U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Photo $Ource: Federal Highway Administration 

ALABAMA 

2018 ANNUAL REPORT 

Page 1 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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......................................................................................................................................... 25 

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 25 

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 27 

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 37 

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 37 

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 50 

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 52 

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 54 

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 54 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 54 

Year 2017.............................................................................................................................................................. 54 

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 59 

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 60 

Page 2 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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.” 

Page 3 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Executive Summary 

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) through the Design Bureau, Traffic Design 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 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 and will be 

completed in 2018. 

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. 

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

Page 4 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 and also in cases where a narrow median warranted the installation. The shoulder 

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

Page 5 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

4th conference scheduled for October, 2018. The Conference focuses on local safety issues and provided 

training on various roadway safety topics. 

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 local roads through a cooperative agreement between ALDOT and the Auburn 

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

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

ultimately reduce fatalities and serious injuries. It will be 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. 

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. 

Page 6 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 

Page 7 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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 three additional 

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

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

Annual Local Rural Road Safety Workshop and Conference is scheduled for October 2018. We have averaged 

125 participants per conference who have learned from various subject matter experts including the Road 

Page 8 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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, etc. The workshop and conference was very 

successful. 

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

are involved with HSIP planning. 

Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Design 

Planning 

Maintenance 

Districts/Regions 

Local Aid Programs Office/Division 

Other-ALDOT County Transportation 

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

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 also. To date, 

approximately 1/3 of the signalized intersections along the state-maintained system have been inventoried. 

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

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

County 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 County 

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

Page 9 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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. 

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. 

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Technical Assistance Program 

Academia/University 

FHWA 

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 

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

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 

Page 10 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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. 

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

period? 

No 

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

Yes 

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

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

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

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

resolution to roadway safety concerns. 

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

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

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

funds in a timely manner. 

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

manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner. 

Program Methodology 

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

and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

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

File Name: 

ALDOT HSIP Program Management Manual_02 03 16.pdf 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier 

Intersection 

Horizontal Curve 

Bicycle Safety 

Roadway Departure 

Page 11 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Pedestrian Safety 

Shoulder Improvement 

HRRR 

Wrong Way Driving 

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

Program: Bicycle Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Traffic All crashes Roadside features Volume 

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

Crash frequency 

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

Yes 

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

No 

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-Recently authorization project for Vulnerable Users Handbook 

Page 12 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement 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 

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? [Check all that apply] 

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

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? [Check all that apply] 

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 

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? 

Page 13 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 8/1/2005 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

Crash frequency 

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

Yes 

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

No 

Page 14 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

selection committee 

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

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

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

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

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2000 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic Functional classification 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Roadside features 

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

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 

Page 15 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-Safety and Operations Analysis 

Other-ALDOT Region selection of Candidates 

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? [Check all that apply] 

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Median width 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

Other-Use of HSM methodology 

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

Crash frequency 

Probability of specific crash types 

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

Page 16 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

No 

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

Yes 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-Crash Analysis 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding : 50 

Other-Projects are ranked by priority : 50 

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency 

Page 17 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Yes 

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

Yes 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

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 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? [Check all that apply] 

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

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? [Check all that apply] 

Crash frequency 

Page 18 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Yes 

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

Yes 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program 

Other-Crash Analysis, Road Safety Assessments, HSM Methodologies 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding : 50 

Cost Effectiveness : 50 

Total Relative Weight : 100 

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Page 19 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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? [Check all that apply] 

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 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-Crash Analysis, Road Safety Assessments, HSM Methodologies 

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Competes with all projects 

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

Page 20 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Traffic 

Volume 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

Roadside features 

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

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 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

Other-HRRRP 

Other-MUTCD REQUIREMENT 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding : 1 

Cost Effectiveness : 2 

Program: Wrong Way Driving 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2014 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

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

Page 21 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Competes with all projects 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Wrong Way Crashes Functional classification 

Other-Interchange Form 

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

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

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 

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

State roads are ineligible. 

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? 

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

apply. 

Page 22 of 65 

 50 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Cable Median Barriers 

Rumble Strips 

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing 

Upgrade Guard Rails 

Clear Zone Improvements 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment 

Wrong way driving treatments 

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

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

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment 

Crash data analysis 

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

Stakeholder input 

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No 

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

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 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 Office of Safety Operations. 

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. 

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

period? 

Page 23 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

No 

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

No 

Page 24 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Project Implementation 

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year 

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED 

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $36,728,000 $35,817,000 97.52% 

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) 

$101,393 $101,363 99.97% 

State and Local Funds $3,974,000 $3,865,000 97.26% 

Totals $40,803,393 $39,783,363 97.5% 

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

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% 

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

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

5% 

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

5% 

Page 25 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Traffic Safety & Operations Section has used HSIP funding for a number of non-infrastructure projects. TSOS 

works in conjunction with universities and consultants to update it's SHSP, target setting for HSIP, developing 

a Vulnerable Road Users Guide, and developing a County Safety Plan & Guidance Document for use by all 

Alabama Counties to name a few. 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$0 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$22,627,745 

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

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

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. 

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

No 

Page 26 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

General Listing of Projects 

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

WRONG-WAY 

DRIVING CRASHES 

PREDICTIVE MODELS 

AND 

COUNTERMEASURES 

EVALUATION FY-2017 

AND FY2018 

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $76475.34 $76475.34 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Data Data 

STATE SAFETY 

PERFORMANCE 

TARGET SETTING 

AND COORDINATION 

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $101460 $101460 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

N/A Data Data 

ALABAMA 

STRATEGIC 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

PLAN, 3RD EDITION 

FY 2017-2018 

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $300849 $300849 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

N/A Data Data 

SAFETY TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE FOR 

COUNTIES AND 

CITIES (STACC) 

PROGRAM 

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Data Data 

DEVELOPMENT OF 

USRAP (PHASE IV); 

COVERING THE 

STATE 

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic records $373301 $373301 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Data Data 

RESURFACING I-759 

FROM THE I-59 INT 

TO THE E. END OF 

COOSA RIVER 

BRIDGE 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.935 Miles $664483 $7360202.02 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

25,870 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INSTALL INT. MEDIAN 

SAF. GUIDERAIL ON I59 FROM SR-117 @ 

MP 231.40 TO THE GA 

STATE LINE @ MP 

241.20 

Roadside Barrier - cable 9.8 Miles $1106679.1 $1106679.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

14,170 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-53 FROM S. OF I565 TO S. OF INT. W/ 

MASTIN LAKE ROAD 

MP 318.7 TO MP. 

322.8 

Access 

management 

Access management - other 4.379 Miles $279472.21 $279472.21 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

30,010 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

RESURFACE & 2' 

SAF. WIDENING ON 

SR-3 (US-31) FROM 

INT. OF 7TH STREET 

SW TO THE 

CULLMAN CITY 

LIMITS 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.62 Miles $404423 $3110942.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

21,780 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 27 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

RESURFACE & 2' 

SAF. WIDENING ON 

SR-7(US-11) FROM N. 

BRIDGE END OVER I59 TO N. FORT 

PAYNE CITY LIMIT 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.44 Miles $134869 $1037454.42 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

2,540 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE & 2' 

SAF. WIDENING ON 

SR-74(US-278) FROM 

E. OF SR-69 INT. TO 

END C&G .25 M E. OF 

CR-747 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.1 Miles $153000 $2185709.87 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

11,840 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS AND 2' SAF. 

WIDENING ON SR-2 

(US-72) FROM INT. OF 

SR-1(US-231/431 

MEMORIAL PKWY) TO 

INT. OF I-565 

Roadway Roadway - other 1.52 Miles $132271 $734840.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

18,420 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

CORRIDOR STUDY 

SR-35 FROM JUST 

EAST OF I-59 (M.P. 

23.924) TO BURT HILL 

DRIVE 

Access 

management 

Access management - other 0.976 Miles $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

20,160 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORZ. CURVE 

ROADWAY SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 (NORTH 

REGION -

GUNTERSVILLE 

AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

717 Signs $474153 $474153 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

ADDITION OF LEFT 

TURN LANE ON SR-69 

AT CR-1545 (GOLD 

RIDGE ROAD) 

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment 

0.5 Miles $703280.28 $703280.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

10,260 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

INSTALL INT. MED. 

SAF. GUIDERAIL & 

REM. GR ON I-59 

FROM 1 MILE S. OF 

SR-211 TO SR-35 IN 

FT PAYNE 

Roadside Barrier - cable 31.745 Miles $1107236.81 $1107236.81 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

19,980 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INST. INT. MED. SAF. 

GUIDERAIL & REM. 

GR ON I-59 FROM SR35 IN FT PAYNE MP 

218.7 TO SR-117 MP 

231.4 

Roadside Barrier - cable 12.655 Miles $1675248.72 $1675248.72 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

19,130 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

ROADWAY SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM (NORTH 

REGION -

TUSCUMBIA AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

290 Signs $300847 $300847 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified 

0.5 Miles $500000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

11,050 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

Page 28 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

SR-160 AT THE I-65 

INTERCHANGE RAMP 

AND AT SR-3 (US-31) 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 (EAST 

CENTRAL REGION -

BIRMINGHAM AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

400 Signs $397557 $397557 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

I-59 INT. MED. XOVER PROTECTION, 

BRIDGE RAIL 

RETROFIT, GR & GR 

E.A. FROM SR-7 (US11) TO CR-10 

Roadside Barrier- metal 8.39 Miles $2084813.54 $2084813.54 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

65,490 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INT. IMPROVEMENTS 

ON SR-34 @ 

CROPWELL DRIVE & 

HARDWICK ROAD 

(CR-45), INCLUDING 

ROUNDABOUT CN IN 

PELL 

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified 

1 Intersections $62500 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

10,760 35 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

MED. X-OVER, GR & 

GR E.A. ON I-20 

FROM 0.448 M W. OF 

OPORTO-MADRID 

BLVD TO W. OF SR-4 

(US-78) 

Roadside Barrier - concrete 7.78 Miles $660534.44 $660534.44 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

73,050 60 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

I-459 INT. MED. XOVER PROTECTION, 

GR & GR E.A. FROM 

CHAPEL LANE TO SR38 (US-280) 

Roadside Barrier- metal 8.6 Miles $226304 $754347.23 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

122,260 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

BRIDGE RAIL 

RETROFIT, 

GUARDRAIL AND 

GUARDRAIL END 

ANCHORS ALONG I459 FROM ALTON DR 

TO I-59 

Roadside Barrier end treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals) 

0 End Anchors $303951 $892913.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

63,270 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-22 FROM SR-9 

TO WEST OF THE 

TALLAPOOSA 

COUNTY LINE MP 

109.732 

Roadway Roadway - other 5.64 Miles $625565 $3292447.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

3,360 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-21 FROM SR275 SOUTH MP 

227.953 TO SR-275 

NORTH MP 234.713 

Roadway Roadway - other 6.76 Miles $257837 $2864854.61 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

3,950 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 29 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

RS, STRIPE, & 2' SAF. 

WID. SR-9 FROM 

MAD INDIAN CREEK 

BRIDGE MP. 193.927 

TO CLEBURNE CO. 

MP. 203.16 

Roadway Roadway - other 9.241 Miles $573432 $2867162 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

3,230 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS, STRIPE, & 2' SAF. 

WID. SR-1(US-431) 

FROM N. OF 

WEDOWEE MP 

195.573 TO CR-29 MP 

203.849 

Roadway Roadway - other 8.276 Miles $535429 $3149581.93 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

5,000 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS, STRIPE, & 2' SAF. 

WID. SR-49 FROM N. 

END OF BRIDGE 

OVER 

SOUGAHATCHEE 

CREEKTO NORTH OF 

SR-50 

Roadway Roadway - other 6.024 Miles $391635 $2175748.25 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

4,210 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE, STRIPE 

AND 2' SAFETY 

WIDENING SR-50 

FROM SR-49 (MP 

10.955) TO SR-38 (US280) MP 22.280 

Roadway Roadway - other 11.325 Miles $709426 $3547130.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

1,700 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS, STRIPE & 2' SAF. 

WID. SR-15 (US-29) 

FROM LEE CO. LINE 

TO S. OF JUDGE 

BROWN ROAD 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.312 Miles $173477 $963763.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

6,500 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 (EAST 

CENTRAL REGION -

ALEX CITY AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

484 Signs $442443 $442443 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

PLANING, PATCHING, 

LEVELING, 

RESURFACING, AND 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-116 

FROM SR-17 TO SR39 

Roadway Roadway - other 9.482 Miles $1011393 $4214139.12 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

1,330 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. 

SR-3 (US-31) FROM 

JEMISON N. CITY 

LIMITS TO THE 

SHELBY CO. LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 6.335 Miles $198729 $2484110.84 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

6,170 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACING AND 

2FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-28 

FROM SR-17 (MP 

0.000) TO SR-7 (MP 

7.666) 

Roadway Roadway - other 7.666 Miles $723065 $3615325.6 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

4,800 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 30 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

RESURFACE AND 

2FT SAFETY 

WIDENING ON SR-14 

FROM GREENSBORO 

EAST CITY LIMITS TO 

THE PERRY COUNTY 

LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 6.505 Miles $1004724 $3864322.56 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

1,780 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 (WEST 

CENTRAL REGION -

TUSCALOOSA AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

313 Signs $378368 $378368 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

ROUNDABOUT 

CONSTRUCTION AT 

SR-5 AND CR-58 

INTERSECTION 

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified 

1 Intersections $266187.41 $266187.41 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

7,950 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

GUIDE RAIL ON I-85 

FROM EAST OF SR271 TO THE MACON 

COUNTY LINE 

Roadside Barrier - cable 6.5 Miles $81155.43 $81155.43 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

67,360 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

SCRUB SEAL, MICROSURFACING PVMT & 

2' SAF. WID. ON SR22 FROM JUNCTION 

OF CR-63 TO 

CHILTON CO. LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.413 Miles $481476 $2006151.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

3,170 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFTEY WIDENING 

ON SR-1 (US-431) 

FROM COLUMBUS 

PARKWAY TO THE 

CHAMBERS COUNTY 

LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 8.994 Miles $480553 $4004608.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

21,530 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFTEY WIDENING 

ON SR-14 FROM THE 

JUNCTION OF CR-21 

TO SR-6 (US-82) 

Roadway Roadway - other 9.496 Miles $623088 $3894301.2 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

8,500 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

I-85 AT EXIT 58 AND 

EXIT 60 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.5 Miles $151500 $151500 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

54,610 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Intersections Intersections 

RS, 2' SAF. WID. & 

BRIDGE RAIL 

RETROFIT ON SR-6 

(US-82) FROM E. OF 

SR-14 TO W. OF SR-3 

(US-31) 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.595 Miles $175478 $1595255.01 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

17,000 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I65 FROM THE 

CONECUH CL TO 0.5 

Roadside Barrier - cable 15.3 Miles $358091.05 $358091.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

38,320 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 31 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

MILE NORTH OF CR28 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFTEY WIDENING 

ON SR-14 FROM THE 

JUNCTION OF SR-41 

TO THE JUNCTION 

OF CR-21 

Roadway Roadway - other 23.959 Miles $389072 $3890718.27 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

21,170 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFTEY WIDENING 

ON SR-15 (US-29) 

FROM JUST WEST OF 

I-85 TO THE 

CHAMBERS COUNTY 

LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 8.629 Miles $392224 $2801601.1 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

5,770 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACE AND 2' 

SAFTEY WIDENING 

ON SR-51 FROM THE 

BARBOUR COUNTY 

LINE TO SR-6 (US-82) 

Roadway Roadway - other 5.75 Miles $420596 $2474094.41 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

910 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

TRAFFIC SIGNAL 

SAF. 

IMPROVEMENTS ON 

SR-8 FROM SR-219 

(LANDLINE RD) TO 

SR-41 (10 INT.) IN 

SELMA 

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS 

Advanced technology and ITS -

other 

10 Signal heads $100000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

23,980 40 State Highway 

Agency 

Spot Intersections Intersections 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 

(SOUTHEAST 

REGION -

MONTGOMERY 

AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

670 Signs $496885 $496885 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-245 FROM SR-10 

TO SR-185 AND RS 

SR-10 FROM W. OF S. 

COLLEGE ST TO 

BOLLING ST 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.586 Miles $242185 $2421846.31 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

11,730 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

ROAD SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT FOR I85 FROM MP 16.000 

TO MP 26.000 

10 Miles $59064.8 $59064.8 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

43,500 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

GUIDE RAIL ON I-85 

FROM EAST OF SR271 TO THE MACON 

COUNTY LINE 

Roadside Barrier - cable 6.5 Miles $791151.13 $791151.13 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

67,360 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

GUIDE RAIL 

INSTALLATION ON I65 FROM 0.5 MILE 

NORTH OF CR-28 TO 

CATOMA CREEK 

Roadside Barrier - cable 46.7 Miles $2935784.35 $2935784.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

70,250 60 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 32 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY WIDENING 

OF SR-131 FROM SR10 TO SOUTH OF CR53 AT TEXASVILLE 

Roadway Roadway - other 8.043 Miles $449600 $2248001.61 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

730 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-9 FROM 0.3 MI N. 

OF RODNEY J EVANS 

DR TO THE N. CITY 

LIMITS OF FLORALA 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.04 Miles $142554 $791963.91 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

2,980 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-1 (US-431) FROM 

S. OF SR-131 TO N. 

OF SR-6 (US-82) 

Roadway Roadway - other 5.467 Miles $34089 $34089 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

25,990 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-55 FROM SR15 (STANLEY 

AVENUE) TO THE 

BEGIN OF CURB AND 

GUT 

Roadway Roadway - other 2.065 Miles $188210 $784209.67 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

9,640 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-52 FROM E. OF 

CR-69 TO W. OF N. 

REX STREET IN 

SLOCOMB 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.738 Miles $312872 $1158784.57 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

5,710 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY WIDENING 

ON SR-27 FROM THE 

DALE COUNTY LINE 

TO SR- 1 (US-431) 

Roadway Roadway - other 9.69 Miles $590931 $2462212.21 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

2,370 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFETY WIDENING 

OF SR-189 FROM 

COFFEE COUNTY 

LINE TO SR-9 (US331) 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.37 Miles $368938 $1676990.46 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

970 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

ROADWAY SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 

(SOUTHEAST 

REGION - TROY 

AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

467 Signs $493115 $493115 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INTERSECTION 

IMPROVEMENTS 

(ROUNDABOUT) AT 

CAMPBELLTON 

HIGHWAY (CR-203) 

AND TAYLOR ROAD 

(CR-64) 

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified 

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

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

5,740 40 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-134 FROM OPP 

BYPASS SR-9 (USRoadway Roadway - other 12.306 Miles $1196638 $4602453.78 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

4,280 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 33 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

331) IN COVINGTON 

CO. TO SR-87 IN 

COFFEE CO. 

SCORING 2 FT 

PAVED SAFETY 

SHOULDER ON SR167 FROM THE 

FLORIDA STATE LINE 

TO SR-123 (M.P. 7) 

Roadway Rumble strips - edge or 

shoulder 

7 Miles $8832.26 $8832.26 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

3,470 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RESURFACING AND 

2' SAFTEY WIDENING 

OF SR-52 FROM 

GENEVA EAST CITY 

LIMITS TO 

INTERSECTION SR167 

Roadway Roadway - other 8.85 Miles $442101 $2456117.37 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

5,200 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING, 

RESURFACING SR-41 

FROM THE NORTH 

END OF GRAVEL 

CREEK BRIDGE TO 

SR-10 

Roadway Roadway - other 7.769 Miles $508012 $2116716.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

4,880 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2' SAF. WID. & RS ON 

SR-25 FROM 1.2 MI N. 

OF CR-32 TO S. OF 

THE RAIL ROAD 

TRACKS IN 

THOMASTON 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.905 Miles $796740 $2845499.65 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

1,350 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-69 FROM SR-10 

TO SOUTH OF SR-114 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.452 Miles $696346 $2901440.39 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

720 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2' SAF. WID. & RS SR21 FROM 0.08 MI S. 

OF OVERPASS 

BRIDGE IN TUNNEL 

SPRINGS TO 0.67 MI 

S. OF SR-265 

Roadway Roadway - other 6.298 Miles $482439 $1855536.35 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

2,590 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-47 FROM 0.364 

MILE NORTH OF SR83 TO SR-10 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.459 Miles $614576 $2194914.82 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

380 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

LIGHTING SR-8(US80) AT SR-25 

Lighting Continuous roadway lighting 17 Lighting $312892.97 $312892.97 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

4,970 65 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 

(SOUTHWEST 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

517 Signs $360342 $360342 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 34 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

REGION - GROVE 

HILL AREA) 

2' SAF. WID. 

(PARTIAL) & RS ON 

SR-21 EAST OF CR-59 

TO 1.1 MILES EAST 

OF WOLF CREEK 

BRIDGE 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.051 Miles $113023 $1027484.28 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

1,020 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

2 FT SAFETY 

WIDENING AND 

RESURFACING ON 

SR-265 FROM SR-21 

TO WILCOX COUNTY 

LINE 

Roadway Roadway - other 7.925 Miles $475639 $1902554.96 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

1,250 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INSTALL INTERSTATE 

MEDIAN CABLE 

BARRIER FROM MP 

75.5 TO MP 105.5 IN 

CONECUH COUNTY 

Roadside Barrier - cable 30 Miles $60000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

25,060 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

ROADWAY SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

201/2018 

(SOUTHWEST 

REGION - MOBILE 

AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

489 Signs $344658 $344658 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

I-65 INSTALL 

INTERSTATE MEDIAN 

CABLE BARRIER 

FROM SR-59 MP 33.7 

TO RAILROAD 

BRIDGE MP 75.5 

Roadside Barrier - cable 41.8 Miles $197007 $250000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

31,240 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INSTALL INTERSTATE 

MEDIAN CABLE 

BARRIER ON I-10 

FROM SR-181 TO 

PERDIDO RIVER 

BRIDGE 

Roadside Barrier - cable 27.6 Miles $30000 $30000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

50,870 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

INSTALL INT. MED. 

CABLE BARRIER ON 

I-65 FROM MP 13.0 

(SR-158) TO MP 16.9 

(N. OF CR-41) IN 

MOBILE CO. 

Roadside Barrier - cable 3.9 Miles $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Interstate 

70,360 70 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS SR-159 FROM MP 

12.900 AT RAYMOND 

ROBERTSON ROAD 

TO FAYETTE 

COUNTY LINE AT MP 

17.378 

Roadway 4.478 Miles $618921 $2578835.95 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

530 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. ON 

SR-17 FROM N. OF 

MCCAA BOTTOM RD 

@ MP 185.890 TO S. 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.94 Miles $264376 $2403414.95 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

4,870 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

Page 35 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP 

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY 

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($) 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($) 

FUNDING 

CATEGORY 

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION 

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION 

EMPHASIS 

AREA 

STRATEGY 

OF MURPHY AVE @ 

MP 190.830 

RS & 2'SAF. WID. SR18 FROM LAMAR CR49 @ MP 16.304 TO 

THE FAYETTE CO. 

LINE AT MP 19.528 

Roadway Roadway - other 3.22 Miles $183697 $2296208 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

1,610 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & SCORE EXIST. 

SHLDS ON SR-74(US278) FROM MP 34.832 

E. OF CR-20 TO W. 

OF CHILCOAT RD @ 

MP 40.464 

Roadway Pavement surface -

miscellaneous 

5.63 Miles $7992 $1598415.05 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) -

Other 

2,650 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. SR124 FROM MP 0.000 

@ SR-118 (US-78) TO 

MP 10.896 @ THE 

INT. WITH SR-69 

Roadway Roadway - other 10.896 Miles $42232 $1407744.31 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

2,100 50 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

HORZ. CURVE RDWY 

SIGNING 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM FY 

2017/2018 (WEST 

CENTRAL REGION -

FAYETTE AREA) 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers 

851 Signs $406632 $406632 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

All Types 0 0 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. SR171 FROM N. OF INT. 

W/ SR-159 @ MP 

34.501 TO MP 41.59 N. 

OF THE JNCT W/ SR102 

Roadway Roadway - other 7.09 Miles $65771 $6577126.89 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Minor 

Arterial 

14,100 45 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. SR18 (US-43) FROM MP 

42.10 @ INT. SR-13 

TO W. OF CR-125 @ 

MP 49.200 

Roadway Roadway - other 7.1 Miles $558906 $4657551.94 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

3,100 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

RS & 2' SAF. WID. SR18 FROM LAMAR CO. 

LINE @ MP 19.530 TO 

W. OF SR-107 @ MP 

24.046 

Roadway Roadway - other 4.78 Miles $484839 $2851991.91 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148) 

Rural Major 

Collector 

2,210 55 State Highway 

Agency 

Systemic Roadway 

Departure 

Roadway 

Departure 

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

Page 36 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Safety Performance 

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Fatalities 848 862 899 865 852 820 849 1,088 948 

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

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.380 1.340 1.380 1.330 1.310 1.250 1.240 1.600 1.380 

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT) 

0.000 0.000 0.000 14.250 13.170 12.140 13.020 12.000 10.640 

Number non-motorized 

fatalities 

71 68 89 86 64 103 105 127 121 

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries 

0 0 0 331 322 264 274 258 249 

Page 37 of 65 
- /_ - ~ 

-+-

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

-+-

-

10000 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

-

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Annual Fatalities 

Annual Serious Injuries 

Page 38 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 

1.8 

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 

Page 39 of 65 
-+-

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg. 

-

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

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

At the time of this submittal, FARS has not reported it's data for 2017. ALDOT has entered its performance 

measure data which was pulled from the state's Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) for 2017. 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS 

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

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

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 

Page 40 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 Minor Collector 

Rural Major Collector 

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 

Page 41 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 of 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 

Page 42 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

RPA - Interstate 

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

Fatalities 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 43 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

RPA - Interstate 

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

Serious Injuries 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 44 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

RPA - Interstate 

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

Fatality Rate 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 45 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

RPA - Interstate 

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

Serious Injury Rate 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average 

Page 46 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

State Highway Agency 

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

Fatalities 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average 

Page 47 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

State Highway Agency 

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

Serious Injuries 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average 

Page 48 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

State Highway Agency 

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

Fatality Rate 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average 

Page 49 of 65 
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Serious Injury Rate 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

State Highway Agency 

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

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average 

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

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

crash database (CARE) structure. Due to personnel turnover, it is unknown how the previous numbers were 

derived. We further question the accuracy of the previous values provided and are working to resolve the issue 

for future report submittals. As the CARE database is improved, the ability to summarize crashes by functional 

class may be accessible in future years. 

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

elaborate? 

No 

Safety Performance Targets 

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 932.0 

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 

Page 50 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

moving average for fatalities, Alabama unemployment rate trend, and Alabama Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) trend. This analysis determined the fatality trend line plus a 

1.7% increase associated with GDP correlated with the currently observed trends of 

fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized crashes. 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 trends. 

Number of Serious Injuries 8469.0 

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 fatality trend line 

plus a 1.7% increase associated with GDP correlated with the currently observed 

trends of fatal, serious injury, and non-motorized crashes. This target supports the 

SHSP by helping Alabama focus its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on 

allocating its resources to reduce long-term serious injury trends. 

Fatality Rate 1.330 

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

This performance target was developed using the fatality trend line plus a 1.7% 

increase associated with GDP and an estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth 

of 1%. 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 12.080 

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

This performance target was developed using the serious injuries trend line plus a 

1.7% increase associated with GDP and an estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

growth of 1%. 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, or 

direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to reduce long-term serious 

injury rate trends. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 394.0 Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

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 trend line plus a 

1.7% increase associated with GDP correlated with the currently observed trends of 

Page 51 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. This target supports the SHSP by helping 

Alabama focus its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its 

resources to reduce long-term non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries trends. 

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

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

targets. 

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

MPOs have been involved through training and workshops. Additionally, ALDOT staff has attended some MPO 

meetings with others to follow. Final targets will be sent to the MPOs, to include, estimates of what their targets 

would be, if they chose to develop their own set of safety performance targets. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No 

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

Applicability of Special Rules 

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

No 

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

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

older for the past seven years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 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 

Page 52 of 65 
- - - - - - - -

- -

- -

■ ■ 

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year. 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Years 

Fatalities Serious Injuries 

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

Page 53 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

Benefit/Cost Ratio 

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

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

level evaluations. 

Following a 2016 spike in fatalities, this reporting year has shown a downward trend. Alabama Traffic Safety & 

Operations 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 of 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 

More systemic programs 

# RSAs completed 

Policy change 

Organizational change 

Increased focus on local road safety 

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

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

No 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2017 

Page 54 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 483 3,119 419 3,038 

Intersections Intersections 235 3,192 242 3,368 

Pedestrians All 113 197 

Bicyclists All 6 48 

Older Drivers All 79 374 96 610 

Motorcyclists All 79 447 

Work Zones All 30 110 

Data All 948 7,480 

Page 55 of 65 
~ 

~ - '- I-

'- II ~ - '- I-

,......J 

t- '- I-

___....r t- Fl '- I-

- - ~ - I I 1111 ■ -

f..e, ~" ~" -~" f..' -~" e,'> ~7, 

(:-,.::;. ~o :J'~ ?J- -~e ?J- "vo<::- <::? ~ f..'- e,v oe," .6, f..<:;j f..6- <:)e,~ f..' ~,,;: ~o ~ ~e ~e &oe ~o 

~7,~ ,~ ~o 

i> 

~o 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Fatalities 

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

n 

~ -

- II- In..J7_ IL t- t-- I- I-

-

I I I I I --I -7 7 I 

f..e, ~" ~" -~" f..' -~" e,'> ~7, 

(:-,.::;. ~o ,J~ ?J- -~e ?J- "vo<::- <:)~ 

~ f..'- e,v oe," .6, f..<:;j f..6- <:)e,~ ~" ~,,;: ~o ~ ~e ~e &oe ~o 

~7,~ ,~ ~o 

i> 

~o 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Serious Injuries 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

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

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average 

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average 

Page 56 of 65 
f..e, f::-" f::-" -~" f.." -~" e" '!,,,~ 

{:--..;:j. ~o .J~ cf- ·4.e, cf- "vo<::- <::? f.."- '.b e,c; ·~:f" -~ f..<::i f..~ <:)e,~ f...' <o-..: "t,.o ~ "t,.e, ~e, &~f ~o ~~~ '(:' ~o 

i> 

~o 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Fatality Rate 

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

-

I I I I I I 7 7 I 

f..e, f::-" f::-" -~" f.." -~" e" '!,,,~ 

{:--..;:j. ~o .J'~ cf- ·4.e, cf- "vo<::- <:)~ f.."- '.b e,c; -oe" -~ f,.<::i f,.~ <:)e,~ f...' <o-..: "t,.o ~ '!,,,e, ~e, &"oe, ~o ~~~ '(:' ~o 

~"?5 

~o 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Serious Injury Rate 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

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

2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average 

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average 

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

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

No 

Page 57 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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

Page 58 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 

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

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

No 

Page 59 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

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 

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) 

ROADWAY SEGMENT 

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

Segment Identifier (12) 10 15 0 0 0 0 

Route Number (8) 50 75 

Route/Street Name (9) 95 85 

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21) 

80 45 

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20) 

50 50 0 0 

Surface Type (23) 100 15 0 0 

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10) 

75 80 0 0 0 0 

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) 

75 80 0 0 0 0 

Segment Length (13) 75 80 

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 50 

Functional Class (19) 100 45 0 0 0 0 

Median Type (54) 50 50 

Access Control (22) 60 65 

Page 60 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS 

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

One/Two Way Operations 

(91) 

75 80 

Number of Through Lanes 

(31) 

60 80 0 0 

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79) 

100 99 100 2 

AADT Year (80) 100 100 

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4) 

INTERSECTION 

75 80 0 0 0 0 

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120) 

0 0 

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122) 

0 0 

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123) 

0 0 

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

0 0 

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

0 0 

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79) 

0 0 

AADT Year (80) 0 0 

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) 

0 0 

INTERCHANGE/RAMP 

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) 

0 0 

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197) 

0 0 

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) 

0 0 

Ramp Length (187) 0 0 

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) 

0 0 

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199) 

0 0 

Page 61 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - SEGMENT 

STATE NON-STATE 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - INTERSECTION 

STATE NON-STATE 

NON LOCAL PAVED 

ROADS - RAMPS 

STATE NON-STATE 

LOCAL PAVED ROADS 

STATE NON-STATE 

UNPAVED ROADS 

STATE NON-STATE 

Interchange Type (182) 0 0 

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100 

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100 

Functional Class (19) 0 0 

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4) 

0 0 

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 

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

The Alabama Department of Transportation is in the process of collecting the MIRE fundamental data elements for all National Highway System (NHS) routes in our state, but this data is incomplete at this time. The department has not 

committed to any future projects that would collect this data on any non NHS routes. 

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 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, MIRE committee members are active 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 recent product of 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’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. 

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

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

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes 

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury No See below. Yes See below. Yes 

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury No N/A Yes N/A Yes 

Crash Database Data Dictionary Incapacitating Injury No See below. Yes See below. Yes 

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

The University of Alabama Center for Advanced Public Safety (CAPS) maintains our Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) or crash database. CAPS has been working with the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) to 

get the revised serious injury definition out to State Patrol. CAPS is also working through the Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs (ADECA) Community Traffic Safety Coordinators (CTSPs) to get the same 

Page 62 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

information out to local agencies. FHWA and NHTSA have posted the definitions or requirements needed to identify suspected serious injuries. Serious Injury Tip Cards are available here: 

https://www.transportation.gov/government/traffic-records/serious-injury-reporting-tip-cards 

The Serious Injury code update will be in place by January 1, 2019. 

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

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

Yes 

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment. 

The scope of this review included an evaluation of the ALDOT HSIP Guidance Manual as well as a review of the HSIP program in each Region. The FHWA Alabama Division Office Safety Engineer reviewed the ALDOT HSIP Guidance 

Manual and came to the following conclusions: 

HSIP Guidance Manual Review: 

1.) The HSIP Guidance Manual is outdated and should be revised. 

2.) The internal ALDOT guideline includes the existing HSIP application process, as well as an abbreviated HSIP application process for select systemic safety countermeasures including splitter islands, bypass lanes at t-intersections, 

smart channels, road diets, flashing yellow arrows, active detection dilemma zone system and high friction surface treatments (HFST). The abbreviated application should speed up the HSIP process and expand the use of HSIP funds. 

3.) The external HSIP Application guideline requires the full HSIP application process. 

HSIP Program review in ALDOT Regions: 

1.) The review team developed and distributed a brief questionnaire to the Regions regarding the ALDOT HSIP Guidance Manual and HSIP implementation at the Region level. 

2.) The questionnaire was distributed electronically to the five ALDOT Region Pre-Construction Engineers. 

3.) the questionnaire included five multiple part questions regarding the use and familiarity of the Region Pre-Construction Sections with the ALDOT HSIP Guidance Manual. 

4.) The questionnaires were reviewed and then a meeting was held with each Region to discuss how to better implement the HSIP at the Region level. 

Page 63 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Optional Attachments 

Program Structure: 

ALDOT HSIP Program Management Manual_02 03 16.pdf 

Project Implementation: 

Q29 PROJECT TEMPLATE FY 2017_complete.xlsm 

Safety Performance: 

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment: 

Page 64 of 65 
2018 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Glossary 

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

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. 

Older driver special

rule 

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. 

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. 

Transfer 

Page 65 of 65