Alabama

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2013 Annual Report

Prepared by: AL
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology..............................................................................................................................7

Progress in Implementing Projects.............................................................................................................35

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 35

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 38

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Overview of General Safety Trends....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Application of Special Rules................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

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

SHSP Emphasis Areas............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Groups of similar project types.............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Systemic Treatments ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Glossary.....................................................................................................................................................101
iv
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

1

Executive Summary

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) through the Bureau of Transportation 

Planning and Modal Programs, Office of Safety Operations (OSO) is responsible for the 

administration of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP projects are 

consistent with the updated Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2nd Edition. The 

goal of Alabama’s SHSP is the “Toward Zero Deaths” initiative. This initiative has a goal of 

reducing fatalities by 50% within a 20-year time period. The SHSP has five focus areas: Driver 

Behavior, Infrastructure Countermeasures, Legislative Initiatives, Traffic Safety Information 

Systems and Safety Stakeholders Community. Alabama’s HSIP projects have focused on the 

areas of Infrastructure Countermeasures (construction), Driver Behavior (safety outreach 

campaigns), and Traffic Safety Information Systems (crash analysis). The Infrastructure 

Countermeasures Component of SHSP is administered through the OSO while the Safety 

Outreach and Crash Analysis components of SHSP is the responsibility of the Safety 

Management Section (SMS) in Bureau of Transportation Planning and Modal Programs. 

Infrastructure Countermeasure HSIP projects are developed through a safety and operational 

analysis using crash data statistics, crash patterns, and benefit-cost engineering analysis. The 

projects have been more systemic in recent years directed toward specific needs identified 

through analysis such as Shoulder Widening Program, Interstate Median Barrier, and Horizontal 

Curve Signing. OSO collaborates with University Research Centers to develop data and analysis 

tools such as Roadway Improvement Safety Evaluation (RISE) and ALSAFE. RISE is a dashboard 

based tool that will provide ALDOT Division personnel with a method for selection of safety 

projects that will be cost effective. This tool will integrate safety needs into on-going 

maintenance projects. ALSAFE is a statewide planning level safety software tool which will aid 

ALDOT and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). 

The University Transportation Center for Alabama (UTCA) has a project underway to develop 

Safety Performance Factors (SPF) for state routes segments and intersections. The SPFs will be 

specific for Alabama by applying Highway Safety Manual (HSM).By using these tools, the project 

selection and evaluation process will be enhanced.

Safety Outreach initiatives through SMS are coordinated with the ALDOT's Media and 

Community Relations Bureau. Safety Campaigns such as “Click or Ticket it” and “Work Zone 

Safety” are handled through this Bureau.
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

Local roads safety and enforcement programs are included in the HSIP. Local roads safety has 

been emphasized through the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). The HRRRP projects has 

focused on upgrading signing for county roads and providing guardrail and safety end 

treatments for existing bridges. Local agencies and law enforcement representations 

participate on HSIP program development committees such as Road Safety Assessments 

(RSA). Also, the HSIP and Safety Operations manual is currently being update for use by local 

agencies and Division Personnel to aid in developing projects and applying for HSIP funds.

Crash data is maintained and accessed through the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment 

(CARE) maintained by the University Transportation Center for Alabama (UTCA). This data is 

critical in the development of HSIP. 

Utilizing the output safety analysis projects and studies underway will improve the ability of the 

state and local agencies to analyze and prioritize safety needs and projects in a more efficient 

manner.
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

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

Local Roads are address through HSIP by using crash analysis and safety and operations 

analysis. 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 crash 

data analysis as well as benefit to cost analysis. As this process continues, there is more focus 

on the system wide or corridor approach rather than isolated or hotspot locations. ALDOT is 

currently developing a HSIP/Safety Operations Manual for project selection. This manual will 

provide aid for both local agencies and local ALDOT Division/District Personnel that focus on the 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

eligibility and funding requirements for HSIP projects. Training and workshops will provided for 

those responsible for HSIP Program implementation.

The HRRRP addressed local county roads safety needs. HRRRP funds have been used to 

upgrade traffic striping, signage, bridge end safety treatments, as well as other low cost safety 

improvements. The projects were selected through an application process with a committee 

composed of FHWA, ALDOT, and local government representatives. 

Alabama is proactive in the development of safety tools such as RISE, usRAP and the use of the 

HSM that will assist in the analysis process of local roads. These projects and studies are being 

conducted by various universities and consultants. ALDOT is currently developing a Road Safety 

Assessments (RSAs) program. RSA is a formal safety performance examination of existing and 

proposed roadways by an independent and multi-disciplinary team. This program will be 

applicable to both state and local government projects.

SMS provides cities, counties and other municipalities with yearly crash data summaries, high 

crash information locations, individual crash reports, and other crash-related information as 

needed. This crash data provides information to help in 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. This provides an analytical 

process to assess crash data for trends and use as needed. CARE training is held several times 

per year.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: Other-ALDOT County Transportation

Other: Other-ALDOT Computer Services

Other: Other-ALDOT-Maintenance Bureau
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

OSO coordinates the HSIP program with internal bureaus and sections within the Department 

to the extent possible. HSIP projects are consistent with the SHSP. 

A safety program was developed between the OSO 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. The program works in conjunction 

with the state’s resurfacing program and provides two (2’) feet 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 OSO in the identification of 

state routes that are being widened and provides input for preparation of the HSIP Report.

ALDOT's Maintenance Bureau is tasked with a program to upgrade signage to meet the current 

MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). OSO is collaborating by identifying high 

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

implement for this program.

Similar partnerships were developed between the ALDOT's County Transportation Bureau and 

SMS/OSO to implement the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). Since the beginning of the 

HRRRP, this partnership was essential in the development and implementation of the program. 

Areas of involvement range from the providing county engineers with crash data and analysis, 

to application development, review, and project selection. This "hands on" approach has been 

successful in addressing Alabama's local roads safety needs. SMS provides crash data for 

interdepartmental use, including Division Offices as well as, Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations, Cities, and Counties and others as needed.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Other: Other-County and Local Govt

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Health

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Public Safety

Other: Other-Ala Dept of Education

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

the last reporting period.

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Other-Implementing HSIP/Safety Operations Manual

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

would like to elaborate.

The Office of Safety Operations’ vision is to develop and provide tools, processes, and guidance 

necessary to reduce the number and severity of crashes along the public road system of 

Alabama. OSO provides infrastructure road safety initiatives and strategies and provides rapid 

review, response, and resolution to roadway safety concerns. 

OSO administers the HSIP program by developing innovative and progressive sub-programs 

consistent with the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The sub-programs 

are planned by fiscal year with available HSIP funding. OSO works closely with the FHWA

Division Office Safety personnel to expedite funds in a timely manner. 

By taking a pro-active approach in administration and planning for HSIP projects and with 

upper management support, OSO manages HSIP funds in a more progressive manner. 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash Shoulder Improvement Segments

Other: 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/29/2003

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Use of HSM 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

methodology

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Projects are ranked by priority 50

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2000

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Division 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Horizontal Curve

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Methodology being developed 100
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-No of lanes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Program is being developed

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1996

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Use of the CARE system

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Data Available Statewide 100

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Existing Shoulder if 

applicable

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-In conjunction with Resurfacing Maintenance Program

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/1993

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 50

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness

Program: Sign Replacement And Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-HRRRP
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Local Safety

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/2/2006

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 1

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/3/1993

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other-Division 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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 50

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 50

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

85
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

33

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

improvments?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

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

Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal Other Other-Horizontal Curve Signing and 

Marking Program

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 

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

last reporting period.
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

34

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

The Office of Safety Operations' methodology for development of the HSIP Programs is directly 

related to the correlation with the goals and elements in the Alabama Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan. Program elements are focused toward reducing the number of fatalities and severe 

injuries in Alabama. A sample list of projects that are currently underway are as follows:

• 2' Shoulder Widening Program on the State Highway System

• Interstate Median Barrier Program

• Roadway Safety Assessments/Audits (RSA) Manual

• Traffic Signal Inventory

• Speed Management Program Evaluation

• Roundabout Manual and Conceptual Design on Three State Routes Intersections

• Roadway Improvement Safety Evaluation (RISE) Program with site 

identification(pending)

• First Responders related to EMS

• Integrating Safety and Operations into ALDOT processes

• ALSAFE (Alabama Planning Level Safety Tool)

• usRAP(Road Assessment Program)

• Work Zone Mobility and Safety Assessment

• Wet-Weather Safety Analysis and Site Identification Methodology

• Horizontal Curve Resigning Program (with ALDOT Maintenance Bureau)

• Implementing Highway Safety Manual Procedures into overall program analysis
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

A table is attached detailing additional safety programs administered by ALDOT.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 12245316 19 % 23091700 16 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0 % 1388102 1 %

HRRR Special Rule

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

50619167 81 % 116305902 83 %
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

State and Local Funds

Totals 62864483 100% 140785704 100%

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

5 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

5 %

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

3 %

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

3 %

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

period?
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

37

0 %

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

period? 

10 %

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

overcome this in the future.

None

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

None
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement Category Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Fundin

g 

Categor

y

Functiona

l 

Classificat

ion

AAD

T

Spee

d

Roadwa

y 

Owners

hip

Relationship to 

SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strate

gy

SR-68 FROM 

MP 47.2 TO 

52.926, 

CHEROKEE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 30693

8

180552

0

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

139

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-1(US 431) 

FROM MP 

337.49 TO 

341.19, 

MADISON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 42137

7

149397

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

282

02

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-1(US 72) 

FROM MP 

86.042 TO 

89.51, 

MADISON 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 10339

8

172330

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

325

73

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

COUNTY STP, 

NHPP)

SR-3(US 31) 

FROM MP 

320.73 TO 

325.43, 

CULLMAN 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 38464

8

356155

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

150

36

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-25(US-411) 

FROM MP 

174.33 TO 

183.89, ST. 

CLAIR 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

59431

8

349599

1

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

942

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-2(US-72) 

FROM MP 

59.957 TO 

72.234, 

LIMESTONE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

13 

Miles

81364

4

753373

7

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

114

58

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-67 FROM 

MP 35.57 TO 

38.982, 

MORGAN 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 30274

9

200495

9

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

Multiple 

Class

274

20

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

COUNTY (i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

roadway

SR-5(US-11) 

FROM MP 124 

TO 129.32, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 10448

2

261603

9

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

213

48

40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-3(US-31) 

FROM MP 

294.17 TO 

298.79, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 27549

2

183661

1

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

112

30

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-18 FROM 

MP 52.49 TO 

61.59 AND SR69 FROM MP 

188.348 TO 

189.445, 

WALKER 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

49048

5

233356

43

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

124

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-75 FROM 

MP 1.93 TO 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

3 Miles 13344 190632 Other 

Federal

Urban 

Principal 

301 45 State 

Highway 

Keeping 

vehicles in 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

4.93, 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY

or other 3 5 -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Arterial -

Other

60 Agency the 

roadway

SR-119 FROM 

27.975 TO 

31.753, 

SHELBY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 18170

5

151421

0

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

172

25

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

CR39(NUCKOLS 

ROAD), 

RUSSELL 

COUNTY

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

0 Miles 25652 25652 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

SR-22 FROM 

MP 95.972 TO 

104.05, 

COOSA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 41184

9

411849

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

157

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-14 FROM 

MP 208.147 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

10 12345 561157 Other 

Federal

Multiple 674 55 State 

Highway 

Keeping 

vehicles in 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

TO 218.29, 

LEE COUNTY

or other Miles 46 3 -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Classes 5 Agency the 

roadway

SR-77 FROM 

MP 43.88 TO 

51.523, CLAY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 48108

1

320720

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

245

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-183 FROM 

MP 0 TO 

16.038, PERRY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

16 

Miles

54566

6

320980

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

107

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-14 FROM 

MP 9.2 TO 

19.261, 

PICKENS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

62027

3

413515

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

269

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

43

SR-171 FROM 

MP 13.6 TO 

23.631, 

TUSCALOOSA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

10 

Miles

95490

1

353557

0

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

242

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-191 FROM 

MP 6 TO 14, 

CHILTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 75675

4

378376

8

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

273

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-6(US-82) 

FROM MP 

98.874 TO 

107.197, 

Chilton 

County

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 33957

9

212236

7

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

299

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-69(US-82) 

AT CR65(BEAR 

CREEK RD), 

TUSCALOOSA 

COUNTY

Intersection geometry 

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane

1 

Numb

ers

60737

7

607377 HSIP

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

297

50

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

44

SR-216 AT CR60(ROCKHOU

SE 

RD/WOODLA

ND LAKE), 

TUSCALOOSA 

COUNTY

Intersection geometry 

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/uns

pecified

1

Numb

ers

56774

5

567745 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

735

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Increasing 

driver 

safety 

awareness

SR-138 FROM 

MP 0 TO 

0.724, 

MACON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

1 

Numb

ers

17913

4

559795 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

930

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-94 FROM 

0.50 TO 6, 

MONTGOMER

Y COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 68315

0

284645

8

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

104

3

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-8 FROM 

MP 87.876 TO 

94.189, 

DALLAS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 12949

99

129499

9

HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Classes

930

9

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

45

SR-8(US-80) 

FROM MP 

95.06 TO 

99.26, DALLAS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

4 Miles 95795

0

399145

7

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

829

3

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-14 FROM 

MP 108.171 

TO 114.198, 

DALLAS 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 78647

5

262158

4

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Multiple 

Classes

270

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-6 (US-82) 

FROM MP 

199.75 TO 

205.90, 

BULLOCK 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 10205

71

566983

9

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

208

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-10 FROM 

MP 193.735 

TO 201.421, 

BARBOUR 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 70855

5

308067

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

Rural 

Minor 

Arterial

208

2

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

NHPP)

SR-192 FROM 

MP 1.966 TO 

6.662, COFFEE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 14013

5

233355

85

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

953

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-1(US 431) 

FROM MP 67 

TO 72, 

BARBOUR 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

5 Miles 80849

5

475585

1

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

214

73

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-134 FROM 

MP 62.125 TO 

68.281, 

HENRY 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 61368

0

278945

3

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

207

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Installation of 

rumble strips 

along existing 

paved 

shoulders on 

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

0 

Numb

ers

30437

4

304374 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Multiple 

Classes

0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

various roads 

in 7th Division

SR-103 FROM 

MP 9.011 TO 

15.293, 

GENEVA 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

6 Miles 58900

3

226539

5

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

140

1

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMEN

T AT BRIDGE 

ENDS ON CR66 OVER 

PATSALIGA 

RIVER, 

CRENSHAW 

COUNTY

Roadside Barrier end 

treatments (crash 

cushions, terminals)

1 

Numb

ers

35998 35998 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 55 County 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

SR-15 FROM 

105.628 TO 

113.12, PIKE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

8 Miles 59810

6

299053

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

265

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-123 FROM 

MP 3.645 TO 

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

6 Miles 52910 195963 Other 

Federal

Rural 

Major 

250 55 State 

Highway 

Keeping 

vehicles in 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

9.455, 

GENEVA 

COUNTY

or other 2 8 -aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Collector 6 Agency the 

roadway

SR-103 FROM 

MP 15.293 TO 

17.463, 

HOUSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

2 Miles 12021

8

801451 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

970 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-123 FROM 

MP 9.455 TO 

12.854, 

HOUSTON 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 29889

4

124539

3

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

278

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-25 FROM 

MP 30.354 TO 

37, MARENGO 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

7 Miles 48333

9

210147

2

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

138

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

SR-25 FROM 

MP 21.02 TO 

30.354, 

MARENGO 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 49315

7

246578

7

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

172

7

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-13(US-43) 

FROM MP 

115.30 TO 

118.16, 

MARENGO 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

3 Miles 14311

0

914625 Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

320

5

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-7(US 11 

)FROM MP 0 

TO 9, SUMTER 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

9 Miles 12556

1

251622

6

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

Rural 

Major 

Collector

316

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-42 (US-98) 

FROM MP 

36.109 TO 

36.776, 

BALDWIN 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

1 Miles 11039

3

110393 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

255

00

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

Expresswa

ys

SR-188 FROM 

MP 8.67 TO 

19.687, 

MOBILE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

11 

Miles

18366

7

282565

0

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

306

6

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

SR-193 FROM 

MP 3.97 TO 

17.803, 

MOBILE 

COUNTY

Shoulder treatments 

Widen shoulder - paved 

or other

14 

Miles

18366

7

264198

3

Other 

Federal

-aid 

Funds 

(i.e. 

STP, 

NHPP)

MULTIPLE 

CLASSES

586

8

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway

Traffic Signal 

Inventory and 

Safety 

Analysis--Pilot 

Project

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

15576

2

155762 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Not 

Applicable

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

manageme

nt systems

First 

Reponder 

Solution 

Technique 

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

14787

6

147876 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Not 

Applicable

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

System 

Development 

(FIRST)

and safety 

manageme

nt systems

Development 

of Statewide 

Road Safety 

Assessment 

Guidance 

(RSA) Manual

Non-infrastructure 1 

Numb

ers

26538

6

265386 HSIP 

(Sectio

n 148)

Not 

applicable

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

manageme

nt systems

CR-9 

(PLACING 

GUARDRAIL 

AND 

PAVEMENT 

MARKERS), 

ST. CLAIR 

COUNTY

Roadside Barrier- metal 2 Miles 45702 45702 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Not 

Applicable

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Minimizing 

the 

consequen

ces of 

leaving the 

road

UPGRADE 

SIGNS ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(WINSTON 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

24678 24678 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

UPGRADE 

SIGNS ON 

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

1 

Numb

14503 14503 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

Rural 

Local 

0 45 State 

Highway 

Improving 

informatio
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(LAWRENCE 

COUNTY)

(including post) - new or 

updated

ers A-LU) Road or 

Street

Agency n and 

decision 

support 

systems

TRAFFIC 

SIGNALS, 

STRIPING AND 

MARKINGS AT 

CAPSHAW 

ROAD, JONES 

RD, ZEHNER 

RD, QUINN 

RD, AND 

EASTER FERRY 

RD 

(LIMESTONE 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

1

Numb

ers

36681 36681 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

TRAFFIC SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(MORGAN 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

41027 41027 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

RESTRIPING Roadway signs and traffic 1 15914 159148 HRRRP Rural 0 45 County Improving 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

53

AND 

INSTALLING 

PAVEMENT 

MARKERS ON 

CR-29 FROM 

SR-22 TO CR56 (COOSA 

COUNTY)

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

Numb

ers

8 (SAFETE

A-LU)

Local 

Road or 

Street

Highway 

Agency

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS(CLEBU

RNE COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

31 

Numb

ers

29234 29234 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(RANDOLPH 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

31 

Numb

ers

42070 42070 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

TRAFFIC 

STRIPING, 

MARKINGS, 

AND 

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

and traffic control - other

1 

Numb

ers

95183 95183 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

54

PAVEMENT 

MARKERS ON 

CR28(SANDFORT 

RD) FROM SR169 TO 

PHENIX CITY 

LIMITS, 

RUSSELL 

COUNTY

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(CHAMBERS 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

123 

Numb

ers

34457 34457 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS(LEE 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

56 

Numb

ers

14010

5

140105 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

TRAFFIC 

STRIPING, 

Roadway delineation 

Longitudinal pavement 

2 

Numb

14010

5

140105 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

Rural 

Local 

0 45 County 

Highway 

Improving 

informatio
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

55

MARKINGS, 

AND 

PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS 

ON CR103/PINE 

GROVE RD 

FROM CR-24 

TO SR-76 AND 

ON CR-26 

FROM CR-511 

TO 10TH 

STREET, 

TALLADEGA 

COUNTY

markings - remarking ers A-LU) Road or 

Street

Agency n and 

decision 

support 

systems

RESURFACING

, SIGNING, 

AND 

GUARDRAIL 

ON CR-63 

FROM NORTH 

OF CR-861 TO 

BRIDGE AT 

UNNAMED 

TRIB. TO AT 

MULBERRY 

CREEK AND 

RESURFACING 

& SIGNING 

Roadway Pavement 

surface - miscellaneous

1 Miles 33051

6

330516 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

drivers 

alert
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

ON CR-63 

(DALLAS 

COUNTY)

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS( 

AUTAUGA 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

52427 52427 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS(BULLO

CK COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

26788 26788 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(ELMORE 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

24173 24173 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support

systems
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(MACON 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

28636 28636 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS 

(DALLAS 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

49056 49056 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS (DALE 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

48056 48056 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems

REMOVAL 

AND 

REALIGNMEN

T OF A 

Alignment Alignment -

other

1 Miles 79875 79875 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Keeping 

vehicles in 

the 

roadway
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

SEGMENT OF 

BITUMINOUS 

CONCRETE 

PAVEMENT 

ON CR-4 

(GENEVA 

COUNTY)

SIGN 

REPLACEMEN

T ON 

VARIOUS 

COUNTY 

ROADS ( 

ESCAMBIA 

COUNTY)

Roadway signs and traffic 

control Roadway signs 

(including post) - new or 

updated

1 

Numb

ers

12228 12228 HRRRP 

(SAFETE

A-LU)

Rural 

Local 

Road or 

Street

0 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Improving 

informatio

n and 

decision 

support 

systems
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of fatalities 1115 1053 999 937 888

Number of serious injuries 18755 21780 18222 14667 11459

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 0 0 0 0 0

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 0 0 0 0 0

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

61
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

62

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

Year - 2012

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

63

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

0 0 0 0

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

0 0 0 0

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

66
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

67
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Year - 2012

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

STATE HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

493 4763 0 0

COUNTY HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

282 2605 0 0

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL 

HIGHWAY AGENCY

105 2145 0 0

STATE PARK, FOREST, 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST 

OR RESERVATION 

AGENCY

0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER 

THAN RAILROAD)

0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL 

AUTHORITY

0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC 

INSTRUMENTALITY 

(E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0

INDIAN TRIBE NATION 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0

OTHER 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

70
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

71
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

72
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

73
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

74

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

Alabama does not have the ability to extract roadway functional classification crash data at this 

time. Also, the Rate of Fatalities and Serious Injuries for roadway classification or roadway 

functional classification are not available.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per capita) 0 0 0 0 0

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0 0 0 0 0

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0 13.32 0 9.95 0

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

The State of Alabama used the FARS data and Alabama's Critical Analysis Reporting 

Environment (CARE). The FARS data for Alabama included Fatalities for Older Drivers and 

Pedestrians. From the CARE system, the total number of serious injury crashes was used. The 

two were added together then divided by the number of people in the State who are 65 years 

of age and older compared to the total State population to determine the rate.

The Special Rule does not apply to the State of Alabama at this time.
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

75

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

76

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program?

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

Other: 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

77

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

78

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

None
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

79

SHSP Emphasis Areas
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

80

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

Year - 2012

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Instituting graduated 

licensing for younger 

drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sustaining proficiency 

in older drivers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Curbing aggressive 

driving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing impaired 

driving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increasing seat belt 

use and improving 

airbag effectiveness

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Making walking and 

street crossing easier

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ensuring safer bicycle 

travel

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Improving motorcycle 

safety and increasing 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

81

motorcycle awareness

Increasing safety 

enhancements in 

vehicles

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keeping vehicles in 

the roadway

STATE 

ROUTES_ROR 

Crashes

104 812 0 0 0 0 0

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

Run-off-road 298 2516 0 0 0 0 0

Improving the design 

and operation of 

highway intersections

Intersection 

Crashes

197 2617 0 0 0 0 0

Reducing head-on and 

across-median crashes

Interstate 

Median 

Crashes

7 15 0 0 0 0 0

Improving information 

and decision support 

systems

All 888 11459 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

82
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

83
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

84
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

85
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

86

Groups of similar project types
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

87

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

Year - 2012

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway 

Departure

STATE 

ROUTES_ROR 

Crashes

104 812 0 0 0 0 0

Median Barrier Interstate 

Median 

Crashes

7 13 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

88
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

89
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

90
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

91
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

92

Systemic Treatments
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

93

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.. 

Year - 2012

Systemic 

improvement

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Pavement/Shoulder 

Widening

State 

Routes_ROR 

crashes

104 812 0 0 0 0 0

Cable Median 

Barriers

Interstate 

Median 

Crashes

7 15 0 0 0 0 0
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

94
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

95
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

96
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

97
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

98

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

ALDOT has been integrating the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), GIS system and roadway 

inventory into the various safety program to improve safety data collection and analysis. There 

is also a study on "Integrating Safety and Operations into Planning, Design, Construction, and 

Post Construction Operations." This study includes research methodology and data collection , 

creates an enviroment for integrating Operations and Safety into Multimodal Planning efforts, 

reviews statewide, regional , corridor and sub-area opportunites, then concludes with a final 

workshop and study documentations. 
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

99

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

BefOther 

Injury

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

AftOther 

Injury

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

none Urban Local 

Road or 

Street
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

100

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Program Structure: Program Methodology Table of Brief Summary of Current 

programs_2013.docx
2013 Alabama Highway Safety Improvement Program

101

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

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

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

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