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Operations 

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-Central Office

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

The Mississippi HSIP takes on safety projects year round and evaluates them individually for funding through 

the program. There is no competitive application process.

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

As a part of Mississippi's statewide safety efforts, local roads are given consideration for Highway Safety 

Improvement Program funding during each federal fiscal year. Potential projects are scrutinized under the 

same set of criteria set forth for state highway safety projects. All HSIP local road safety projects conducted by 

the Mississippi Department of Transportation are identified through the Circuit Rider Program. 

The Circuit Rider program, established in 2012, provides training as well as technical assistance to local road 

administrators and staff. As a part of the technical assistance portion of the program, Circuit Riders (along with 

MDOT Traffic Safety personnel) review crash data for local roads and conduct site visits with local government 

authorities to offer countermeasure identification assistance. Solutions offered by Circuit Riders on these site 

visits can either be resolved by the local road authority, or can be treated under several available Circuit Rider 

initiatives. Projects identified in need of additional assistance through the Circuit Rider program can be treated 

using one of the following:

1. Sign Project : At no cost to the local authority, MDOT provides warning and advisory signage to a local 

government agency where crash trends - systemic or "hot spot" in nature - have been identified, and where 

signs and/or low cost countermeasures are deemed an appropriate corrective measure. The local authority 

may be asked to provide an in-kind service as part of the agreement, such as tree trimming within the Right-ofWay; otherwise, the signs are free of charge to the county or municipality. During the 2018 State Fiscal Year 

(July 17 - June 18), MDOT spent $53,082 of state funds on this program.

2. Design Project : Should a location or set of locations within a county, municipality or other local governing 

body's jurisdiction be deemed eligible by MDOT for HSIP funding, those projects are pursued as a part of the 

statewide HSIP program. Currently, MDOT chooses to focus its local road safety efforts on low cost measures, 

including resigning and restriping of routes, the installation of reflective sign post delineators, raised pavement 

marker reinstallation, etc. There is no application deadline currently for local projects; projects are considered 

throughout the entire fiscal year. All local road safety projects are considered alongside state highway safety 
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 48

projects. MDOT continues to work with local roadway officials towards developing quality local road safety 

projects.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Other-Environmental 

Other-Right of Way Division 

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Under current internal policy, applicable MDOT Divisions ( District personnel, Construction Division, 

Environmental Division, Planning Division, etc .) are extensively involved in the countermeasure selection 

process. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP Program funding, any and all 

possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a meeting format. Site visits are conducted with this 

group as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location information, 

countermeasure recommendations, etc. - is recorded in report format and approved by meeting attendees as 

well as MDOT leadership. This ensures that all HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi that adhere to this 

process are fully vetted by the MDOT staff, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner 

possible.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

Other-Office of State Aid Road Construction 

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

The Federal Highway Administration - Mississippi Division is an active participant in program planning for the 

HSIP. MDOT coordinates with the Division Office for review and approval of the three year funding program 

and its approval on an annual basis.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 48

Other external partners involved in the HSIP project planning process are local government agencies, MPOs, 

and Mississippi's Office of State Aid Road Construction, who is responsible for major county roadways. We 

coordinate with these partners when the HSIP is developing a potential Safety Circuit Rider project within their 

jurisdiction.

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

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

No

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

File Name:

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms) 

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

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/3/2015 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

Other-Addresses state's priority of advancing safety 
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 48

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Excess proportions of specific crash types 

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2 

Cost Effectiveness : 1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 7 
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 48

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

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

- MDOT policy maintains that Safety Edge be installed on all MDOT mill and overlay projects, regardless of 

funding.

- MDOT's striping policy specifically requires the use of rumble strip/stripe where adequate shoulder is 

available.

- 1,550 miles of OGFC have been installed on MDOT highways to date

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Other-Input from internal partners 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

Mississippi HSIP projects primarily consider ITS elements when they are a complimentary component of a 

larger project, such as traffic cameras at a new or improved signal, fiber interconnectivity between signals, or 

other measures to provide advanced warning to motorists of some down stream condition.

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.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 48

Currently, the Mississippi HSIP uses various principles that are cited in the Highway Safety Manual, though the 

manual is not used extensively in day to day analysis and decision-making. We are currently developing a 

crash data analysis system that will wholly incorporate the principles and practices outlined in the HSM, and 

will fully integrate them into how Mississippi evaluates locations across the state, and potential projects.

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

period?

No

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

No
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 48

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $28,737,411 $28,737,411 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$165,174 $165,174 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $5,603,144 $5,603,144 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$3,628,624 $3,628,624 100%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $4,080,656 $4,080,656 100%

Totals $42,215,009 $42,215,009 100%

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

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148)

Funding figures - Programmed and Obligated - include the 2018 HSIP funding apportionment for the state of 

Mississippi, as well as a portion of HSIP funds returned* from previous fiscal years totaling $145,589. 

HRRR (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

Funding figures shown for this category are made up of HRRR funding returned* from previous fiscal years 

totaling $165,174.

* Returned funds are from previous years when HSIP projects came in under the programmed construction 

budget.

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

1% 

How much funding is obligated to local or tribal safety projects?
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 48

1% 

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

The Mississippi DOT has programmed and obligated funding for a single local road safety project that 

constitutes less than 1% of the total HSIP funding. Several other projects are within the early design and/or 

programming stages, and are anticipated to be a part of the next year's HSIP obligation. 

The Mississippi HSIP program currently sets aside $250,000 for local road safety projects through its Circuit 

Rider program each year, with additional projects considered against State Highway projects in terms of 

benefit to cost and overall safety impact. 

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

1% 

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

1% 

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

In the previous federal fiscal year, Mississippi has begun the process of updating its Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan, which is included in this proportion of funds.

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

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

There are no impediments currently.

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

No
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 48

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

MS 12, from Old 

Highway 12 to Sta 

17+47

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 2.6 Miles $45000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

23,650 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 12, from Sta 

17+47 to Russell 

Street

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 1.2 Miles $4029480 $4477200 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

23,650 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 49 SB Fr Main 

St in Mt. Olive to 

Walter Lott Rd. in 

Seminary

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

24.2 Miles $14678450 $16309388.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

11,050 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 25, 

Tishomingo 

County

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled38.9 Miles $352996 $392217.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

1,564 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 25/Lakeland 

Dr Mast Arm 

Replacement

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

5 Intersections $-35825 $-39805.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

54,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersections

MS 63 at MS 614 Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

1 Intersections $-180 $-180 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,850 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 61 at Oak 

Ridge Road

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - modify 

signal mounting (spanwire to 

mast arm)

1 Intersections $168718 $187464.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

7,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 45 Cable 

Barrier Installation 

(Alcorn County)

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.2 Miles $-30187 $-33541.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

10,325 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 53 at Canal 

Rd and County 

Farm Rd

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

2 Intersections $-96506 $-96506 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

I-20 West 

Brandon 

Interchange

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on ramp 1 Interchanges $-150337 $-167041.11 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

21,100 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 537 between 

Hoy Rd and Lake 

Como Rd

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

3 Curves $42909 $47676.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

I-55 Cable Barrier 

(Carroll, Copiah, 

Holmes)

Roadside Barrier - cable 3 Counties $66081 $73423.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 302 from 

Southcrest 

Parkway to US 78

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

7.9 Miles $-135000 $-150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 45A at Tarlton 

Rd

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

1 Intersections $474840 $527600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

6,930 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 48

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

MS 27 at Lee 

Ave/Old Hwy 27 

No. 1

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $347490 $386100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,940 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 45 Road 

Safety Audit

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 1 Plans $-57249 $-63610 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

US 98 Signal 

Upgrades in 

Hattiesburg

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

6 Intersections $-268 $-297.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 90 Traffic 

Signal Upgrades 

(Hancock County)

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

10 Intersections $5504850 $6116500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

20,450 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 145 Corridor 

Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

3.7 Miles $1701018 $2126272.5 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

20,320 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

Highway 90 

Pedestrian Bridge 

Crossing

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian bridge 1 Crosswalks $250359 $312948.75 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

30,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Pedestrians

US 84 at Auburn 

Dr

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $2979000 $3310000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

8,338 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 613 Systemic 

Curves Project

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

32.2 Miles $688590 $765100 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

US 84 at MS 35 Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

1 Intersections $247067 $274518.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 49 at MS 42 Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $411300 $457000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

26,650 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan - 

2018 Update

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety planning 1 Plans $225000 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Statewide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

US 90 Signal and 

Access 

Improvements in 

Pascagoula

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - 

signal-controlled

4.5 Miles $231300 $257000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

District 3 

Intersection 

Improvement 

Project

Intersection traffic 

control

Systemic improvements - stopcontrolled72 Intersections $402222 $446913.33 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Districtwide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersections

Lauderdale 

County Safety 

Circuit Rider 

Improvements

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

8 Locations $53545 $53545 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Multiple Routes 0 50 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

US 82 Itta Bena Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 2 Intersections $157500 $175000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

8,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 48

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

I-59 NB lanes at 

the CR 371 

overpass

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

1 Locations $90424.8 $100472 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 15 at OvetteMoselle RdAdvanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 1 Intersections $28555.2 $31728 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

MS 21 at 

Ringgold Rd

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 1 Intersections $43920 $48800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

District 1 

Intersection 

Conflict Warning 

System Project

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Dynamic message signs 5 Intersections $955795 $1061994.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Districtwide 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Intersections

US 278 at Good 

Hope/Bethlehem 

Rd, Terza 

Rd/Lawrence 

Bros Rd and 

Central Academy 

Dr

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

3 Intersections $-360000 $-400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 45 at Wheeler 

Grove Road

Alignment Vertical alignment or elevation 

change

0.3 Miles $46181 $51312.22 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 84 at MS 184 

(west of 

Waynesboro)

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

1 Intersections $101250 $112500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

9,850 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 84 at 

Reservoir 

Rd/Magnolia Hill

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $101250 $112500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

7,311 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

US 49 from the 

Stone County 

Line to South 

Gate Road

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

19.9 Miles $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

11,950 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 363 from MS 

178 to the Lee 

County Line

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal pavement 

markings - new

11.8 Miles $144000 $160000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

MS 9 at MS 341 Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Intersections

Circuit Rider Sign 

Donation/Bright 

Stick Program

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Statewide $0 $53082 State and Local 

Funds

Various Locations 0 County and 

Municipality

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 48

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 700 641 630 582 613 607 677 690 690

Serious Injuries 622 671 686 631 568 506 506 627 540

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.740 1.610 1.620 1.510 1.580 1.540 1.700 1.700 1.687

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.542 1.684 1.766 1.636 1.465 1.281 1.269 1.543 1.321

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

68 54 54 55 59 60 68 71 77

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

0 47 39 49 47 47 42 61 60
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 48

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 48

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 48

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

- The 2017 reported traffic fatalities for the state of Mississippi is an accurate representation of what we in the 

Mississippi HSIP anticipate the number to be, based upon our own analyses, as well as conversations with the 

state's FARS Analyst, the Department of Public Safety, and other applicable officials within the state. However, 

that number is not yet certified, and therefore may be subject to change before final admission into the FARS 

Public Database. This same note applies to the reported number of non-motorized fatalities for 2017.

- Serious Injuries are reported using Mississippi's Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS).

- The number of non-motorized fatalities are reported using the FARS Database.

- The number of non-motorized serious injuries are reported using Mississippi's SAMS program. Since all 

values for this category began their reporting for this year, and since the SAMS program currently only retains 

crash data for the state back through the completed calendar year of 2010, values preceding that year were 

not reported.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 48

Year 2017

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

53.4 30.2 1.36 0.77

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

178.6 89.2 3.3 1.68

Rural Minor Arterial 72 82.8 2.06 2.4

Rural Minor Collector 13.6 21.6 3.14 4.99

Rural Major Collector 102 124.4 2.54 3.12

Rural Local Road or Street 78.2 44.8 1.44 0.82

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

23.2 23.4 0.56 0.59

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

3.6 3.8 0.72 0.76

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

51 70 0.99 1.36

Urban Minor Arterial 20 31 0.77 1.19

Urban Minor Collector 15.2 21.6 0.74 1.09

Urban Major Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or Street 31 14.2 0.96 0.43
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 48

Year 2017

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 432.8 396 1.79 1.64

County Highway Agency 142.4 178.6 1.63 2.04

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

51.6 69.2 0.76 1.02

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

8.6 8.2 0 0

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 48

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 48

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 48

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 48

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 48

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 48

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 48

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

- 2010 through 2015 fatality data as it relates to functional classification comes from the FARS.

- Functional classification data for Mississippi fatal crashes are based on data from the state's internal crash 

analysis systems (known as SAMS) for the 2016 and 2017 calendar years. This data, when compared to 

certified FARS fatality numbers, can fluctuate in its accuracy from year to year. 

- The 2016 FARS data appears to not be correct in how it presents functional classification and its breakdown 

between rural and urban routes. Therefore, MDOT elected to use its own in-house data from the SAMS for this 

year.

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 697.0 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 48

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

MDOT's performance target for number of fatalities is based on seven years' worth of 

historical crash data in the state. While we always maintain a target of zero fatalities, 

historical trends in the state are more in line with what is presented. 

Number of Serious Injuries 556.0 

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

MDOT's performance target for number of serious injuries is based on five years' 

worth of historical crash data in the state. While we always maintain a target of zero 

fatalities, historical trends in the state are more in line with what is presented. 

Fatality Rate 1.706 

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

MDOT's performance target for number of fatalities is based on seven years' worth of 

historical crash data in the state. The volumes used to calculate the rates are provided 

by MDOT's Planning Division. 

Serious Injury Rate 1.356 

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

MDOT's performance target for number of serious injuries is based on five years' 

worth of historical crash data in the state. The volumes used to calculate the rates are 

provided by MDOT's Planning Division. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 131.4 

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

MDOT's performance target for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is based 

on five year's worth of historical crash data in the state. 

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

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

targets. 

MDOT's HSIP personnel met numerous times with the Mississippi Office of Highway Safety (MOHS), who is 

responsible for the state's NHTSA Highway Safety Plan. Our offices worked hand in hand to determine the 

appropriate performance targets regarding fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries that are included both in 

the Highway Safety Plan as well as the HSIP Report. Additionally, MDOT HSIP personnel have made 

presentations at several of the state's MPOs to brief them on the new performance target initiatives with 

regards to safety, as well as briefing them on the targets set at the state level.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 48

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

65 62 84 60 66 68 98

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

34 27 44 41 22 31 48
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 48

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 48

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-Before and After Crash Analysis

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

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

level evaluations.

As a part of the HSIP reporting process, the state of Mississippi has kept track of the performance of its HSIP 

projects. Since this first began, the preferred method of evaluating projects has been to measure the crashes 

occurring after the project was constructed and in place against crashes at the location before improvements 

were installed. Using this measuring tool, the state of Mississippi's HSIP has realized an appreciable success 

in terms of its project effectiveness. Through the Federal Fiscal Year 2018, Mississippi HSIP projects with a 

minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis have achieved a 35% reduction of the severity 

of crashes at its project locations, as well as a 14% reduction in the overall number of crashes at these same 

locations ( Mississippi measures crashes by crash rate to account for any changes in traffic volumes at these 

locations ). While recognizing that these reductions are a positive litmus test for the projects that Mississippi 

has selected for the HSIP to date, it is the intention of our program to continue aggressively pursuing projects 

that will help us raise those reduction numbers in the future, and continue to make Mississippi's roads safer for 

our fellow road users.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

Policy change 

Organizational change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 48

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 369.4 343 0.92 0.86 0 0 0

Intersections 128.8 160.8 0 0 0 0 0
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 48

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 48

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

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

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane Departure Intersections

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lane Departure Intersections

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 48

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 48

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)

MS 15 at US 84 

(Laurel)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

105.00 136.00 1.00 22.00 35.00 127.00 172.00

US 11 at 

2nd/Goodyear

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

35.00 21.00 5.00 8.00 40.00 29.00

US 11 at 

Bruce/Jackson 

Landing

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

25.00 16.00 9.00 6.00 34.00 22.00

US 11 at Canal St. Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

46.00 14.00 12.00 14.00 58.00 28.00

US 11 at Memorial 

Blvd/MS 43 S

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

76.00 12.00 19.00 2.00 95.00 14.00

US 11 at Fourth/N. 

Main

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal timing - 

signal coordination

23.00 24.00 2.00 1.00 25.00 25.00

MS 67 at Lickskillet 

Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

22.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 49.00 13.00 74.00 20.00

Spillway Rd Guardrail Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Roadside Barrier- metal 27.00 35.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 10.00 40.00 46.00

US 49 at MS 22 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

12.00 12.00 1.00 15.00 5.00 27.00 18.00

US 98 at Old MS 63 

North

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

30.00 13.00 6.00 3.00 32.00 6.00 71.00 19.00

I-10 at Cedar Lake 

Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Interchange design - other 54.00 40.00 3.00 33.00 26.00 90.00 66.00

US 98/Hardy Fr 

Westover to I-59 

(including SB Ramp)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Installation of new lane on ramp 390.00 521.00 1.00 1.00 82.00 124.00 473.00 646.00

US 90 at MS 607 Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

7.00 17.00 1.00 4.00 10.00 11.00 28.00

US 49 at W. Wortham 

Rd/Grand Way Blvd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

20.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 22.00 37.00 40.00
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 48

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)

Kiln-Delisle at Vidalia 

Curb and Gutter

Rural Major 

Collector

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00

US 49 Fr Campbell 

Loop to N 31st

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Raised island - install new 94.00 105.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 51.00 43.00 150.00 149.00

US 90 at Franklin 

Creek Rd

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

15.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 18.00 12.00 36.00 28.00

US 45 at CR 212 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

5.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 13.00 1.00

MS 67 at Sangani - 

old configuration

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

125.00 2.00 64.00 191.00

MS 67 at Sangani - 

east ramps (NB)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

71.00 18.00 89.00

MS 67 at Sangani - 

west ramps (SB)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

12.00 5.00 17.00

MS 67 at Sangani - 

east signal/Indian 

River Rd.

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

42.00 8.00 50.00

MS 67 at Sangani - 

west 

signal/Promenade

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade intersection to 

interchange

38.00 20.00 58.00

US 84 at Ferguson 

Mill Rd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

6.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 15.00 1.00

US 61 at Delta View 

Rd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

5.00 8.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 13.00 15.00

I-59 @ 16th Ave Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Ramp closure 57.00 49.00 10.00 13.00 67.00 62.00

MS 35 at I-20 EB 

Ramps

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control - 

other

13.00 14.00 1.00 12.00 2.00 26.00 16.00

US 84 at Magnolia 

Rd.

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Access 

management

Median crossover - directional 

crossover

9.00 24.00 1.00 10.00 5.00 20.00 29.00

I-55 fr the Pike CL to 

the Union Street 

Bridge

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 90.00 85.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.00 35.00 137.00 122.00

RWIS Installations, I69 over Hurricane 

Creek

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

9.00 9.00

RWIS Installations, I55 over Coldwater 

River

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

5.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 2.00
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 48

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)

US 72 at MS 7 Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

17.00 23.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 23.00 15.00 46.00 40.00

MS 463 at Sunny 

Orchard

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

26.00 27.00 9.00 10.00 35.00 37.00

MS 463 at Welch 

Farms

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

13.00 19.00 5.00 3.00 18.00 22.00

MS 463 at Main/Old 

Hwy 463

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

10.00 3.00 13.00

MS 463 

(New)/Madison Pkwy 

at Post Oak

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

21.00 7.00 28.00

MS 463 (Old)/Main at 

Post Oak

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

14.00 1.00 1.00 15.00 1.00

MS 463 at Colony 

Crossing/Key

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

44.00 35.00 11.00 4.00 55.00 39.00

MS 463 at 

Woodgreen

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

24.00 18.00 4.00 8.00 28.00 26.00

MS 463 at 

Annandale/Reunion

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

11.00 13.00 1.00 12.00 13.00

MS 463 at Mannsdale 

Park

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

22.00 33.00 4.00 5.00 26.00 38.00

MS 463 at St. Joe Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

6.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 12.00 6.00

MS 463 at Madison 

Middle School

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

10.00 18.00 3.00 1.00 13.00 19.00

MS 463 at Highland 

Colony Parkway

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

93.00 107.00 14.00 10.00 107.00 117.00

US 51 at Hoy Rd. Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

63.00 61.00 1.00 1.00 13.00 12.00 77.00 74.00

US 51 at Main/Old 

MS 463

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

76.00 38.00 16.00 5.00 92.00 43.00

US 51 at Lake Harbor Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

41.00 47.00 9.00 10.00 50.00 57.00
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 48

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)

US 51 at Ridgewood Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

27.00 26.00 8.00 4.00 35.00 30.00

US 51 at McLellan Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

11.00 10.00 1.00 9.00 2.00 20.00 13.00

US 51 at 

Ridgeland/Sunnycrest

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

32.00 42.00 8.00 7.00 40.00 49.00

US 51 at Jackson 

St/MS 886

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

126.00 93.00 24.00 22.00 150.00 115.00

US 51 at Rice Rd Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

130.00 109.00 1.00 24.00 13.00 155.00 122.00

US 51 at School St. Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

54.00 43.00 9.00 9.00 63.00 52.00

US 51 at Olympic 

Way

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

8.00 9.00 5.00 3.00 13.00 12.00

US 51 at Madison 

Ave

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

50.00 41.00 9.00 9.00 59.00 50.00

US 51 at St. 

Augustine

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

12.00 15.00 6.00 1.00 18.00 16.00

US 51 at Cobblestone Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

12.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 15.00 11.00

MS 2 Fr 

Tippah/Alcorn Co Ln 

to Kossuth

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

47.00 18.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 26.00 8.00 75.00 28.00

I-20 WB On Ramp at 

Lost Gap

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

Interchange 

design

Extend existing lane on ramp 3.00 2.00 5.00

US 61 at Oak 

Ridge/Bowie

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

17.00 11.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 2.00 29.00 15.00

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

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

No
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 48

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/02/2014 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2018 

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

 2019 

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

Mississippi is currently in the process of updating its Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The plan will be completed, signed and in place by January 1, 2019.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 48

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

94 94

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 48

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 100.00 99.25 99.25 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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.

The Mississippi DOT is in the final stages of completing junction traffic control identification on all state routes. Once that is completed, which is anticipated to be within the next year, the state will be 100% complete with the MIRE 

requirements.

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Life Threatening No N/A No N/A No

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Life Threatening No Injuries where there is a high probability of 

the loss of life

No N/A No

Crash Database Life Threatening No N/A No N/A No

Crash Database Data Dictionary Life Threatening No See Previous No See Previous No

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

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety (DPS) is currently working with a vendor to complete the required updates to the crash report form for the state and are currently on track to make those updates, which will meet the MMUCC 

4th edition requirements, by the above described deadline date.

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

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 48

No

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

2020 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 of 48

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Mississippi Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 48

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

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

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

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

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

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

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

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

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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