MISSISSIPPI

Table of Contents
Table of Contents	2
Disclaimer	3
Executive Summary	4
Introduction	7
Program Structure	7
Program Administration	7
Program Methodology	10
Project Implementation	14
Funds Programmed	14
General Listing of Projects	16
Safety Performance	20
General Highway Safety Trends	20
Safety Performance Targets	33
Applicability of Special Rules	35
Evaluation	37
Program Effectiveness	37
Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements	38
Project Effectiveness	42
Compliance Assessment	48

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence	
23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section [HSIP], shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.”	
23 U.S.C. 409 states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”	

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for providing a safe intermodal transportation network that is planned, designed, constructed, and maintained in an effective, cost efficient, and environmentally sensitive manner. As stated in the mission statement, safety is at the forefront of the MDOT’s short and long range plans. Providing the safest and most efficient transportation facilities possible are of critical importance to MDOT. The primary “measuring stick” for safety in Mississippi is the reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes each year. MDOT has an extensive safety program that aims to ensure that the transportation facilities are as safe as possible, from the initial planning phase through the usable life of the facility.

Program Administration

The HSIP funds appropriated for Mississippi are administered centrally by the MDOT. MDOT strives to allocate HSIP funds based in safety need, regardless of geographic location or district boundary. Local roads (non-state owned) are also candidate locations which are analyzed and considered for safety improvement. Any HSIP project located within the boundary of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is coordinated with all vested parties and placed on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the appropriate MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Program Methodology

MDOT’s Safety Section generates a list of HSIP candidate projects using the Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS). The SAMS provides locations in need of remediation with established crash histories.
Candidate locations are also identified from the MDOT’s six construction district offices, area traffic engineers, safety engineers, and other sources within MDOT. Feedback from private citizens and law enforcement officers regarding specific locations are also used in the location identification process.

Locations selected for HSIP funding go through rigorous statistical analysis prior to being selected. The programmed projects have, at a minimum, one of the following:

Severity index above an acceptable level
Elevated crash rate compared to homogenous locations Exceedingly high number of crashes, or
Crashes conducive to producing fatalities or severe injuries.

MDOT seeks to identify projects that can be tied back to the State of Mississippi’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The SHSP was developed with various safety partners across Mississippi and was formally adopted in early 2007. The initial goal of the plan was to reduce the number of fatalities from the benchmark of 931 in 2005 to 700 or fewer by 2011, a reduction of more than twenty-five percent. Mississippi saw success following the implementation of the SHSP and reports that Mississippi’s goal was achieved in 2009, two years before the targeted date.

Mississippi’s original SHSP identified five critical emphasis areas in which to focus its safety efforts. These five critical emphasis areas were:

Unbelted drivers Young drivers Aggressive drivers Impaired drivers
Lane departure crashes

In early 2009, data analysis indicated that an additional critical emphasis area was needed. The need to add intersections as an emphasis area was discussed at the SHSP Executive Update Meeting in August 2009.

The 2nd Edition of the SHSP was accepted in January 2014. The Vision of the 2nd Edition of the Mississippi SHSP established a Towards Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative. A thorough data analysis indicated that the new emphasis areas for the updated Mississippi SHSP are:

Unbelted drivers Impaired drivers
Suspended/Revoked Licensed or Unlicensed drivers Lane departure crashes
Intersection crashes

In addition to these data-driven emphasis areas, there are other areas in need of attention. It is widely recognized that distracted driving is becoming more of a problem across the United States. The extent of the problem in Mississippi is not yet known, as this information is difficult to accurately or legitimately collect once a crash has taken place. Without state-specific data, Mississippi will rely on the most recent data from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to justify the addition of distracted driving.

Another area which needs continued focus and effort will be crash and road data quality. The analysis of safety information can only be as good as the quality of data available. The process of data validation must be included in the SHSP as well.

2017 HSIP Allotment and Local Road Safety

MDOT was appropriated $33,396,817 in Federal Section 148 and Section 154 funding for the HSIP in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017.

During FFY 2016, MDOT and FHWA were successfully able to develop processes and procedures to assist the MDOT Safety Circuit Rider Program in the allocation of HSIP funds on the non-state maintained system. As a result, during FFY 2017, MDOT’s Safety Circuit Rider Program continued its efforts to provide technical assistance to county and city officials as well as analyze locations on the non-state maintained network in an effort to achieve the vision of identifying local roads with opportunity for safety improvements. While no HSIP funds were allocated to the non-state maintained system in FFY 2017, it is anticipated that there will be several local road projects utilizing HSIP funding during FFY 2018.

HSIP Effectiveness

As was the case for many states across the country, 2016 saw a troubling continuance of rising traffic fatality numbers in Mississippi. After seeing sharp declines in fatalities from 2005 - 2012, 2016 became just the 3rd year since 2005 where there was an increase in fatalities. While 2016 fatality numbers are not yet certified and listed within NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Database, the state of Mississippi
is projecting that 690 lives were lost in crashes in the state last year. While 2016's preliminary projected number of fatalities is still significantly below where we started in 2005 (931), it is not a trend we in the state would like

to continue. As always, Mississippi will make every effort to see that those numbers restart their downward trend in the upcoming year.

Project Evaluation

While overall road safety numbers in Mississippi have experienced incremental increases over the previous several years, it should be noted that HSIP projects within the state have continued to see positive results. Comparing before and after periods for each of the projects, MDOT has seen a reduction in both the overall severity index and the overall crash rate, 37% and 18% respectively, for projects with a minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis. It is important to note that not all HSIP projects can boast such successful numbers, yet it should not detract from the overall success of the projects that have been implemented. To review the performance of projects that have been constructed to date, Please refer to the information given in response to Question #45.

In Closing

MDOT will continue to ensure that available safety dollars go towards efforts that can effectively and efficiently restart the downward trend in fatal crashes. As even one fatality is too many to suffer, Mississippi will continue to work towards realizing a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries, so that we can reverse the most recent trend of increased fatalities and get back on track in achieving our vision of Towards Zero Deaths on all public roadways.

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure
Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program staff includes full-time engineers, as well as supporting data analysts and clerical staff, all housed within the Mississippi DOT's Traffic Engineering Division. On a day-to- day basis, the HSIP staff works hand-in-hand with other MDOT Divisions in aiding the MDOT
Districts towards advancing safety on Mississippi Highways. These regular efforts include, among other things, data analysis, countermeasure discussion and coordination, as well as the administration of regular safety meetings to keep in regular contact with the Districts regarding safety matters and concerns.

One of the initiatives that the Mississippi HSIP staff has taken on in the last few years is holding regular safety meetings with its Districts. These meetings are an informal time for HSIP staff to go out into the Districts and discuss locations of concern that are showing up in data analysis, as well as locations that the Districts are fielding calls from the public, and so forth. These meetings have proven invaluable in establishing a rapport between District staff and the HSIP, which has aided in the identification of locations of need that might not have been found as quickly by data analysis alone. The HSIP has also, in some cases, seen these relationships help to advance a trust of alternative intersection countermeasures, as well as more progressive and non-typical countermeasures that are being implemented across the United States.

The second initiative that directly impacts HSIP projects in Mississippi are the Safety Countermeasure Selection Team meetings. These meetings were established by internal policy in the last several years to ensure
that applicable MDOT Divisions (Roadway Design Division, Construction Division, Environmental Division, Planning Division, etc.) and District personnel are extensively involved in the countermeasure selection process for HSIP projects. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP funding, any and all possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a formalized meeting format. Site visits are conducted as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location information, countermeasure recommendations, and a benefit to cost analysis - is recorded and summarized in report
format. This formal report is then submitted for review and approval by meeting attendees as well as senior MDOT Officials. This ensures that HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi are fully vetted by the entire agency, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner possible.

Once projects are selected, programmed, and constructed using HSIP funds, the MDOT ensures that their performance - in terms of realized crash reductions - is tracked and reported as a part of the HSIP Reporting

process. The Mississippi HSIP typically conducts a five year before and after data analysis of each project in order to provide a healthy set of data to determine the performance of the project's countermeasure(s). In many cases, the state also continues to track projects beyond the five year window to ensure the countermeasure still works and/or other changes are not needed beyond the initial project.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT?

Operations

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

The Mississippi HSIP staff are located within MDOT's Traffic Engineering Division, which falls under the Field Operations branch.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State?

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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.

As a part of Mississippi's statewide safety efforts, local roads are given consideration for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding during each federal fiscal year. Potential projects are scrutinized under the same set of criteria set forth for state highway safety projects. All local road safety projects conducted by the Mississippi Department of Transportation are identified through the Circuit Rider Program.

The Circuit Rider program, established in 2012, provides training as well as technical assistance to local road administrators and staff. As a part of the technical assistance portion of the program, Circuit Riders (along with MDOT Traffic Safety personnel) review crash data for local roads and conduct site visits with local government authorities to offer countermeasure identification assistance. Solutions offered by Circuit Riders on these site visits can either be resolved by the local road authority, or can be treated under several available Circuit Rider initiatives. Projects identified in need of additional assistance through the Circuit Rider program can be treated using one of the following:

Sign Project: At no cost to the local authority, MDOT provides warning and advisory signage to a local government agency where crash trends - systemic or "hot spot" in nature - have been identified, and where signs and/or low cost countermeasures are deemed an appropriate corrective measure. The local authority may be asked to provide an in-kind service as part of the agreement, such as tree trimming within the Right-of-Way; otherwise, the signs are free of charge to the county or municipality. During the 2017 State Fiscal Year (July 16 - June 17), MDOT spent $105,013.20 of state funds on this program.

Design Project: Should a location or set of locations within a county, municipality or other local governing body's jurisdiction be deemed eligible by MDOT for HSIP funding, those projects are pursued as a part of the statewide HSIP program. Currently, MDOT chooses to focus its local road safety efforts on low cost measures, including resigning and restriping of routes, the installation of reflective sign post delineators, raised pavement

marker reinstallation, etc. There is no application deadline currently for local projects; projects are considered through the entire fiscal year. All local road safety projects are considered alongside state highway safety projects, although MDOT is currently making more efforts to ensure local road safety projects are a part of each fiscal year's projects to be pursued.

Identify which internal partners (e.g., State departments of transportation (DOTs) Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety Design
Planning Maintenance Operations Districts/Regions Other-Environmental
Other-Right of Way Division

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Under current internal policy, applicable MDOT Divisions (District personnel, Construction Division, Environmental Division, Planning Division, etc.) are extensively involved in the countermeasure selection process. Before any potential location or set of locations are pursued for HSIP Program funding, any and all possible countermeasures are discussed with this group in a meeting format. Site visits are conducted with this group as a part of the meeting, and the entire process - including supporting data, location information, countermeasure recommendations, etc. - is recorded in report format and approved by meeting attendees as well as MDOT leadership. This ensures that all HSIP projects in the state of Mississippi that adhere to this process are fully vetted by the entire agency, and that MDOT utilizes its HSIP funds in the most prudent manner possible.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs) Local Government Agency
FHWA
Other-Office of State Aid Road Construction

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

The Federal Highway Administration - Mississippi Division is intricately involved in the HSIP project planning process. FHWA's Safety Engineer and Area Engineers are involved in safety discussion meetings, as well as all countermeasure selection process meetings.

Other external partners involved the HSIP project planning process are local government agencies, MPOs, and Mississippi's Office of State Aid Road Construction, which is responsible for major county roadways. These partners are brought into the fold when the HSIP is developing a potential Circuit Rider program project for a local road area of safety concern.

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

No

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

No

Program Methodology

Does the State have an HSIP manual or similar that clearly describes HSIP planning, implementation and evaluation processes?

No

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

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms)

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

Program:	HSIP (no subprograms)	
Date of Program Methodology:	8/3/2015	

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area FHWA focused approach to safety
Other-Addresses state's priority of advancing safety

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

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes	Exposure	Roadway	
All crashes			

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

Crash frequency Relative severity index Crash rate
Excess proportions of specific crash types

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

Select the processes used to prioritize projects for implementation. For the methods selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank (as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

Available funding :	2 Cost Effectiveness :		1

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information. What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

70

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

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips Pavement/Shoulder Widening
Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation Clear Zone Improvements Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal
Other-Systemic Intersection Signing Improvements, following SCDOT model Other-Systemic Curve Warning Signing Improvements

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 SHSP/Local road safety plan
Data-driven safety analysis tools (HSM, CMF Clearinghouse, SafetyAnalyst, usRAP) Other-Input from internal partners

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies?

Yes

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

Mississippi HSIP projects primarily consider ITS elements when they are a complimentary component of a larger project, such as traffic cameras at a new or improved signal, fiber interconnectivity between signals, or other measures to provide advanced warning to motorists of some down stream condition.

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

Yes

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

Currently, the Mississippi HSIP uses various principles that are cited in the Highway Safety Manual, though the manual is not used extensively in day to day analysis and decision-making. We are currently developing a

crash data analysis system that will wholly incorporate the principles and practices outlined in the HSM, and will fully integrate them into how Mississippi evaluates locations across the state, and potential projects.

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

No

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

No

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)	$27,996,817	$27,996,817	100%	
HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1))	$0	$0	0%	
Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154)	$5,485,489	$5,485,489	100%	
Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164)	$0	$0	0%	
RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23
U.S.C. 130(e)(2))	$3,564,180	$3,564,180	100%	
Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STBG, NHPP)	$0	$0	0%	
State and Local Funds	$3,834,859	$3,834,859	100%	
Totals	$40,881,345	$40,881,345	100%	

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

Notes

- For the purposes of this report, the dollar amounts in the State and Local Funds categories are the required matching funds for HSIP projects, and the Sign and Bright Stick Distribution initiative facilitated through the Safety Circuit Rider Program.

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

0%

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

1%

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

The Mississippi DOT did not program any monies towards local road safety projects in the last federal fiscal year; however, it currently has several projects in early development stages that should be both designed and likely constructed within the next year. The Mississippi HSIP program currently sets aside $250,000 for local road safety projects through its Circuit Rider program each year, with additional projects considered against State Highway projects in terms of benefit to cost and overall safety impact.

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

1%

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

1%

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

Notes

- The actual percentage is 0.75%

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

How much funding was transferred out of the HSIP to other core program areas during the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0%

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

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

There are no impediments currently.

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

No

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	
Districtwide Cable Barrier Const.	Roadside	Barrier - cable	16.3	Miles	$-783060	$-870066.67	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate	0	70	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
MS 12, from Old Highway 12 to Sta 17+47	Access management	Raised island - install new	2.6	Miles	$8651340	$9612600	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	23,650	45	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	18	
MS 12, from Sta 17+47 to Russell Street	Access management	Raised island - install new	1.2	Miles	$198000	$220000	Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	23,650	45	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	18	
US 45 at Wheeler Grove Road	Alignment	Vertical alignment or elevation
change	0.3	Miles	$-15390	$-17100	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	14,000	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	17	
US 82 Fr MS
River Bridge to BASF Rd.	Lighting	Intersection lighting	2.6	Miles	$-7785	$-8650	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	7,200	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
MS 2 Fr
Tippah/Alcorn CL to Kossuth	Roadway	Rumble strips - edge or
shoulder	8.3	Miles	$69919	$77687.78	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	1,362	55	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	15	
US 49 SB Fr Main St in Mt. Olive to Walter Lott Rd. in Seminary	Shoulder treatments	Widen shoulder - paved or
other	24.2	Miles	$12039692	$13377435.56	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	11,050	65	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	15	
MS 25,
Tishomingo County	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements - stop-
controlled	38.9	Miles	$-386726	$-429695.56	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	1,564	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
District 1 Intersection Improvement Project	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements - stop-
controlled	118	Intersections	$1202575	$1336194.44	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Districtwide	0		State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	
US 49 from the Stone County Line to South Gate Road	Shoulder treatments	Widen shoulder - paved or
other	19.9	Miles	$900000	$1000000	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	11,950	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	18	
I-59 Loops Ramps at US 49	Roadway	Pavement surface - high friction
surface	1	Interchanges	$49336	$54817.78	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	17,216	70	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	15	
US 61 from Washington CL to US 82	Roadway	Rumble strips - edge or
shoulder	22.2	Miles	$-178465	$-198294.44	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	2,608	65	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
MS 43 between Picayune and Henleyfield	Alignment	Horizontal curve realignment	3	Curves	$-798751	$-887501.11	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	3,570	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	15	
I-10 from the Louisiana SL to MS 43/603	Roadway	Pavement surface - miscellaneous	13.6	Miles	$-2088847	$-2320941.1	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate	38,440	70	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	

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	
US 278/MS 6 -
Johnston St to Medical Center Dr	Access management	Raised island - install new	2.5	Miles	$-96474	$-107193.33	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	27,000	45	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	
RWIS - I-55
Coldwater River Bridge, I-69/MS 304 Hurrican Creek Bridge	Advanced technology and
ITS	Dynamic message signs	2	Locations	$-19260	$-21400	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate	34,000	70	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	18	
US 49 at 4th St, Pinecrest St.	Access management	Median crossover - directional
crossover	1	Intersections	$-125482	$-125482	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	25,958	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 51 at Pat Harrison Dr	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection flashers - add miscellaneous/other/unspecified	1	Intersections	$26726	$29695.56	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Minor
Arterial	8,264	45	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 49 at RT
Braddy Rd, US 49 at Muse Rd	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection flashers - add miscellaneous/other/unspecified	2	Intersections	$20690	$22988.89	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	22,790	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
MS 43 from Crossroads to I- 20	Alignment	Horizontal curve realignment	4.3	Miles	$73017	$81130	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Major Collector	2,400	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	18	
US 49 at MS 42	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control -
other	1	Intersections	$157500	$175000	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	26,650	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
RWIS - I-55 SB to
I-20 EB Flyover Bridge	Advanced technology and
ITS	Dynamic message signs	1	Locations	$3255	$3616.67	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	23,000	60	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	15	
Copiah County Safety Circuit Rider Improvements	Roadway delineation	Longitudinal pavement markings - remarking	28.5	Miles	$-64763	$-71958.89	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Various Routes	0		County Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	15	
MS 25/Lakeland Dr Mast Arm Replacement	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements -
signal-controlled	5	Intersections	$-29640	$-29610.89	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	54,000	55	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	
US 49 at Hall St, Magnolia Dr and Wal Mart Dr	Access management	Median crossover - close
crossover	1	Intersections	$69076	$69076	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	16,000	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 49W at SR 3	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn
lane	1	Intersections	$-39517	$-43907.78	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	7,100	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 278 - SR 6 to
SR 7	Roadside	Barrier - cable	8	Miles	$-248184	$-275760	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	26,040	55	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
US 61 at Eagles Nest Rd	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometrics - modify
skew angle	1	Intersections	$-26847	$-29830	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	8,655	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
MS 570 from I-55 to US 51	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements -
signal-controlled	0.6	Miles	$589613	$655125.56	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Minor
Arterial	11,000	35	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	
MS 145 Corridor Upgrades	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements -
signal-controlled	3.7	Miles	$7120872	$7912080	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	20,320	45	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP	
PROJECT NAME	IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	SUBCATEGORY	OUTPUTS	OUTPUT TYPE	HSIP PROJECT COST($)	TOTAL PROJECT COST($)	FUNDING CATEGORY	FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION	AADT	SPEED	OWNERSHIP	METHOD FOR SITE SELECTION	EMPHASIS AREA	STRATEGY	
I-55 Exit Ramps at MS 302	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometry - other	4	Intersections	$5480550	$6089500	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	45,750	45	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
MS 12 from Hollandale to the Sunflower River	Shoulder treatments	Widen shoulder - paved or
other	9.5	Miles	$982170	$1091300	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	1,800	55	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
US 49 Safety Improvements (Simpson)	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometry - other	26.4	Miles	$-384670	$-427411.11	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	0		State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
I-55 Cable Barrier (Holmes/Carroll)	Roadside	Barrier - cable	29.9	Miles	$-88581	$-98423.33	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate	14,000	70	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
US 45 at Ripley Road	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - modify signal mounting (spanwire to
mast arm)	1	Intersections	$122619	$136243.33	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	12,500	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 84 at MS 184
(west of Waynesboro)	Access management	Change in access - close or restrict existing access	1	Intersections	$0	$0		Rural Principal Arterial - Other	9,850	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 84 at Reservoir Rd/Magnolia Hill	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control -
other	1	Intersections	$0	$0		Rural Principal Arterial - Other	7,311	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 84 at Auburn Dr	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control -
other	1	Intersections	$0	$0		Rural Principal Arterial - Other	8,338	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 78 from Craft Rd to Hacks Cross Rd	Roadway	Pavement surface - miscellaneous	5.6	Miles	$-414264	$-460293.33	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	31,070	70	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	15	
US 45 at MS 145
(Clarkdale)	Access management	Median crossover - directional
crossover	1	Intersections	$50052	$55613.3333333333	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	19,020	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
MS 569 at MS 570	Intersection traffic
control	Modify control - two-way stop to
all-way stop	1	Intersections	$11645	$12938.8888888889	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Major Collector	1,830	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
US 49 between French Road and Sam Road	Roadway	Pavement surface - miscellaneous	0.5	Miles	$0	$0		Rural Principal Arterial - Other	21,000	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	18	
US 82 Itta Bena	Advanced technology and
ITS	Dynamic message signs	1	Intersections	$67500	$75000	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	8,000	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	
Circuit Rider Sign Donation/Bright Stick Program	Roadway signs and traffic control	Roadway signs and traffic
control - other	1	Numbers	$0	$105013.2	State and Local
Funds	Various Locations	0		County and Municipality	Systemic	Lane Departure	15	
Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS) Version 2	Non-infrastructure	Data/traffic records	1	Numbers	$250000	$277777.78	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	N/A	0		State Highway
Agency	Other	Data	22	
Rail Signage Project	Roadway signs and traffic control	Sign sheeting - upgrade or
replacement	3	Numbers	$55800	$62000	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Various Locations	0		County and Municipality	Spot	Railroad Crossings	14	
MS 63 at MS 614	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add flashing yellow arrow	1	Intersections	$93366	$103740	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	14,850	65	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	

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	
Lafayette County Road 215 Improvements	Roadway delineation	Longitudinal pavement
markings - new	1	Curves	$-2320	$-2577	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Major Collector	370	45	County Highway
Agency	Spot	Lane Departure	18	
SR 15 from Louisville to the Neshoba County Line	Roadway	Rumble strips - center	11.4	Miles	$-267182	$-296868.89	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Rural Minor
Arterial	4,540	55	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Lane Departure	18	
Highway 90 Pedestrian Bridge Crossing	Pedestrians and
bicyclists	Pedestrian bridge	1	Crosswalks	$570201	$633556.67	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	30,000	45	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Pedestrians	9	
US 90 Traffic Signal Upgrades (Hancock County)	Intersection traffic
control	Systemic improvements -
signal-controlled	10	Intersections	$693000	$770000	HSIP (23 U.S.C.
148)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	20,450	45	State Highway
Agency	Systemic	Intersections	17	
US 61 at Oak Ridge Road	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - modify signal mounting (spanwire to
mast arm)	1	Intersections				Urban Principal Arterial - Other	7,000	55	State Highway
Agency	Spot	Intersections	17	

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

Notes

- Portions of projects listed with a Funding Category of "HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148)" are supplemented with "Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154)" as well.

Safety Performance
General Highway 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	
2013	
2014	
2015	
2016	
Fatalities	783	700	641	630	582	613	607	677	690	
Serious Injuries	716	622	671	686	631	568	506	506	627	
Fatality rate (per HMVMT)	1.800	1.740	1.610	1.620	1.510	1.580	1.540	1.700	1.700	
Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)	1.650	1.542	1.684	1.766	1.636	1.465	1.281	1.269	1.543	
Number non-motorized fatalities	55	68	54	54	55	59	60	68	71	
Number of non-motorized serious injuries	0	0	47	39	49	47	47	42	61	

Annual Fatalities
900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Fatalities	5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Serious Injuries	5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)
1.85

1.8

1.75

1.7

1.65

1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45

1.4

1.35
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)	5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)	5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016

Fatalities and Serious Injuries	5 Year Rolling Avg.

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

Notes:

The 2016 reported traffic fatalities for the state of Mississippi is an accurate representation of what we in the Mississippi HSIP anticipate the number to be, based upon our own analyses, as well as conversations with the state's FARS Analyst, the Department of Public Safety, and other applicable officials within the
state. However, that number is not yet certified, and therefore may be subject to change before final admission into the FARS Public Database. This same note applies to the reported number of non-motorized fatalities for 2016.

Serious Injuries are reported using Mississippi's Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS), and should reflect those numbers reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during quarterly Performance Measure reporting.

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

The number of non-motorized serious injuries are reported using Mississippi's SAMS program. Since all values for this category began their reporting for this year, and since the SAMS program currently only retains crash data for the state back through the completed calendar year of 2010, values preceding that year were not reported.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

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 - Interstate	52.4	33.2	1.37	0.87	
Rural Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	0	0	0	0	
Rural Principal Arterial - Other	173.2	97.2	3.17	1.8	
Rural Minor Arterial	63.2	80	1.82	2.34	
Rural Minor Collector	13	21.8	2.97	4.99	
Rural Major Collector	124.4	124.4	3.09	3.11	
Rural Local Road or Street	70.8	35.6	1.33	0.69	
Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	16.8	20.8	0.41	0.54	
Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	8.6	4.4	1.76	0.89	
Urban Principal Arterial - Other	40	62.2	0.78	1.22	
Urban Minor Arterial	20.4	31.4	0.82	1.24	
Urban Minor Collector	9.4	21.2	0.42	1.11	
Urban Major Collector	0	0	0	0	
Urban Local Road or Street	42.4	10.6	1.34	0.3	

Year 2016

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	417.8	401	1.76	1.69	
County Highway Agency	147.4	185	1.7	2.13	
Town or Township Highway Agency					
City of Municipal Highway Agency	46.2	69.8	0.69	1.04	
State Park, Forest, or Reservation Agency					
Local Park, Forest or Reservation Agency					
Other State Agency					
Other Local Agency					
Private (Other than Railroad)	8.8	7.6	0	0	
Railroad					
State Toll Authority					
Local Toll Authority					
Other Public Instrumentality (e.g. Airport, School, University)					
Indian Tribe Nation					

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 5 Year Average
200
180
160

Fatalities

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

0

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional Classification
5 Year Average
140

Serious Injuries

120
100
80
60
40
20

0

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

5
4.5

Fatality Rate

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional Classification
5 Year Average

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional Classification
5 Year Average

Serious Injury Rate

6
5
4
3
2
1

0

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 5 Year Average
450
400
350

Fatalities

300
250
200
150
100
50

0

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway Ownership
5 Year Average
450
400

Serious Injuries

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

0

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

2
1.8

Fatality Rate

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway Ownership
5 Year Average

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Serious Injury Rate

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway Ownership
5 Year Average

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information. Notes
Fatality figures reported from 2010-2015 are from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The 2016 reported traffic fatality information given for each functional class and ownership category matches figures MDOT has reported elsewhere for total anticipated fatalities for the previous year.

Serious Injury data reported herein comes from Mississippi's Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS).

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 2018 Targets *

Number of Fatalities	677.8	
Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the extrapolated trends.	
Number of Serious Injuries	574.4	
Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the extrapolated trends.	
Fatality Rate	1.668	
Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the extrapolated trends.	
Serious Injury Rate	1.425	
Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the extrapolated trends.	
Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries	
119.8	
Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Trend analysis with data from various, yet consecutive time periods to find the trend that best approximates the historical data and provides a reasonable projection of the extrapolated 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.

Over the summer of 2017, Mississippi HSIP personnel met on several occasions with staff from the Mississippi Office of Highway Safety. These meetings, which also included staff from MPOs, the Federal Highway Administration, and other involved local and federal agencies, were convened to review trend line analysis and crash data statistics to determine what the joint targets for the state should be. After these meetings were completed, three joint goals were set - Fatalities, Fatality Rate, and Serious Injuries - which have been reflected in this report. From the perspective of the Mississippi HSIP, these meetings were imperative to ensure that all involved parties had a voice in determining what Mississippi's crash data targets would be for future years.

As far as the other two goals - Serious Injury Rate and Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries - are concerned, those were set internally in discussion amongst Mississippi HSIP staff and administrative personnel from MDOT. The Serious Injury Rate target was simply a reflection of the Serious Injury target measured against a projected VMT, while the Non-Motorized target was discussed much in the same way that other targets were amongst a larger audience.

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 for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES	
2009	
2010	
2011	
2012	
2013	
2014	
2015	
Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities	65	65	62	84	60	66	68	
Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Serious Injuries	42	34	27	44	41	22	31	

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Year.
140

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Years

Fatalities	Serious Injuries

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

Evaluation
Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Other-Before and After Crash Analysis

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

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

As a part of the HSIP reporting process, the state of Mississippi has kept track of the performance of its HSIP projects. Since this first began, the preferred method of evaluating projects has been to measure the crashes occurring after the project was constructed and in place against crashes at the location before improvements were installed. Using this measuring tool, the state of Mississippi's HSIP has realized an appreciable success in terms of its project effectiveness. Through the Federal Fiscal Year 2017, Mississippi HSIP projects with a minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis have achieved a 37% reduction of the severity of crashes at its project locations, as well as a 18% reduction in the overall number of crashes at these same locations (Mississippi measures crashes by crash rate to account for any changes in traffic volumes at these locations). While recognizing that these reductions are a positive litmus test for the projects that Mississippi has selected for the HSIP to date, it is the intention of our program to continue aggressively pursuing projects that will help us raise those reduction numbers in the future, and continue to make Mississippi's roads safer for our fellow road users.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP More systemic programs # RSAs completed
Policy change
Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process Increased focus on local road safety
HSIP Obligations

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area	

Targeted Crash Type	
Number of Fatalities (5-yr avg)	
Number of Serious Injuries
(5-yr avg)	Fatality Rate (per HMVMT)
(5-yr avg)	Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT)
(5-yr avg)	

Other 1	

Other 2	

Other 3	
Lane Departure		363.4	346	0.92	0.88				
Intersections		126.6	163.6	0	0				

Number of Fatalities 5 Year Average
400

350

300

Fatalities

250

200

150

100

50

0
Lane Departure	Intersections

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Number of Serious Injuries 5 Year Average
400

350

300

Serious Injuries

250

200

150

100

50

0
Lane Departure	Intersections

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Average
1
0.9
0.8
0.7

Fatality Rate

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Lane Departure	Intersections

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Average
1
0.9
0.8

Serious Injury Rate

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Lane Departure	Intersections

2008-2012	2009-2013	2010-2014	2011-2015	2012-2016

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

A value of zero was input for fatality and serious injury rate for intersections since the state does not collect
/MEV (Million Entering Vehicles) traffic data, and HMVMT is not applicable.

Values submitted for this question in 2016's report are significantly lower due to a differing interpretation of the requirement. MDOT previously reported fatal and serious injury crashes related only to HSIP projects targeting SHSP emphasis areas, not statewide.

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

No

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

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 INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
MS 609 at I-10
Ramps	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	82.00	127.00	1.00		2.00		21.00	29.00	106.00	156.00		
I-55 Fr Fortification to MS 25	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadway	Pavement surface
- high friction
surface	207.00	266.00	2.00		3.00	2.00	62.00	67.00	274.00	335.00		
US 98 at MS 29	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	19.00	5.00		1.00			5.00		24.00	6.00		
MS 57 at I-10
Ramps	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	36.00	72.00	1.00			1.00	13.00	17.00	50.00	90.00		
I-20 in Vicksburg City Limits (HO/ROR-L
Crashes Only)	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	4.00	44.00		1.00			3.00	28.00	7.00	73.00		
US 49 at (old) MS 67 in Saucier	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	14.00	4.00	3.00		2.00		7.00	2.00	26.00	6.00		
MS 145 at MS 513	Rural Major Collector	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometrics - modify skew angle	3.00	4.00					1.00		4.00	4.00		
MS 589 at Old Hwy 24	Urban Minor
Arterial	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	7.00	11.00					5.00		12.00	11.00		
I-55 Barrier Wall Extension	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - concrete	185.00	345.00	3.00		2.00	2.00	62.00	120.00	252.00	467.00		
US 49 from Little Biloxi River to Saucier	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane	89.00	124.00	4.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	66.00	64.00	161.00	192.00		
US 49 from Stone CL to US 98	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane	234.00	328.00	12.00	12.00	5.00	5.00	167.00	213.00	418.00	558.00		
US 49 from Bond to Forrest CL	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane	10.00	16.00	1.00				6.00	17.00	17.00	33.00		
US 72 @ CR
218/306/Central School Rd/Old 72	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	31.00	21.00	1.00		5.00		12.00	5.00	49.00	26.00		
US 49 from Pass Rd to Airport Road	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Raised island - install new	621.00	429.00	4.00	1.00	7.00	4.00	317.00	190.00	949.00	624.00		
US 49 from Airport Road to Creosote Road	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Raised island - install new	476.00	277.00	3.00	2.00	1.00		151.00	101.00	631.00	380.00		
US 49 from Landon to Dedeaux Road	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Raised island - install new	384.00	361.00	3.00				120.00	136.00	507.00	497.00		

LOCATION	
FUNCTIONAL CLASS	
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	
IMPROVEMENT TYPE	
PDO BEFORE	
PDO AFTER	
FATALITY BEFORE	
FATALITY AFTER	
SERIOUS INJURY BEFORE	
SERIOUS INJURY AFTER	
ALL INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
US 49 from Dedeaux Road to St Charles	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Raised island - install new	278.00	268.00	1.00				120.00	119.00	399.00	387.00		
MS 15 at MS 32	Rural Minor
Arterial	Intersection geometry	Splitter island - install on one or more approaches	10.00	9.00	1.00				6.00	9.00	17.00	18.00		
US 45 @ Hamilton Rd	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	16.00	10.00		2.00			22.00	5.00	38.00	17.00		
MS 25 from I-55 to Rankin Co. Line SECTION	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	523.00	471.00	1.00				108.00	105.00	632.00	576.00		
MS 25 from Rankin Co. Line to MS 471 SECTION	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	1425.00	1748.00	2.00	1.00	4.00	3.00	475.00	464.00	1906.00	2216.00		
MS 25 at I-55 E.
Frontage Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	110.00	113.00					27.00	23.00	137.00	136.00		
MS 25 at Cool Papa Bell Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	70.00	61.00					22.00	12.00	92.00	73.00		
MS 25 at Lakeland Terrace/Lakeland Ln.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	41.00	55.00	1.00				4.00	13.00	46.00	68.00		
MS 25 at Ridgewood Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	152.00	133.00					36.00	31.00	188.00	164.00		
MS 25 at Lakeland Cir	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	58.00	43.00					18.00	12.00	76.00	55.00		
MS 25 at River Bend	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	36.00	65.00					15.00	15.00	51.00	80.00		
MS 25 at Tree Tops	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	86.00	77.00					27.00	14.00	113.00	91.00		
MS 25 at Layfair	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	42.00	50.00					12.00	5.00	54.00	55.00		
MS 25 at River Oaks	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	77.00	93.00	1.00		1.00		28.00	23.00	107.00	116.00		

LOCATION	
FUNCTIONAL CLASS	
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	
IMPROVEMENT TYPE	
PDO BEFORE	
PDO AFTER	
FATALITY BEFORE	
FATALITY AFTER	
SERIOUS INJURY BEFORE	
SERIOUS INJURY AFTER	
ALL INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
MS 25 at N.
Flowood Dr.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	39.00	53.00					13.00	10.00	52.00	63.00		
MS 25 at Flynt Dr.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	52.00	49.00					8.00	10.00	60.00	59.00		
MS 25 at MS 475	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal - add additional signal
heads	173.00	194.00	1.00				55.00	42.00	229.00	236.00		
MS 18 @ Seven Springs/Palestine Rd	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	21.00	10.00					15.00	6.00	36.00	16.00		
MS 18 @ Hinds Blvd	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	3.00	7.00					5.00	2.00	8.00	9.00		
MS 18 @ County Farm Rd	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	10.00	10.00					7.00	4.00	17.00	14.00		
US 84 @ Jackson- Liberty Rd	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometry - other	7.00	5.00				1.00	10.00	1.00	17.00	7.00		
I-55 Byram Interchange (SB Rear End Crashes Only)	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Interchange
design	Extend existing lane on ramp	10.00	6.00					4.00	4.00	14.00	10.00		
US 90 at Hospital/Ocean Springs Rd SOUTH	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	133.00	130.00			1.00	1.00	27.00	36.00	161.00	167.00		
US 90 at Hospital/Ocean Springs Rd NORTH	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other		107.00						34.00		141.00		
Springridge Rd Btw I-20 and US 80	Urban Minor
Arterial	Access management	Raised island - install new	172.00	218.00					34.00	68.00	206.00	286.00		
MS 13 W of Gunther Rd to Forrest Co Ln	Rural Minor
Arterial	Roadway	Superelevation /
cross slope	40.00	6.00					26.00	6.00	66.00	12.00		
MS 25 from Monroe CL/Gaddy Rd	Rural Major Collector	Roadway	Rumble strips - edge or shoulder	66.00	70.00	7.00	4.00		3.00	26.00	39.00	99.00	116.00		
US 49 @
Southgate/Anderson	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometry - other	30.00	41.00	1.00	1.00	1.00		15.00	26.00	47.00	68.00		
I-110 Fr Biloxi Bay to I-10	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	205.00	114.00	2.00		2.00	1.00	81.00	54.00	290.00	169.00		
MS 27 Fr Warren to Copiah Co. Ln.	Rural Minor
Arterial	Roadway	Rumble strips - edge or shoulder	120.00	155.00	7.00	4.00	1.00		49.00	33.00	177.00	192.00		
I-20 at Norrell	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadway	Pavement surface
- miscellaneous	4.00	3.00					4.00	3.00	8.00	6.00		
MS 35 @ MS 28
East of Mize	Rural Minor
Arterial	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometry - other	3.00	4.00					3.00	2.00	6.00	6.00		

LOCATION	
FUNCTIONAL CLASS	
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	
IMPROVEMENT TYPE	
PDO BEFORE	
PDO AFTER	
FATALITY BEFORE	
FATALITY AFTER	
SERIOUS INJURY BEFORE	
SERIOUS INJURY AFTER	
ALL INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
I-20 Fr Smith Spur Rd to AL State Line	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	10.00	40.00	1.00		1.00	1.00	4.00	9.00	16.00	50.00		
I-55 Fr Copiah Co Ln to Byram Interchange	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	22.00	70.00	1.00	1.00	3.00	1.00	16.00	18.00	42.00	90.00		
I-55 Fr LA State Line to Lincoln Co Ln	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	39.00	123.00	3.00	6.00	1.00	2.00	22.00	61.00	65.00	192.00		
I-55 Fr Pike Co Ln to Union St Bridge	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	22.00	129.00	1.00	2.00		3.00	12.00	55.00	35.00	189.00		
I-20 Fr Bovina to Big Black River	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	29.00	62.00	3.00		1.00	2.00	7.00	16.00	40.00	80.00		
Districtwide Cable Barrier Construction	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	132.00	608.00	5.00	7.00	3.00	3.00	60.00	155.00	200.00	773.00		
MS 481 Realign Curve South of I-20	Rural Major Collector	Alignment	Horizontal curve realignment	2.00	1.00					1.00	1.00	3.00	2.00		
Districtwide Cable Barrier Construction	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	70.00	302.00	10.00	5.00	1.00	6.00	48.00	66.00	129.00	379.00		
Districtwide Cable Barrier Construction	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	112.00	432.00	12.00	2.00	2.00	4.00	70.00	120.00	196.00	558.00		
MS 18 @ Midway Rd	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	19.00	20.00	2.00		1.00		14.00	7.00	36.00	27.00		
MS 15 @ US 84 in
Laurel	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane	99.00	122.00		1.00			22.00	29.00	121.00	152.00		
US 11 at 2nd/Goodyear	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal timing -
signal coordination	34.00	20.00					5.00	8.00	39.00	28.00		
US 11 at Bruce/Jackson Landing	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal timing -
signal coordination	24.00	14.00					9.00	5.00	33.00	19.00		
US 11 at Canal St.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal timing -
signal coordination	45.00	13.00					12.00	14.00	57.00	27.00		
US 11 at Memorial Blvd/MS 43 S	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal timing -
signal coordination	76.00	12.00					19.00	2.00	95.00	14.00		
US 11 at Fourth/N. Main	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Modify traffic signal timing -
signal coordination	22.00	16.00					2.00		24.00	16.00		
MS 67 at Lickskillet Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	22.00	7.00	1.00		2.00		45.00	12.00	70.00	19.00		

LOCATION	
FUNCTIONAL CLASS	
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	
IMPROVEMENT TYPE	
PDO BEFORE	
PDO AFTER	
FATALITY BEFORE	
FATALITY AFTER	
SERIOUS INJURY BEFORE	
SERIOUS INJURY AFTER	
ALL INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
Spillway Rd Guardrail	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Roadside	Barrier - other	28.00	32.00	1.00		1.00	1.00	10.00	10.00	40.00	43.00		
US 49 at MS 22	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	12.00	9.00				1.00	15.00	4.00	27.00	14.00		
US 98 at Old MS 63 North	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Median crossover
- directional crossover	28.00	11.00	6.00		3.00		31.00	5.00	68.00	16.00		
I-10 at Cedar Lake Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Interchange
design	Interchange design - other	63.00	38.00	3.00		1.00		39.00	20.00	106.00	58.00		
MS 33 between Gloster and Coles	Rural Minor
Arterial	Roadway	Install / remove / modify passing
zone	8.00	8.00	1.00		2.00		9.00	5.00	20.00	13.00		
US 98/Hardy Fr Westover to I-59 (including SB Ramp)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Installation of new lane on ramp	384.00	422.00			1.00	1.00	82.00	105.00	467.00	528.00		
Districtwide Cable Barrier Construction	Rural Principal Arteria - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	15.00	27.00		1.00			8.00	13.00	23.00	41.00		
US 90 at MS 607	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometrics - modify skew angle	8.00	14.00			1.00	1.00	6.00	7.00	15.00	22.00		
US 49 at W.
Wortham Rd/Grand Way Blvd.	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	26.00	11.00	2.00	1.00		1.00	16.00	19.00	44.00	32.00		
MS 198 Fr I-59 to US 49	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Change in access
- close or restrict existing access	263.00	646.00				1.00	67.00	151.00	330.00	798.00		
Kiln-Delisle at Vidalia Curb and Gutter	Rural Major Collector	Intersection geometry	Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn lane	3.00	1.00					1.00	1.00	4.00	2.00		
US 49 Fr Campbell Loop to N 31st	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Raised island - install new	114.00	82.00	4.00		2.00	1.00	53.00	37.00	173.00	120.00		
US 90 at Franklin Creek Rd	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection geometry	Intersection geometrics - modify skew angle	14.00	8.00	3.00			1.00	15.00	7.00	32.00	16.00		
US 45 at CR 212	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Median crossover
- directional crossover	9.00		1.00		1.00		10.00	1.00	21.00	1.00		
Districtwide Cable Barrier Construction	Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate	Roadside	Barrier - cable	8.00	58.00	2.00	1.00			8.00	7.00	18.00	66.00		
MS 67 at Sangani - old configuration	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange	125.00				2.00		64.00		191.00			
MS 67 at Sangani - east ramps (NB)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange		69.00						18.00		87.00		

LOCATION	
FUNCTIONAL CLASS	
IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY	
IMPROVEMENT TYPE	
PDO BEFORE	
PDO AFTER	
FATALITY BEFORE	
FATALITY AFTER	
SERIOUS INJURY BEFORE	
SERIOUS INJURY AFTER	
ALL INJURY BEFORE	
ALL INJURY AFTER	
TOTAL BEFORE	
TOTAL AFTER	EVALUATION RESULTS (BENEFIT/COST RATIO)	
MS 67 at Sangani - west ramps (SB)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange		11.00						3.00		14.00		
MS 67 at Sangani - east signal/Indian River Rd.	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange		40.00						6.00		46.00		
MS 67 at Sangani - west signal/Promenade	Urban Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange		35.00						17.00		52.00		
US 45 Cable Barrier (Lee Co)	Urban Principal Arterial - Other Freeways and Expressways	Roadside	Barrier - cable	8.00	117.00	1.00	1.00	1.00		11.00	29.00	21.00	147.00		
US 45 at Euclatubba Rd.	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Interchange
design	Convert at-grade intersection to interchange	14.00	5.00	2.00		1.00		19.00	3.00	36.00	8.00		
US 84 at Ferguson Mill Rd	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Access management	Median crossover
- directional crossover	10.00		2.00		2.00		8.00	1.00	22.00	1.00		
US 61 at Delta View Rd.	Rural Principal Arterial - Other	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	8.00	2.00	1.00				7.00	6.00	16.00	8.00		
I-59 at 16th Ave.	Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate	Interchange
design	Ramp closure	52.00	43.00					8.00	10.00	60.00	53.00		
MS 35 at I-20 EB
Ramps	Urban Minor
Arterial	Intersection traffic
control	Intersection traffic control - other	13.00	11.00	1.00				12.00	2.00	26.00	13.00		

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information. Notes
The Project Listing for this year's report includes all projects that MDOT has tracked or is currently tracking that have a minimum of three years of before and after crash data analysis.

A large proportion of the projects listed have a lengthier post-construction analysis period than the period studied before the project's construction. This may cause some projects to appear to have higher post-construction crash totals when that may not necessarily be the case.

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

No

Compliance Assessment

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

01/02/2014

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 To: 2017

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

2018

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.

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - SEGMENT	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - INTERSECTION	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - RAMPS	
LOCAL PAVED ROADS	
UNPAVED ROADS	
	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	
ROADWAY SEGMENT	
Segment Identifier (12)	100	100					100	100	100	100	
Route Number (8)	100	100									
Route/Street Name (9)	100	100									
Federal Aid/Route Type (21)	100	100									
Rural/Urban Designation (20)	100	100					100	100			
Surface Type (23)	100	100					100	100			
Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10)	100	100					100	100	100	100	
End Point Segment Descriptor (11)	100	100					100	100	100	100	
Segment Length (13)	100	100									
Direction of Inventory (18)	100	100									
Functional Class (19)	100	100					100	100	100	100	
Median Type (54)	100	100									

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - SEGMENT	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - INTERSECTION	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - RAMPS	
LOCAL PAVED ROADS	
UNPAVED ROADS	
	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	
Access Control (22)	100	100									
One/Two Way Operations (91)	100	100									
Number of Through Lanes (31)	100	100					100	100			
Average Annual Daily Traffic (79)	100	100					100	100			
AADT Year (80)	100	100									
Type of Governmental Ownership (4)	100	100					100	100	100	100	
INTERSECTION	
Unique Junction Identifier (120)			100	100							
Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122)			100	100							
Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123)			100	100							
Intersection/Junction Geometry (126)			100	100							
Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131)			16	16							
AADT for Each Intersecting Road (79)			100	100							
AADT Year (80)			100	100							
Unique Approach Identifier (139)			100	100							
INTERCHANGE/RAMP	
Unique Interchange Identifier (178)					100	100					
Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning of Ramp Terminal (197)					100	100					
Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201)					100	100					
Ramp Length (187)					100	100					
Roadway Type at Beginning of Ramp Terminal (195)					100	100					

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.)	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - SEGMENT	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - INTERSECTION	NON LOCAL PAVED ROADS - RAMPS	
LOCAL PAVED ROADS	
UNPAVED ROADS	
	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	STATE	NON-STATE	
Roadway Type at End Ramp Terminal (199)					100	100					
Interchange Type (182)					100	100					
Ramp AADT (191)					100	100					
Year of Ramp AADT (192)					100	100					
Functional Class (19)					100	100					
Type of Governmental Ownership (4)					100	100					
Totals (Average Percent Complete):	100.00	100.00	89.50	89.50	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	

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

Current efforts are under way to complete the remaining data needed for intersection traffic control. MDOT does have a signalized/unsignalized table for all intersections, however, this table is out of date and is not very accurate. We are currently going through the process of looking at all 149,000 intersections and identifying the type of traffic control in place at each. We expect to have this done by the time of next year's report.

MDOT's Planning Division has recently updated their LRS to a new MLRS system that incorporates all roads in the State. Within that data, we have all of the above mentioned MIRE elements. All of the new roads are drawn into the system as soon as plans are developed or are discovered by MDOT. While all the MIRE data fields are populated, they may not be 100% accurate (ex. Surface Type), but MDOT strives to keep the majority of elements up to date as best we can.

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.

Current efforts are being made to complete the MIRE fundamental data elements. During the MDOT's deployment of the new MLRS, many of the data elements were statistically derived or geometric based. The few remaining elements were captured from aerial photography or from previous inventories. The intersection control type is one of the elements MDOT is still missing. Current data collection is underway to complete this element and should be completed by next year's reporting cycle.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury.

CRITERIA	SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY IDENTIFIER(NAME)	
MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT *	SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION	
MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT *	SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS)	
MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT *	
Crash Report Form	Life Threatening	No	N/A	No	N/A	No	
Crash Report Form Instruction Manual	Life Threatening	No	Injuries where there is a high probability of
the loss of life	No	N/A	No	
Crash Database	Life Threatening	No	N/A	No	N/A	No	
Crash Database Data Dictionary	Life Threatening	No	See Previous	No	See Previous	No	

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

The Mississippi Department of Public Safety is actively working towards updating its crash report form. As a part of that process, an updated definition of serious injuries will be completed in order to meet MMUCC 4th Edition Compliancy.

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

Notes

Links: KABCO Injury Definition, Pgs. 8-9 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/conversion_tbl/pdfs/kabco_ctable_by_state.pdf

Mississippi Crash Report Instruction Manual, rev. 2009 https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/stateCatalog/states/ms/docs/MS_Crash_Report_Instruction_Manual_062009.pdf

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

No

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

2021

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

The Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with the MDOT, completed a Highway Safety Improvement Program review during the Federal Fiscal Year 2016. Both agencies intend to complete the next program assessment by no later than Federal Fiscal Year 2021.

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:

Glossary

5 year rolling average	means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual fatality rate).	
Emphasis area	means a highway safety priority in a State’s SHSP, identified through a data-driven, collaborative process.	
Highway safety improvement project	means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.	
HMVMT	means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.	
Non-infrastructure projects	are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities.	

Older driver special rule	applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, as defined in the Older Driver and Pedestrian Special Rule Interim Guidance dated February 13, 2013.	
Performance measure	means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives.	
Programmed funds	mean those funds that have been programmed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to be expended on highway safety improvement projects.	
Roadway Functional Classification	means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide.	
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)	means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.	
Systematic	refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a system.	
Systemic safety improvement	means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.	

Transfer	means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned for the fiscal year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.