Page 1 of 48

ALABAMA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 48

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................21

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................21

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................23

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................31

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................31

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................36

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................38

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................39

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................39

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................43

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................44
2019 Alabama 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.”
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 48

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 focuses on implementing regional 

SHSPs following the Rural/Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) as the geographical boundaries for each 

region. Specific emphasis areas will be identified by local stakeholders to develop performance measures with 

proven countermeasures. Four regions were selected to represent various geographical areas of the state and 

ensure a mix of urban and rural traffic and safety challenges. Regional coalitions were established to convene 

a diverse group of stakeholder participants representing all facets of the 4 "E"s (Engineering, Enforcement, 

Education, and Emergency Response) ranging from industry to community civic groups. The Alabama SHSP, 

3rd Edition included four Regional Safety Coalitions Planned Emphasis Areas and Strategies. The other eight 

Regional Safety Coalitions not represented in the 3rd Edition are currently being developed.

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

adopted the goal of reducing fatalities by 50% within a 20-year time period. Fatal crashes had dropped 

significantly over the past decade from 2003 to 2012. Alabama had seen a steady decline in the number of 

fatalities and the fatality rate during this same period, but has recently seen an uptick in fatalities over the past 

couple of years.

The SHSP 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. The human behavioral aspects of the SHSP incorporate ADECA’S 

Statewide Highway Safety Plan which addresses the safety program behavioral elements related to occupant 

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

HSIP projects have 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).

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 launched the Roadway Departure Focus State Program which included an in-depth 

evaluation of roadway departure crashes and a set of roadway departure countermeasures such as the 

Horizontal Curve Resigning Program. A 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 ALDOT 

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.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 48

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 it electronically collecting data from 

all licensed EMS agencies.

The ALDOT is also continuing its efforts to enhance its safety culture by making safety a priority in all aspects 

of planning, project development, and performance evaluation. A study was completed that allowed the 

ALDOT to assess the role of safety across bureaus and identify which bureaus play critical roles in advancing 

safety across the state. Peer roundtables were conducted with experts from across the country to determine 

what safety related skills are needed for various roles in the ALDOT. and developed what coursework would 

provide the proper training.

HSIP Infrastructure Projects/Tool Development

The Interstate Median Barrier program and the Shoulder Widening Program are safety programs which were 

established in 2002 and 2006, respectively. The Interstate Median Barrier program addresses median cross 

over crashes by installing median cable along selected sections of interstate with a high pattern of median 

cross over crashes. The shoulder widening program addresses the addition of two (2) feet of shoulder during 

maintenance resurfacing along state routes (where feasible).

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

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

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

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

determine appropriate safety enhancements and countermeasures.

TSOS collaborates with various University Research Centers to identify and develop data and analytical tools 

and manuals such as ALSAFE: Development of an Alabama Specific Planning Level Safety Tool, and the 

Alabama Roundabout Guide.

ALSAFE will be a safety forecasting tool for analysis at the Traffic Analysis Zone level which is a common 

metric used by planners. ALSAFE will be a statewide planning level safety software tool which will aid ALDOT, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). These tools will 

be vital in the planning and selection process of addressing potential safety problems and countermeasures for 

human factors or needs that are identified.

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

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

Alabama roundabouts. The Alabama Roundabout Guide will serve as a guide to the planning, design, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of roundabouts in Alabama.

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

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

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

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

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

tools, the project selection and evaluation process will be enhanced.

Local Roads

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

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

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

guidance on how to apply for HSIP funds.

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

5th conference scheduled for September, 2019. The Conference focuses on local safety issues and provided 

training on various roadway safety topics.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 48

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

issues on Alabama's local roadways. It's 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. 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 are STACC's objectives.

Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts

Prior to adoption of the FAST Act, Non-Infrastructure Safety Efforts of Driver Behavior and Traffic Safety 

Information Systems areas of Alabama’s current SHSP are managed by the Design Bureau, Traffic Design 

Division, Safety Management Section (SMS).

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

development of the Speed Management Manual and Road Safety Assessments (RSA) Manual. Their 

perspective and experience plays an important role in targeting effective countermeasures for the safety of the 

traveling public.

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

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

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

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

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

seasons. 

ALDOT Media and Community Relations conducted a safety public education and awareness program that 

addressed the behavioral safety elements related to seatbelts, speeding, impaired and distracted driving, work 

zones, rail crossings and motorcycles. Working with the Governor’s Office, May was proclaimed Motorcycle 

Safety Awareness Month, and July was proclaimed Distracted Driving Awareness Month by Alabama Governor 

Robert Bentley. Using varied communication channels and events, the ALDOT public education programs 

reached across the state of Alabama and generated news articles, advertisements and other marketing pieces 

that were viewed by our target audiences more than 35 million times.

Alabama crash data is maintained and accessed through the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) 

software and its supporting data is maintained by the Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) at the 

University of Alabama. This interface is used for crash analysis by both ALDOT and local agencies. This data 

system is used to assist in the preparation of this report as well as the SHSP. The CARE program is critical in 

the development of the HSIP for assessing safety information.

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 

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

to reduce fatalities and serious injuries throughout the state of Alabama.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 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 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.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 48

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. 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 6th 

Annual Local Rural Road Safety Workshop and Conference is scheduled for September 2019. 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 state.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 48

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

• 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 signage to meet the current 

MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). As an effort to improve safety, TSOS is collaborating by 

identifying high crash horizontal curve locations for enhanced signage upgrades. HSIP funding will be used to 

implement this portion of the overall program.

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

intersections. The pilot provided a mixture of urban and rural collections of traffic data inventory. The purpose 

of this study would be to collect data at each location for both the TSOS and the ALDOT Maintenance Bureau. 

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

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

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

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

approximately 2/3 of the signalized intersections along the state-maintained system have been inventoried.

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. 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.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 48

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

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

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

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

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

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

university will then complete the final 63 counties. Lastly, the university has also been charged with developing 

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement 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 

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 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.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 48

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

FileName:

AL HSIP PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MANUAL.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• Bicycle Safety

• Horizontal Curve

• Intersection

• Median Barrier

• Pedestrian Safety

• Roadway Departure

• Shoulder Improvement

• 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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 48

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

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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 48

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-B/C Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:50

Ranking based on net benefit:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/2/2000

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 

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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 48

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:7/29/2003

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 

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 
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 48

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 

Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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 
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 48

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

Program: Roadway Departure

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 

Other-Existing Shoulder if applicable 

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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 48

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? 

• 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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 48

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2006

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 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? 

• 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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 48

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2014

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 

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

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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 48

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• Clear Zone Improvements

• High friction surface treatment

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Signing

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• Wrong way driving treatments

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• 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 

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

department. 
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 48

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) $48,416,000 $44,321,000 91.54%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $5,577,000 $5,122,000 91.84%

Totals $53,993,000 $49,443,000 91.57%

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

safety projects?

5%

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

5%

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? 

$0
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 48

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

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

$10,050,000

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.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 48

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

OF SR-9 FROM 

COVINGTON/CRENSHA

W CO. LINE TO 

APPROX 1 MI N. OF THE 

S. BRANTLEY CITY 

LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 10.085 Miles $759575.26 $3617025.02 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther3,170 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL INT. MED. 

CABLE BARRIER FROM 

MP 75.5 TO MP 105.5 IN 

CONECUH CO.

Roadside Barrier - cable 30 Miles $2991912.7

4

$2991912.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate27,18

7

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL INT. MED. 

CABLE BARRIER ON I65 FROM MP 13.0 (SR158) TO MP 16.9 (N. OF 

CR-41) IN MOBILE CO.

Roadside Barrier - cable 3.9 Miles $561347.59 $561347.59 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate71,11

8

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

I-65 INSTALL INT. MED. 

CABLE BARRIER FROM 

SR-59 MP 33.7 TO RR 

BRIDGE MP 75.5

Roadside Barrier - cable 41.8 Miles $3420267.7

2

$3420267.72 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate25,47

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL INT. MED. 

CABLE BARRIER ON I10 FROM SR-181 TO 

PERDIDO RIVER 

BRIDGE

Roadside Barrier - cable 27.6 Miles $895602.78 $895602.78 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate51,38

8

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

GUIDERAIL INSTALL. 

ON I-85 FROM 

MONTGOMERY CO. 

LINE TO LEE CO. LINE

Roadside Barrier - cable 26.823 Miles $1540581.7

1

$1540581.71 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate43,56

2

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & GUIDERAIL I-10 

FROM W. OF CR-39 

(MCDONALD RD) TO 

CR-59 (CAROL 

PLANTATION RD)

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.46 Miles $411367.35 $10284183.7

7

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate59,55

5

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL. OFF. LT TURN 

LANES & MAST ARM 

TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON 

SR-42 (US-98) FROM 

1000' S. OF PARKER RD 

TO 1000' N OF PARKER 

RD

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$778254.2 $778254.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther29,17

6

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

INT. MED. BARRIER ON 

I-20 FROM 0.4 MI E. OF 

SNOW CREEK BRIDGE 

TO SR-46

Roadside Barrier - cable 18.721 Miles $1801188.4

4

$1801188.44 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Principal ArterialInterstate36,42

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION @ SR53 (US-231) & SR-25 

(US-411)/CR-33 INT.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$456824.1 $456824.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,359 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION @ SR53 (US-231) & SR-25 

(US-411)/CR-33 INT.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$3003198.4

6

$3003198.46 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,359 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION @ SR79 & SR-160 INT.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$1219401.7

3

$1219401.73 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,051 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION @ SR79 AND SR-160 INT.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$3270989.0

4

$3270989.04 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,051 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION @ SR5 & CR-58 INT.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$3135515.0

3

$3135515.03 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,060 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

RS & SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS 

(ACCESS 

MANAGEMENT & INT. 

MOD.) ON SR-2 (US-72 ) 

FROM E. OF 

PERIMETER PKWY TO 

SR-1 (US-231/431) 

(MEMORIAL PARKWAY)

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

4.23 Miles $1090375.6

1

$4350093.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther59,16

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

INSTALL. 

ROUNDABOUT @ INT. 

OF REDLAND RD (CR-8) 

& FIRETOWER/DOZIER 

RD (CR-59)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$68064.37 $68064.37 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,993 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

INT. MOD. ON SR-251 @ 

CR-83 (LINDSAY LN) TO 

INSTALL 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$767002.5 $767002.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 7,147 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-14 FROM SR-9 

(US-231) TO SR-63

Roadway Roadway - other 7.465 Miles $560179.7 $3734531.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 7,747 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-227 THROUGH 

GUNTERSVILLE STATE 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.32 Miles $338524.8 $4231560.05 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 5,093 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

PARK FROM THE INT. 

OF SR-62 TO THE INT. 

OF CR-455

RS, STRIPE & 2' SAF. 

WIDENING SR-4 (US78) FROM TALLADEGA 

CO. LINE (MP 148.827) 

TO RR CROSSING 0.3 

MI W. OF SR-202 (MP 

154.320)

Roadway Roadway - other 5.223 Miles $229281.36 $2292813.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 11,23

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-28 FROM CR-21 

TO SR-13 (US-43)

Roadway Roadway - other 8.765 Miles $541050.78 $2459321.71 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 2,130 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-15 (US-29) 

FROM END OF 4 LN IN 

ANDALUSIA TO 

CRENSHAW CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 12.186 Miles $1320663.3

2

$6603316.61 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 6,983 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-33 FROM MP 

35.500 @ 0.6 MI S. OF 

CR-249 TO MP. 39.620 

@ SR-20 TO INCLUDE 

NS @ GRADE RR 

CROSSING

Roadway Roadway - other 4.12 Miles $138725.35 $990895.39 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,199 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

SR-15 (US-29) FROM 

COVINGTON CO. LINE 

TO CURB SECTION 

NEAR S. BRANTLEY 

TOWN LIMITS

Roadway Roadway - other 11.335 Miles $794783.68 $3612653.1 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,491 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-95 FROM CR-92 

TO SR-1 (US-431)

Roadway Roadway narrowing (road 

diet, roadway reconfiguration)

9.5 Miles $936537.84 $3900413.88 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Major Collector 3,020 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

PVMT PRESERVATION 

& 2' SAF. WIDENING ON 

SR-141 FROM SR-189 

TO THE CRENSHAW 

CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 10.9 Miles $769040.42 $3204335.09 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther1,150 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-10 FROM W. OF 

CR-25 TO E. BRIDGE 

END OF VANNMILL 

CREEK

Roadway Roadway - other 5.01 Miles $381195.5 $2242326.46 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,786 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RS & 2' SAF. SR-111 

FROM SR-14 TO 

HOGAN RD

Roadway Roadway - other 9.389 Miles $590827.29 $3282373.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Minor Arterial 8,528 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

DEVELOPMENT OF 

USRAP (PHASE V); 

COVERING THE STATE

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records $378125.82 $378125.82 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

INT. MOD. ON BALCH 

RD @ GILLESPIE RD TO 

INSTALL A 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 13,11

6

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

PED. & ACCESS 

MANAGEMENT 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-6 (S. BYPASS) 

FROM THE I-65 INT. TO 

DAVENPORT DR

Pedestrians 

and bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians 

and bicyclists

4 Crosswalks $4538079.4

7

$5467565.63 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther36,25

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrian

s

Pedestrian

s

RS & 2; SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-189 FROM SR-52 

IN KINSTON TO JUST N. 

OF CR-442

Roadway Roadway - other 4.96 Miles $427821.26 $2139106.32 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 1,310 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-52 FROM N. REX 

ST TO JUST E. OF 

WYNNWOOD LN

Roadway Roadway - other 6.72 Miles $493067.57 $2900397.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,159 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

SR-123 FROM SR-12 

(US-84) TO SR-134

Roadway Roadway - other 5.93 Miles $306358.84 $2356606.43 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,131 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-239 FROM THE 

BARBOUR CO. LINE TO 

SR-15 (US-29)

Roadway Roadway - other 10.65 Miles $981337.1 $4906685.5 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,086 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

SR-21 FROM SR-97 TO 

SR-8 (US-80)

Roadway Roadway - other 8.209 Miles $560597.68 $3737317.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,531 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAF. WIDENING, RS, 

PLANING, & PATCHING 

SR-61 FROM THE 

PERRY CO. LINE TO 

THE SOUTHERN CITY 

LIMITS OF NEWBERN

Roadway Roadway - other 6.928 Miles $1113041.2

6

$3838073.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,681 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

2' SAF. WIDENING, RS, 

PLANING, & PATCHING 

SR-5 FROM SR-219 TO 

SOUTHERN CITY 

LIMITS OF W. BLOCTON

Roadway Roadway - other 5.215 Miles $376660.19 $3138834.88 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,269 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RS, 2' SAF. WIDENING, 

PLANING, & PATCHING 

ON SR-22 FROM SR-3 

(US-31) TO THE COOSA 

RIVER BRIDGE

Roadway Roadway - other 6.113 Miles $482748.58 $3218323.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,912 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS, STRIPE, & 2' SAF. 

WIDENING SR-9 FROM 

MP 187.215 TO N. SIDE 

OF MAD INDIAN CREEK 

BRIDGE (MP 193.931)

Roadway Roadway - other 6.716 Miles $321644.3 $2144295.3 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,783 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

& STRIPE SR-49 FROM 

THE MACON CO. LINE 

TO SR-14

Roadway Roadway - other 4.942 Miles $400369.48 $2224274.91 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,139 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2 FT SAF. 

WIDENING ON SR-18 

FROM MP 49.20 JUST 

W. OF CR-125 TO 

WALKER CO. LINE

Roadway Roadway - other 3.297 Miles $319329.16 $1995807.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 843 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-86 FROM SR-17 

TO JUST W. OF 

ALLMAN RD

Roadway Roadway - other 6.44 Miles $484094.31 $4034119.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,195 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-17 FROM N. OF 

BNSF RR @ MP 254.108 

TO MP 260.480 JUST N. 

OF MORMON HOLLOW 

RD

Roadway Roadway - other 6.475 Miles $300071.61 $4616486.25 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,784 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & SAF. SCORING 

SR-74 (US-278) FROM 

CHILCOAT RD TO JUST 

E. OF CR-3089

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3.22 Miles $3499.8 $1634294.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,230 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & SAF. SCORING 

SR-118 FROM E. OF 

RIPLEY LOOP TO JUST 

E. OF SARAGOSSA RD

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3.167 Miles $3029.33 $3838148.87 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,695 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & SAF. SCORING ON 

SR-171 FROM SR-118 

TO MP 64.10 S. OF 

PHILADELPHIA RD

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

3.86 Miles $7292.3 $2574271.74 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,150 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & SAF. SCORING ON 

SR-118 FROM THE 

LAMAR CO. LINE TO 

THE JUNCTION W/ SR171

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

2.56 Miles $6548.03 $1784921.55 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,875 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

RS & SAF. SCORING ON 

SR-18 FROM MP 25.110 

JUST W. OF CR-21 N. 

TO MP 29.240

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder

4.13 Miles $1749.9 $1486681.86 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,620 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. ON SR-21 

FROM SR-47 TO 0.88 MI 

S. OF CR-30

Roadway Roadway - other 3.282 Miles $199118.26 $1047990.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,160 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-13 (US-43) 

FROM S. OF CR-30 TO 

0.69 MI N. OF CR-47

Roadway Roadway - other 5.568 Miles $377098.61 $1714084.6 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,552 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

PRELIM. ENG. FOR THE 

2017 RD SAF. 

ASSESSMENTS TO 

REDUCE RDWY 

DEPARTURES ON 

VARIOUS ROUTES IN 

THE WCR

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 65 Locations $808000 $808000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot RSA Other

CLEARING FOR WCR 

RD SAF. ASSESSMENT 

SITES ON SR-5, SR-6, 

SR-7, SR-13, SR-19, SR28, SR-39, SR-69, SR171, SR-216, AND SR269

Noninfrastructure Road safety audits 11 RSA $2334874.0

7

$2334874.07 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Other

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-210 (ROSS 

CLARK CIRCLE) FROM 

INT. OF SR-1 (US-231) 

S. TO JUST S. OF 

FORTNER ST

Roadway Roadway - other 2.051 Miles $227314.73 $2273147.37 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther34,51

8

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

LEVELING, RS & 2' SAF. 

WIDENING ON SR-143 

FROM THE AUTAUGA 

CO. LINE TO SR-3 (US31)

Roadway Roadway - other 0.727 Miles $53732.22 $537322.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,693 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

OPERATIONAL & SAF. 

ANALYSIS STUDY ON 

SR-2 (US-72) FROM 

JUST W. OF SHIELDS 

RD TO E. OF BROCK RD

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

6.6 Miles $126250 $126250 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther27,26

9

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

STOP CONTROLLED 

INT. SAF. REVIEW (N. 

REGION)

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 34 Intersection

s

$42346.27 $42346.27 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

HSIP SAFETY TARGET 

SETTING TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $65402.56 $65402.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data Data Data

STOP CONTROLLED 

INT. SAF. REVIEW 

(ECR)

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 70 Intersection

s

$111517 $111517 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

INCORPORATE HPMS 

DATA INTO SAF. 

RESEARCH 

PROGRAMS

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $86445 $86445 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Data Data

ELMORE CO. SAF. 

PLAN & DEVELOPMENT 

OF A LOCAL RD SAF. 

PLAN GUIDANCE DOC.

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $194100 $194100 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A SAFETY 

PLAN

Other

EVAL. OF SAF. 

EFFECTS OF SIGHT 

DISTANCE 

RESTRICTIONS ON 

VERT. CURVES

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $137654 $137654 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

DEVELOPMENT OF 

GUIDELINES & 

TRAINING FOR 

PREVENTING WRONGWAY DRIVING

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $49371 $49371 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Data

INT. MOD. ON SR-3 (US31) @ SR-225 TO 

INSTALL OFF. LT TURN 

LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometry - other 1 Intersection

s

$87075.14 $87075.14 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 22,00

8

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

INT. RELOCATION & 

TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

INSTALL. ON SR-16 

(US-90) @ SR-59 IN 

LOXLEY

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$298888.89 $298888.89 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther24,68

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

RS & 2' SAF. WIDENING 

ON SR-5 FROM THE SR28 OVERPASS TO THE 

N. END OF 

CHILATCHEE CREEK 

BRIDGE INCLUDING 

RAMP TO SR-28

Roadway Roadway - other 4.511 Miles $293703.43 $1727667.23 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,624 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure

RS & 2' SAF. WIDEN ON 

SR-200 FROM SR-21 TO 

SR-74 (US-278)

Roadway Roadway - other 0.892 Miles $90056.85 $692744.97 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,250 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 48

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

ROUNDABOUT @ THE 

INT. OF SR-147 (N. 

COLLEGE ST) & CR-72 

(FARMVILLE RD)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$249430 $249430 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther9,965 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

INSTALL. OF TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL, RT TURN LN 

EXT., & 

ACCELERATION LN 

EXT. @ THE INT. OF SR3 (US-31) & OLIVE ST

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersection

s

$157722.95 $157722.95 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,75

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

WET PVMT ANALYSIS, 

PH. 2: TO DEVELOP & 

REFINE METHODS TO 

IDENTIFY & ANALYZE 

SITES W/ WET PVMT 

CRASHES

Noninfrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $181344 $181344 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data Data

INSTALL. OF TRAFFIC 

SIGNAL, RT TURN LN 

EXT., & 

ACCELERATION LN 

EXT. @ THE INT. OF SR3(US-31) & OLIVE ST

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifi

ed

1 Intersection

s

$20000 $20000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,17

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

SAF. IMPROVEMENTS 

ON SR-38 (US-280) 

FROM 0.46 MI W. OF 

OLD SYLACAUGA HWY 

TO 0.20 MI E. OF OLD 

BIRMINGHAM HWY

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

2.675 Miles $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther24,64

7

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Intersection

s

ACCELERATING SAF. 

ACTIVITIES PROGRAM 

(ASAP)

Roadway Pavement surface - high 

friction surface

1 Miles $38370.12 $38370.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Roadway 

Departure
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 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 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 862 899 865 852 820 849 1,088 948 954

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

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.340 1.380 1.330 1.310 1.250 1.240 1.600 1.380 1.350

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

0.000 0.000 14.250 13.170 12.140 13.020 12.000 10.640 11.080

Number nonmotorized fatalities68 89 86 64 103 105 127 121 115

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

0 0 331 322 264 274 258 249 231
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 48

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 48

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 48

At the time of this submittal, FARS has not reported it's data for 2018. The 2018 annual performance measure 

data was pulled from the state's Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE).

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

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

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 48

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
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 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

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 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:964.0
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 48

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

This performance target was developed through a trend line analysis of the 5-year moving average 

for fatalities, Alabama unemployment rate trend, and Alabama Gross Domestic Product (GDP) trend. 

This analysis determined the 5-year moving average plus a 1.7% increase associated with increasing 

GDP correlated with the currently observed trend of fatalities in Alabama. This target supports the 

SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, investment, and making decisions on allocating its 

resources to reduce long-term fatality trends.

Number of Serious Injuries:8143.0

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

This performance target was developed through a trend line analysis of the five-year moving average 

for serious injuries, Alabama unemployment rate trend, and Alabama Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

trend. This analysis determined the 5-year moving average plus a 1.7% increase associated with 

increasing GDP correlated with the currently observed trend of serious injuries in Alabama. This 

target supports the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, investment, and making decisions 

on allocating its resources to reduce long-term fatality trends.

Fatality Rate:1.350

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

This performance target was developed using the fatalities and an estimated 1% growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) from the previous year. The target represents the projected fatalities as a ratio 

to 100 million VMT. This target supports the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or direction, 

and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term fatality rate trends.

Serious Injury Rate:11.025

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

This performance target was developed using the fatalities and an estimated 1% growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) from the previous year. The target represents the projected serious injuries as a 

ratio to 100 million VMT. This target supports the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, 

investment, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term serious injury rate 

trends.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:384.0

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

This performance target was developed through a trend line analysis of the five-year moving average 

for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries, Alabama unemployment rate trend, and Alabama 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) trend. This analysis determined the non-motorized fatalities and 

serious injuries 5-year moving average plus a 1.7% increase associated with increasing GDP 

correlated with the currently observed trend of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. This 

target supports the SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, investment, and making decisions 

on allocating its resources to reduce long-term non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries trends.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 48

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 2018 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. 

For each of the five safety performance targets, Alabama has met all five targets for 2018. The following is a 

comparison of Alabama's 2018 targets and the actual 2018 numbers for the five safety performance targets 

respectively:

Number of Fatalities: 1010 ; 953

Number of Serious Injuries: 8369 ; 6990

Fatality Rate: 1.490 ; 1.316

Serious Injury Rate: 12.420 ; 9.654

Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries: 390 ; 346

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

89 109 111 71 109 94 192

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

652 650 595 629 576 609 571

We were unable to modify the columns to reflect 2018 data. The Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian 

Fatalities for 2018 is 240, and the Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Serious Injuries is 770.
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 48

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 2018

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 435 2,924 433 2,994.2

Intersections Intersections 341 3,201 265.6 3,258

Pedestrians All 106 186

Bicyclists All 9 45

Older Drivers All 134 584 104.8 588

Motorcyclists All 82 485

Work Zones All 34 151
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 48

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 954 6,990
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 48

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 48

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 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)

N/A
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 48

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. 

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

10 15

Route Number (8) 50 75

Route/Street Name 

(9)

95 85

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

80 45

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

50 50

Surface Type (23) 100 15

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

75 80

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

75 80

Segment Length 

(13)

75 80

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 50

Functional Class 

(19)

100 45

Median Type (54) 50 50

Access Control (22) 60 65
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 48

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

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

75 80

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

60 80

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 99 100 2

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

75 80

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

AADT Year (80)

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187)
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 48

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (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

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.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2020
2019 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 48

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

AL HSIP PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MANUAL.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Alabama 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 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.