Tennessee
Highway Safety Improvement
Program Annual Report
July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010
Includes:
Highway Safety Improvement Program Report,
Including High Risk Rural Roads Program
Section 130 Program Report
5% Report
Tennessee Department of Transportation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TENNESSEE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. REPORTING FREQUENCY AND SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 3
3. CONTENT AND STRUCTURES OF THE HSIP REPORT ..................................................................................... 3
A. PROGRAM STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................... 3
B. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE HSIP PROJECTS ................................................................................ 5
C. ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPROVEMENT (PROGRAM EVALUATION) .....................19
D. HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM (HRRRP) ...................................................................................28
4. PROTECTION OF DATA FROM DISCOVERY & ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE...................................................32
ATTACHMENT 1 ........................................................................................................................ 33
5. SECTION 130 PROGRAM REPORT ...................................................................................... 34
6. 5% REPORT ............................................................................................................................. 43
i
1. Introduction
As directed by 23 U.S.C. 148(g) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) core program. The purpose of the HSIP annual report is to display the
initiation, selection process and evaluation process of infrastructure-related highway safety projects. The
concerted efforts of the four E’s – engineering, enforcement, emergency response and education – appear
to be paying large dividends to the residents and visitors of Tennessee.
The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) worked closely with Tennessee’s Governor’s
Highway Safety Office (GHSO), the Tennessee Department of Safety (TDOS), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), as well as
many others to implement the Tennessee Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The original SHSP was
enacted in November of 2004. An updated version of the plan was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen ,
the division administrators from Federal Highway Administration and Federal Motor Carriers Safety
Administration; the director of the Tennessee Governor’s Highway Safety Office ; the commissioners
from the Tennessee Department of Safety and Tennessee Department of Transportation on August 24,
2007. A third revision is now complete and was signed on September 2009.
The Road Safety Audit Review (RSAR) Program has continued to identify safety improvement projects.
We have existing projects from the Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HESP). Tennessee Department
of Transportation (TDOT) has institutionalized the use of Road Safety Audit Reviews (RSARs). The
guidance from these RSARs is used to direct spending in our Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR). TDOT’s Project Planning Division has set up four Road
Safety Audit teams (one in each region). The teams are primarily comprised of TDOT personnel from
various divisions, although others, such as Rural Planning Organizations, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (RPOs and MPOs), law enforcement and emergency medical services are included
periodically. Spots or sections are identified by several different means and are evaluated to determine if
they meet guidelines established by SAFETEA-LU. Once eligibility is established by review of data and
crash reports, the RSAR is scheduled. Following the RSAR process, an estimate is prepared and the
improvement implemented. Development process takes place after approval by TDOT’s Chief Engineer
and acquisition of required environmental permits. The site is monitored for three years and the compiled
data is used to evaluate the performance of the safety improvements. On average one RSAR is performed
every two weeks. This process has a high potential to correct many safety concerns quickly at a relatively
low cost.
Preliminary fatality figures show a continuing downward trend in the state’s traffic fatalities. TDOT
traffic engineers expect the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to continue to flatten this year after trending
upward for many years, but fatalities appear to be decreasing again to produce an even lower fatality rate
for CY2009.
1
The following bullets provide a synopsis of safety initiatives in Tennessee:
On April 19, 2010, Commissioner Nicely approved the development of a new Safety Planning
Office within the Project Planning Division. The Safety Planning Office will manage all safety
projects in order to develop guidelines and innovative ways to expedite funding allocations. This
approach will provide a more efficient path to project completion which is the ultimate goal. The
effective date of the Safety Planning Office was May 1, 2010.
Road Safety Audit Review is a multi disciplinary team approach. The team members consist of
various disciplines from the Bureau of Engineering and the Bureau of Environment and Planning.
Median cable barrier projects were expanded by adding a project which installed four-strand high
tension barrier in Sumner County on SR 386. A proposal has been approved by FHWA to fund a
statewide programmatic installation program in locations where minimum criteria has been met.
HSIP funds will be used to implement this project. By the end of CY2009 about 1.4 million
linear feet of median cable barrier was in place or under contract encompassing all four regions of
the state.
TDOT’s low cost safety improvement projects (Safety Checklist for Resurfacing Projects) that
are setup for resurfacing bid process is implemented through the use of STIP and HSIP funds.
The Safety Checklist is still in use for all resurfacing projects as part of a standard procedure.
Corridor Safety Improvement Projects were limited to those that had severe crash rates that
exceeded the statewide severe crash rate. This requires a minimum of two fatal crashes or two
fatal plus two incapacitating injury crashes. Some corridors in counties connec t with corridors
in adjacent counties. Corridor Safety Improvement Projects are being bid in each Region to
contract letting. Safety upgrades include installation of centerline and shoulder rumble stripes
and strips, cable guardrail, installation of skid resistant surfaces in intersections or curves,
elimination of roadside obstacles, improvements to pavement markings (including use of Raised
Pavement Markers), installation and upgrade of guardrails and end terminals and improvements
for pedestrian or bike safety.
A Ramp Queue Safety Program has been developed where exit ramp storage extends onto the
main line traveled way. Locations submitted for inclusion in the Ramp Queue Program will now
be analyzed to determine that a queue onto the mainline traveled way exists. Only after this
queue is demonstrated will these locations be further developed as a part of the Ramp Queue
Program. Eight locations were initially selected for this program. Road Safety Audit Reviews
have been completed on six of the eight locations, with the remaining two being disposed of due
to not meeting the criteria, after analysis, of demonstrating an actual ramp queue problem. At
present, strategies to be implemented are increased storage, coordination of traffic signals (both at
the intersection of the ramp and crossroad and along the crossroad to maintain maximum traffic
flow), along with signing and marking improvements. This is a continuing program in 2010, with
eight additional Ramp Queue projects scheduled for development.
The “Between the Barrels” teen work zone training class has been presented to over 100,000 high
school students since its inception.
2
A Local Roads Safety Initiative is being developed to identify counties that have a high fatality
rate on local roadways. The purpose of this program is to identify safety concerns and to develop
recommended improvements. Local officials will submit potential projects with supporting data
for TDOT’s review and approval. TDOT will work with Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) or
other local agencies to analyze and implement justifiable safety concerns.
TDOT continues to implement a Spot Safety Improvement Program allocating Federal and State
funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The projects did not meet the HSIP
criteria because the crash ratio was less than 3.5 for intersections and 3.0 for spots or sections.
Total expenditures for this program were $1,971,026.27.
Over the past five (5) years, Tennessee’s apportionment for the Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Program has received approximately $10.8 in federal funds. A committee has been developed by
TDOT to approve and select appropriate sites for implementing this program. As of July 1, 2010,
TDOT announced over $8.7 million in funding with at least 80 schools participating in local
SRTS programs.
The Tennessee Traffic Records Coordinating Committee received federal grants from National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the amount of $568,101.00 to continue
upgrading the recording and transmitting of crash reports. The TRCC requested a Traffic
Records Assessment which is an audit of traffic records and processes. It was noted that
“remarkable progress” in traffic records had been made since the last audit in 2004.
2. Reporting Frequency and Schedule
Pursuant to 23 CFR 924.15, the Tennessee HSIP reporting period is from July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010
and fatality rate is based on calendar year per FARS and TDOT data.
3. Content and Structure of the HSIP Report
A. Program Structure
HSIP funds are administered centrally through the TDOT Headquarters rather than by the TDOT regions.
However, each region may submit safety concerns or proposed safety projects to the TDOT Safety
Planning Office within the Project Planning Division for evaluation and possible programming for HSIP
funding. Funding is allocated based on severity ranking of crash data. Road Safety Audit Reviews
(RSARs) continue to be a driving force of the HSIP. The lists of Hazard Elimination Safety Program
(HESP) and High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) for review are generated using criteria cited in Program
Methodology.
Local roads have been difficult to address and fund for safety improvements due to lack of data on the
non-state owned roads. This program will use primarily HRRR funding. TDOT has developed a Local
Roads Safety Initiative within the Incident Management Office and is implementing two pilot projects for
FY 2011.
The TDOT Offices of Project Planning, Traffic, the Governor’s Highway Safety Office and
Safety/Incident Management work closely internally to implement strategies indicated in the Tennessee
Strategic Highway Safety Plan. These TDOT sections also work with the Transportation Department of
Safety, Rural Planning Organization, Metropolitan Planning Organization, and many other partners in the
eight emphasis areas of the SHSP.
3
Program Methodology
The program methodology for the HESP and HRRR programs are reviewed annually and updated when
appropriate. These procedures are designed to identify a number of locations that can reasonably be
processed during a year’s time and to identify the locations with the greatest need for improvement. The
procedures use a combination of traffic exposure, crash number, and crash severity to identify candidate
locations.
TDOT’s Safety Planning Office processes traffic crash data and develops criteria to determine locations
for safety improvements. Crash data is summarizing by sections, spots, and intersections. Average crash
rates are calculated by route cross-section, environment (rural or urban), type of location, and intersection
control. A critical crash rate is calculated by adding a confidence interval to the average rate for each
location. Project lists are developed by selecting the locations that meet the stated criteria.
Below are the formulas for the crash analyses:
Ra = A/E
Ra = Actual Crash Rate
A = Number of Crashes
E = Exposure Rate
The exposure rate is the vehicular travel in million of vehicle mile or million of vehicles. It is calculated
by using one of the following formulas:
E = (V x T x L)/1,000,000 (Sections) Million Vehicle Miles
Or
E = (V x T)/1,000,000 (Intersections or Spots) Million Vehicles
V = AADT for Sections or Spots or Entering Volume for Intersections
T = Time Period
L = Length
The critical crash rate was calculated by using the following formula:
Rc = R + K (R/E) ½ + (1/2E)
Rc = Critical Accident Rate
R = Average Accident Rate
K = 2.327 for a confidence level of 99 percent = Standard normal variable along the x-axis of the stand
normal distribution curve. (K is related to the probability that an accident rate greater than Rc is not
due to the chance)
E = Exposure Rate
The locations that meet the program criteria are prioritized by severity index. The severity index is
calculated by dividing the sum of 4 times the number of fatal crashes plus 2 times the number of
4
incapacitating injury crashes plus 1 times the number of other injury crashes by the total number of
crashes. Below is the equation:
4(Fatal Crashes) + 2(Incapacitating Injury Crashes) + 1(Other Injury Crashes)
Total Crashes
.
The FY 2010 HESP list contains twenty-nine (29) locations where safety improvements will be explored.
The list includes three (3) urban spot sections; two (2) urban sections; and six (6) rural and eighteen (18)
urban intersections. Each of these locations had at least one (1) severe crash which resulted in a fatality
or an incapacitating injury. The Project Planning Division organized and performed a road safety audit at
each of these locations that met criteria after a review of data. The road safety audit provides guidance on
the types of improvements needed for each location. Additional sites may be added when qualifying
locations are identified during.
Since the beginning of SAFETEA-LU, Tennessee has given more consideration to fatal and severe injury
crashes. While total crashes have remained a component of the requirements for Hazard Elimination
Safety Program (HESP) type projects, fatal and severe injury crashes must be present. A High Risk Rural
Roads (HRRR) program has been developed where sections of rural local and collector routes with fatal
and incapacitating injury crashes are identified for improvements. For the last two years, the State has
identified corridors with high number of severe crashes for safety improvements. A median cable barrier
program has been initiated for crossover protection. A Ramp Queuing program has been initiated where
ramps that experience queues that extend into the mainline of the roadway or have the potential for this
were identified for improvements.
For the HESP process, the most current three years of data are used. To qualify for consideration, a
location must have had a minimum of seven crashes. The crash rate must equal or exceed 3.5 times the
critical rate, and a fatal or serious injury crash must have occurred. Lane departure crashes account for a
high percentage of the fatalities that occur in Tennessee. Therefore, a stronger focus was placed on
making safety improvements at locations with these type crashes. Locations are included on the HESP
list if a lane departure fatal or serious injury crash occurred and the crash rate was 3.0 times the critical
rate. The HRRR, cable barrier, corridor, and ramp queue programs are described in more detail in other
sections of this report.
Table 4 is a summary of project evaluations. As few projects of the newer programs have been completed
long enough to accumulate crash data for review, most of the evaluations were HESP type. The projects
are evaluated with three years of before crash data with the evaluations continuing until three years of
after data are available. The evaluated projects had a total of eleven (11) fatal crashes in the before data.
There were no fatal crashes in any of the after data. The injury crashes and all crashes were reduced by
more than 50%.
B. Progress in Implementing the HSIP Projects
In FY 2009-10 Tennessee’s HSIP allocation from FHWA was $106,731,755, pursuant to the SAFETEA-
LU, Public Law 109-59. According to the federal requirements, these funds were to be used to help the
State achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Tennessee’s roads. FHWA
approves HSIP projects during the preliminary engineering, design and construction phases.
Table 1 indicates the funds available and amount obligated for the Highway Safety Improvement Projects
in FY 2009-10.
5
Table 1
FEDERAL FUNDS
HSIP Project
Funding
Reporting Period:
07/01/2009 to
06/30/2010
Funding Category Programmed Obligated
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(Section 148) $106,731,775 $68,162,105
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
Railroad 9,196,062 3,788,587
Hazard Elimination
(Section 152) 85,444 76,897
Optional Safety 2,330,418 (407,382)
Surface Transportation Program –
Railroad 1,215,377 (155,476)
Penalty Transfer (Section
154) 13,365,875 3,853,736
Safety Belt Performance Grants (Section 406) 0 0
Incentive Grants (i.e. Sections
157,163) 0 0
Other Federal-aid funds (i.e. STP Spot Improve.) 6,476,293 1,623,544
6
General Listing of Projects
Section 1401 of Safe Accountable Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) requires each state to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
According to Section 1401, Part 6(B), the SHSP must analyze and make effective the use of State,
regional or local crash data. The purpose of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan is to identify key safety
needs and guide investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads. The projects that were selected for improvement for FY 2009-10 meet the
requirements set forth by the Tennessee Strategic Highway Safety Plan by managing the attributes of our
roadways, the drivers and the vehicle to achieve the highest level of highway safety by integrating the
work of disciplines of planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the roadway
infrastructure, injury prevention and emergency response services. Through this effort of joining these
disciplines, Tennessee roadways are on their way to meeting the highest level of safety for the traveling
motorists.
SAFETEA-LU also requires the State to have in place a crash data system with the ability to perform
safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis. Projects under this section are 90% federally
funded.
SHSP Emphasis Areas
1. Improve Crash Data
2. Reduce Lane Departures
3. Improve Intersection Safety
4. Improve Work Zone Safety
5. Improve Motor Carrier Safety
6. Improve Driver Behavior
7. Strengthen Legislation
8. Enhance Educational and Awareness Programs
For performance evaluations for emphasis areas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 see Table 5.
7
Table 2 lists the Highway Safety Improvement Projects scheduled in FY 2009-10. The legend at the end of the table identifies the data for each project. Federal
and State dollars are combined where applicable. Numbers in parenthesis or red indicate obligated funds that were underun and de-obligated or returned.
Table 2
HSIP Projects
FY 2009 – 10
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Lane Departure
Anderson, SR-116,E of SR-330 to SR-9 (US-25W) 3 8.98 miles $67200.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Anderson, SR-71 From Norris Dam in Campbell Lane Departure
County to Cob Hollow Rd in Anderson County 3 4.5 miles ($30,010.00) Lane Departure Action Plan
Anderson, SR-9 (US-25W), S of New Clear Branch Lane Departure
Rd to SR-61 3 6.63 miles $60,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Bedford, Marshall County Line to SR-16 (US-41A) 3 I6.40 miles $78,526.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Bedford, SR-16 (US-41A), Rutherford County Line Lane Departure
to SR-270 3 10.41 miles $284,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Benton,SR-1(US-70 BYP), SR-391 to SR-391 3 4.28 miles $84,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Section Safety
Blount, SR-334Int at Miser Station Rd/Mentor Rd 1 0.05 miles $917,629.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Blount, SR-336, Int. Section Safety
Int at Old Niles Ferry Pike, LM 0.45 1 0.12 miles $427,462.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Lane Departure
Bradley, SR-60,N of Helms Ln to near Gilliland Dr 3 4.63 miles $42,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Campbell, SR-63, E of SR-9 (US-25W) to E of Lane Departure
Imperial Heights Rd 3 1.98 miles $90,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Carroll, SR-22, near McKenzie High School to Lane Departure
Henry County Line 3 2.09 miles $51,400.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Cheatham, SR-12, Davidson County Line to SR- Lane Departure
455 3 5.85 miles $116,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Cheatham, SR-49, Sycamore Creek to SR-112 (US- Lane Departure
41A) 3 5.55 miles $65,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
8
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Clay, SR-53, Bob Watson Rd to Kentucky State Lane Departure
Line 3 2.73 miles $87,071.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Cocke, SR-32, Cosby Creek to S of Eply Rd 3 4.73 miles $114,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Coffee, SR-55, near Rosehill Memorial Gardens to Lane Departure
S of Manchester High School 3 4.09 miles $100,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Crockett, SR-76,Haywood/Crockett County Line to Lane Departure
SR-20 1 2.94 miles $46,200.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Cumberland, SR-298, Jackie Dr to Lake Francis Rd 3 3.97 miles $55,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Cumberland, I-40, Interchange at SR-298 (Genesis Ramp Queue
Rd, Exit 320) 3 0.20 miles $656,510.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Davidson,SR-106, (US-431), near Bridalway Dr to Lane Departure
S of Harding Place 3 3.21 miles $207,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Davidson, SR-24, Highland View Dr to near Lane Departure
Andrew Jackson Pkwy 3 0.83 miles $15,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Davidson, SR-265, SR-45 to Wilson County Line 3 1.85 miles $25,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Davidson, I-65,Interchange at SR-254 (Old Hickory Intersection Safety
Blvd), Exit 74B 1 Intersection $115,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Davidson, I-24E, near Mile Post 53 in Nashville 17 0.26 miles $720,404.00 Lane Departure Barrier Installation
Davidson, I-40, E and W Ramps to 4th Ave and 2nd Signage and
Ave in Nashville 11 0.10 miles $506,247.00 Lane Departure Marking
Davidson, I-40, at Fesslers Ln Interchange in Signage and
Nashville 11 0.22 miles $9,500.00 Lane Departure Marking
Davidson, I-40, W Exit Ramp at Stewarts Ferry Int. Safety
Pike (Design/Build) 1 Intersection $181,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Ramp Queue Safety
Davidson, I-65, S of Alta Loma Rd to SR-386 3 3.60 miles $36,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Davidson, SR-255, (Donelson Pike), Int at I-40 EB
Ramps 17 0.03 miles $6,360.00 Lane Departure Guardrail
Davidson, SR386, From I-65 in Davidson County to
Center Point Rd in Sumner County 3 2.49 miles $81,500.00 Lane Departure Ramp Queue
9
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Davidson, SR-45, From the ramp to I-40 to the Lane Departure
Bridge over I-40 3 0.62 miles $3,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Davidson, !-24, From SR-45 to I-65 3 4.70 miles $93,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Davidson, SR-251, Cheatham County Line to Old Lane Departure
Charlotte Pike 3 8.25 miles $194,386.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Davidson, SR-255, From SR-6/US-31 (Franklin Rd) Lane Departure
to Recovery Rd 3 3.5 miles $33,658.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
DeKalb, Edgar Evins Park Rd, From SR-141/96 to Lane Departure
LM 2.06 3 2.06 miles $39,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Dickson, SR-49, From SR-48N/SR-49E to near Lane Departure
Timber Ridge Rd 3 7.40 miles $110,514.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Dickson, SR-48, Hickman County Line to Rickert Lane Departure
Ave in Dickson 3 9.85 miles $176,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Dyer, SR-105, Obion County Line to SR-211 3 0.96 miles $14,763.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Fayette, SR-15, (US-64), W of Somerville Church Lane Departure
of Christ to E of Dogwood Ln 3 2.56 miles $46,763.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Fentress, SR-154, N Main St in Jamestown to N of Lane Departure
Louvaine Rd 3 4.78 miles $80,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Franklin, SR-127, SR-16 (US-41A) to Farm Lane Lane Departure
Rd 3 4.78 miles $92,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Franklin, SR-433, Georgia Crossing Rd to SR-50 3 3.23 miles $75,184.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Franklin, SR-50, JCT SR-433 to Mantooth Rd (Rt.) 3 1.36 miles $26,712.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Grainger, SR-375, S of Greenelee Rd to S of Lane Departure
Hoppers Bluff Rd 3 5.50 miles $3,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Safety
Greene, SR-107, Int at SR-351 1 Intersection $977,049.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Greene, SR-34, Int with SR-351 (Rheatown Int. Safety
Rd/Chuckey Rd), LM 25.30 1 Intersection $274,600.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Lane Departure
Greene, SR-351, SR-107 to SR-34 3 6.72 miles $3,399.90 Lane Departure Action Plan
10
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Greene, SR-70, Int at Marvin Rd, LM 24.54 11 0.00 miles $4,740.28 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Greene, SR-93, SR-34 to SR-351 Rt. 3 8.04 miles $127,917.97 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Safety
Grundy, SR-56, Int at SR-150 in Tracy City 1 Intersection $35,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Grundy, SR-56, (US-41), From SR-150 to Parsons
Rd
Int. Safety
Hamblen, N. Henry St, Int at 3rd N St, LM 1.84 1 Intersection $10,800.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Hamblen, SR-34, From SR-32 (US-25E) to Lane Departure
Hawkins County Line 3 9.87 miles $74,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hamilton, SR-321,Georgia State Line to SR-317 Lane Departure
(Apison Pike) in Chattanooga 3 5.12 miles $13,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hamilton, SR-2, Marion County Line to SR-38 Lane Departure
(US-11) 3 2.32 miles $78,849.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hamilton, SR-58, near Greenwood Rd (Rt.) to end Lane Departure
of 4-Ln near Sims Rd in Chattanooga 3 2.76 miles $53,298.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hardeman, SR-15, Walton Rd to Pleasant Run Lane Departure
Creek 3 2.56 miles $33,600.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Safety
Hardin, 03109, East Main St, Int at Fairground St 1 Intersection $10,186.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Hawkins, 01356, McKinney Chapel Rd, SR-347
(Burem Pike, LM 0.00) to SR-66 (LM 5.76) 11 5.76 miles $33,600.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Hawkins, SR-31, Adams Ln to Hancock County Lane Departure
Line 1 2.74 miles ($29,641.94) Lane Departure Action Plan
Hawkins, SR-347, Goshen Valley Rd to Sullivan Lane Departure
County Line 1 11.00 miles $13,726.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hawkins, SR-66, Choptack Rd left to Hancock Lane Departure
County Line 3 10.61 miles $81,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Safety
Haywood, E. College St at CSX R/R, LM 0.74 1 Intersection ($7,500.00) Intersection Safety Improvements
Haywood, SR-179, (Stanton-Koko Rd) at CSX R/R, Int. Safety
LM 4.57 in Stanton 1 Intersection $400,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
11
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Henderson, SR-22, From SR-22A to SR-20 (US- Lane Departure
412) 3 2.07 miles $48,300.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Henry, SR-69, Walnut Fork Branch to Kentucky Lane Departure
State Line 3 I8.37 miles $49,723.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Henry, SR22, Carroll County Line to Weakley Lane Departure
County Line 3 1.97 miles $33,100.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hickman, SR-230, near Dodd Hollow Rd (Lt.) to Lane Departure
Humphreys County Line 3 7.27 miles $257,472.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hickman, SR-230, From SR-48 to near Dodd Lane Departure
Hollow Rd 3 6.48 miles ($5,900.00) Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Hickman, SR-230, From SR-50 to SR-100 3 9.15 miles $127,393.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Hickman, SR-46, From SR-7/SR-100 to Dickson Lane Departure
County Line 3 2.79 miles $99,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Houston, SR-13, Humphreys County Line to SR-49 3 6.80 miles $98,901.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Jackson, SR-56, From SR-290 to near McCoinsville Lane Departure
Rd (S of SR-53) 3 4.62 miles $110,479.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Jefferson, SR-9, Int at SR-139 (Snyder Rd), LM Int. Safety
0.44 1 Intersection $577,500.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Lane Departure
Johnson, SR-167, From SR-67 to Little Dry Run Rd 3 6.35 miles $36,100.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Knox, SR-169, (Middlebrook Pike), LM 7.73 to LM
7.83 in Knoxville 2 0.10 miles $222,000.00 Lane Departure Shoulder Widening
Int. Safety
Knox, SR-170, (Raccoon Valley Rd), Int at Naff Rd 1 Intersection $482,880.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Knox, SR-33, Int at W 5th Ave, LM 7.24 in Int. Safety
Knoxville 1 Intersection $81,300.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Knox, SR-331, (Tazewell Pike), S of Baum Rd to N
of McCamey Rd 2 0.16 miles $428,000.00 Lane Departure Shoulder Widening
Knox, I-140, (WB On/Off Ramps), Int at SR-332 Int. Safety
(Northshore Dr) 1 Intersection $76,828.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Knox, SR-162, Interchange at SR-131 (Lovell Rd) 2 0.27 miles $842,621.00 Lane Departure Shoulder Widening
12
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Lane Departure
Knox, SR-1, E of Glen Abby Blvd to E of SR-332 3 0.93 mile $18,590.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Lake, SR-78, Obion County Line to Clay Winn Rd 3 6.53 miles ($16,842.00) Lane Departure Action Plan
Lauderdale, SR-3, (US-51), Ripley City Limit to
Dyer County Line 11 19.37 miles $46,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Lawrence, SR-241, SR-240 to Lewis County Line 3 5.42 miles $48,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Lawrence, SR-98, S of Ezell Rd to SR-6 (US-43) 3 5.88 miles $94,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lincoln, SR-273, Giles County Line to near Lane Departure
Bugtussle Rd 3 4.43 miles $135,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Loudon, 02358, Harrison Rd/Loudon Ridge Rd,
Norwood St to Hubbard Rd, LM's 0.93 -1.55 11 0.62 miles $18,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Madison, SR-1, (US-70), from SR-186 (US-45 Lane Departure
BYP) to SR-5 (US-45) 3 1.55 miles $45,100.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Madison, SR-1, Dr. F.E. Wright Dr to I-40 Ramp 3 4.34 miles $41,791.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Marion, I-24, (US-64 WB), near LM 4.10 11 0.00 miles $2,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Marion, SR-2, W of Fish Trap Rd to Pine Crest Ln 3 2.99 miles $30,559.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Marshall, SR-129, SR-272 to SR-50 (US-431) 3 7.25 miles $141,842,00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Marshall, SR-272, From SR-129 to SR-106 (US- Lane Departure
31A) 3 9.68 miles $107,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Maury, SR-245, Int at Sheegog Ln and Indian Camp Int. Safety
Springs Rd, LM 10.57 1 Intersection $1,677,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Maury, SR-50, (James Campbell Blvd), Int at Lions
Pkwy/Westover Dr in Columbia 11 0.04 miles $5,400.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Maury, SR-6, (US-43), Sugar Creek to SR-6
Connector Underpass 11 0.64 miles $576,608.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Maury, SR-6, S of Industrial Park Rd to SR-6 (US- Lane Departure
31N) in Columbia 3 4.60 miles $250,293.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
McMinn, SR-305, W of I-75 to SR-68 in Meigs Lane Departure
County 3 8.78 miles $160,742.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
13
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Lane Departure
McMinn, SR-309, From SR-2 (US-11) to I-75 3 5.36 miles $70,343.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
McMinn, SR-39, From I-75 Bridge to SR-2 (US-11) 3 1.66 miles $19,305.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
McNairy, SR-5, (US-45), Mississippi State Line to Lane Departure
SR-57 3 5.86 miles $36,800.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Meigs, SR-68, From SR-58 to E of Mt Vert Rd 3 5.56 miles $52,254.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Int. Safety
Monroe, SR-33, Int at Wayman Rd 1 Intersection $134,167.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Montgomery, SR-13, Int with Alfred Thun Rd and Int. Safety
Cracker Barrell Rd, LM 26.81 1 Intersection $2,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Montgomery, SR-12, (US-41A), Red River Bridge Lane Departure
to SR-374 3 4.24 miles $82,946.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Obion, SR-3, From Dyer County Line to SR-183 3 39.5 miles $76,994.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Overton, SR-85, From SR-111 to SR-85 WB 3 0.33 miles $1,138.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Overton, SR-111, From SR-85 to SR-294 3 3.26 miles $57,449.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Perry, SR-100, SR-20 (US-412) to Hickman County Lane Departure
Line 3 4.08 miles $61,191.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Perry, SR-13, Wayne County Line to S of Old Hwy Lane Departure
13 S 3 6.77 miles $93,961.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Polk, SR-33, near Old Federal Rd (N of SR-313) to Lane Departure
near Longley Rd (S of SR-40) 3 4.45 miles $114,444.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Putnam, SR-164, S of Baptist Church in Monterey Lane Departure
to Overton County Line 3 2.75 miles $18,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Putnam, 03529, Maple Ave at E. Hudgens St in Int. Safety
Cookeville 1 Intersection $2,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Putnam, SR-62, E of Meadow Creek to W of Jim Pavement and
Garrett Rd 2 .52 miles $2,139,818.00 Lane Departure Shoulder Widening
14
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Lane Departure
Putnam, SR-84, Poplar St to Overton County Line 3 3.63 miles $61,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Region 1, Various Interstate and SR's - install cable
barrier system 17 Regionwide $5,968,534.00 Lane Departure Install Cable Barrier
Corridor Safety
Region 1, Various SR’s in Region 1 3 Regionwide $3,873,872.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 1, Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Corridor Safety
Various SR's 3 Regionwide $4,488,492.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 2, Various Interstate and SR's - install cable Install Cable Barrier
barrier system, guardrail 17 Regionwide $2,730,020.00 Lane Departure and Guardrail
Corridor Safety
Region 2, Various Routes in Region 2 3 Regionwide $2,588,550.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 2, Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Corridor Safety
Various SR's 3 Regionwide $7,200,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 3, Various Interstate and SR's - install cable
barrier system 17 Regionwide $4,232,331.00 Lane Departure Install Cable Barrier
Corridor Safety
Region 3, Various Routes in Region 3 3 Regionwide $3,027,778.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 3, Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Corridor Safety
Various SR's 3 Regionwide $4,742,488.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 4, Various Interstate and SR's - install cable
barrier system 17 Regionwide $4,243,573.00 Lane Departure Install Cable Barrier
Corridor Safety
Region 4, Various Routes in Region 4 3 Regionwide $1,802,133.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Region 4, Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Corridor Safety
Various SR's 3 Regionwide $2,831,707.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Region 4, Region 4 Safety Improvements 3 Regionwide $380,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Rhea, 0A111, Iowa Ave (0A111) at Norfolk Railway Safety
Southern R/R in Dayton 7 Intersection $156,000.00 Railway Improvements
Roane, SR-1, Cumberland County Line to SR-29 Lane Departure
(US-27/70) 3 2.79 miles $24,999.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Roane, I-40, LM 4.68 to LM 5.78 (Skid Resistant Skid Resistant
Surface) 4 1.10 miles $60,038.00 Lane Departure Surface
15
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Roane, SR-1, (US-27), E of SR-61 to W of Ruritan Lane Departure
Rd 3 6.57 miles $58,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Robertson, SR-25, From SR-161 (Barren Plains Rd) Lane Departure
to SR-65 (US-431) 3 4.00 miles $26,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Robertson, SR-49, From SR-25 to near SR-52 3 6.62 miles $73,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Rutherford, SR-102, I-24 to SR-266 3 5.40 miles $7,823.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Rutherford, SR-99, Middle Tennessee Blvd to S
Rutherford Blvd 11 1.61 miles $4,213.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Rutherford, SR-96, Int at Cason Ln/John Rice Blvd, Int. Safety
LM 9.10 1 Intersection $16,000.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Lane Departure
Scott, SR-29, Morgan County Line to Main St 3 12.71 miles ($34,394.19) Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Scott, SR-29, (US-27), Main St to S of Verdun Rd 3 4.02 miles $120,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sevier, SR-139, Int at Kodak Rd and W Dumplin Int. Safety
Valley Rd, LM 3.39 1 Intersection $69,700.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Sevier, SR-338,(Boyds Creek Hwy), Int at Old Int. Safety
Sevierville Pike 1 Intersection $1,317,286.00 Intersection Safety Improvements
Sevier, SR-35, Int of Hattie Branch Rd and
Patterson Rd, LM 21.64 11 0.33 miles $154,900.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Sevier, SR-71, From SR-73 (US-321) to Dudley Lane Departure
Creek 3 0.87 miles $6,811.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Shelby,SR-1, (US-70), Int at Canada Rd, LM 22.85 Pavement and
in Lakeland 2 0.28 miles $1,451,843.00 Lane Departure Shoulder Widening
Shelby, I-55, Ramps at Crump Blvd (Exit 12) to I-
55 WB Ramp and Crump Blvd from Kentucky St to Ramp Queue
I-55 3 0.20 miles $211,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Shelby, SR-3, (US-51), N of Wolf River (Overflow Lane Departure
Bridge) to Overflow Bridge 3 4.63 miles $38,800.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Shelby, SR-1, From SR-57 to Isabelle St 3 2.66 miles $49,300.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Shelby, SR-175, (Byhalia Rd), Shelby Dr W to SR- Lane Departure
57 (US-72, Poplar Ave) 3 1.81 miles $24,448.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
16
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Shelby, SR-177, Stout Rd to SR-57 (US-72, Poplar Lane Departure
Ave) 3 1.15 miles $20,865.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Smith, SR-25, near Industrial Dr to Bridge over SR- Lane Departure
24 (US-70N) 3 3.04 miles $75,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Smith, SR-80, From SR-25 to SR-85 3 2.56 miles $110,162.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Statewide, HSIP - Software Maintenance and Software
Modifications 15 Improved Software $240,000.00 Data Improvement
Stewart, SR-120, near Higgs Rd to Kentucky State Lane Departure
Line 3 6.13 miles ($5,900.00) Lane Departure Action Plan
Stewart, SR-232, Leatherwood Circle to Old Dover Lane Departure
Rd 3 6.94 miles $55,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sullivan, SR-126, East Center St to I-81, LM 3.70
to LM 12.07 11 8.25 miles $280,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Sullivan, SR-126, SR-36 to Fall Creek Rd 3 5.99 miles $29,500.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sullivan, 24th St, Bay St to Shelby St in Bristol 11 0.10 miles $5,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Sullivan, SR-355, Fairview Ave to SR-36 3 0.32 miles $3,400.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Sullivan, SR-36, From SR-355 to SR-1 (US-11W) 3 0.50 miles $21,378.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sullivan, SR-1, Holston River Bridge to Fairmont Lane Departure
Ave 3 2.43 miles $104,100.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sumner, SR-174, North Water Ave to near South Lane Departure
Tunnel Rd (Lt.) 3 5.69 miles $262,156.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Sumner, SR-52, LM 13.67 to SR-6 (US-31E/231) 3 6.80 miles $231,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Sumner, SR-174, From SR-6 to N. Water Ave 3 0.80 $7,911.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Sumner, SR-6, (US-31E), Kathy Circle to S of Lane Departure
Joann St 3 2.06 miles $99,496.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Tipton, SR-3, Woodlawn St to SR-59 (Mueller Lane Departure
Brass Rd) 3 5.00 miles $89,400.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
17
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment 1)
Emphasis Area Strategy
Lane Departure
Trousdale, SR-260, From SR-376 to SR-141 3 5.62 miles $26,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Unicoi, SR-352, Old SR-81 to SR-36 (US-19W) 3 4.88 miles $57,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Unicoi, SR-36, North Carolina State Line to Temple Lane Departure
Hill Rd 3 7.54 miles $29,500.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Unicoi, SR-395, North Carolina State Line to E of Lane Departure
Bear Wallow Rd 3 3.00 miles $45,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Union, SR-170, From SR-61 to SR-33 3 10.75 miles $11,386.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Warren, SR-287, From SR-108 to SR-379 3 5.15 miles $32,304.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Warren, SR-288, From SR-1 (US-70S BYP) to N of Lane Departure
Collins River Bridge 3 5.25 miles $61,857.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Washington, Jackson Bridge Rd, SR-107 to LM
5.00 11 5.00 miles $22,000.00 Lane Departure Signing and Marking
Lane Departure
Washington, SR-81, N of Anderson Rd to SR-93 3 9.99 miles $79,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Wayne, SR-128, Clifton City Park to Perry County Lane Departure
Line 3 6.20 miles $84,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Wayne, SR-15, W of Waynesboro near 4-Ln to near Lane Departure
Waynesboro BYP 3 3.20 miles $87,153.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Weakley, SR-89, From SR-54 to Lebanon Church Lane Departure
Rd 3 3.91 miles $27,347.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
White, SR-1, Cole Rd to SR-111 3 5.69 miles $152,983.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
White, SR-111, S of Old SR-111 to Shady Oak Rd 3 5.77 miles $155,303.00 Lane Departure Guardrail
Williamson, SR-6, (US-31), Harpeth Industrial Ct to
near SR-441 (Moores Ln) 3 2.89 miles $35,000.00 Lane Departure Rumble Stripes
Williamson, SR-96, near Royal Oaks Blvd to Lane Departure
Edward Curd Ln 3 0.46 miles $2,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Wilson, SR-26, (US-70, Sparta Pike) at Depot Lane Departure
Ave/Nashville & Eastern R/R in Watertown 3 0.00 miles $250,000.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
Lane Departure
Wilson, SR-26 E of Taylor Rd to Eavens Creek 3 7.33 miles $105,475.00 Lane Departure Action Plan
TOTALS $72,959,151.80
18
Table 3 lists projects that were initiated under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21), Hazardous Elimination Safety Program. Although
these projects are complete the final funding was incurred during FY 2009-10.
Table 3
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Hazard Elimination Projects
SFY '09-10
TOTAL FEDERAL STATE LOCAL
PROJECT NO. COUNTY ROUTE DESCRIPTION FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS
STP-HH-NHE-REG4(21) Region 4 Region 4 Safety Improvements 85,441.00 76,897.00 8,544.00 0.00
TOTALS $155,849.92 $140,855.15 $14,994.77 $0.00
19
C. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Implementation (Program Evaluation)
Table 4-A
Project Evaluations - Location Information
Item # Project Number County Route Location Project Description
1 STP-HH-NHE-15(133) Fayette SR-15 SR-196 Intersection Improvement - SR-96 relocated and signalization
2 STP-HH-65(9) Robertson SR-65 SR-257 Intersection Improvement - Signalization
3 STP-HH-1(158) Madison SR-1 SR-223 Intersection Improvement
4 STP-HH-NHE-5(75) Chester SR-5 Woods Street Intersection Improvement - Channelization
5 STP-HH-333(6) Blount SR-333 SR-334 Intersection Improvement - Channelization & turn lanes
6 STP-HH-149(9) Montgomery SR-149 River Road Intersection Improvement - Signalization
7 STP-HH-9(46) Knox SR-9 Strawberry Plains Rd. Intersection Improvement - Signalization
8 STP-HH-NHE-1(184) Madison SR-1 SR-186 Intersection Improvement
9 STP-H-12(36) Cheatham SR-12 Log mile 9.08 -9.33 Roadway Improvements - Center turn lane
10 HSIP-75-1(116) Bradley SR-333 I-75 Ramps Intersection Improvement - Signalization
11 STP-HH-6(65) Summer SR-6 SR-376 Intersection Improvement-Turn Lanes and Flashing Beacon
12 HSIP-16(35) Bedford SR-16 Evans Street Intersection and Miscellaneous Safety Improvements
13 HSIP-9(49) Campbell SR-9 Log mile 1.31 - 1.77 Roadway Improvements - Safety
14 PSB-NHE-20(40) Crockett SR-20 Log Mile 18.36 to SR-88 Roadway Improvements - Turn Lane
15 HSIP-65(11) Davidson SR-65 I-24 Ramps Intersection Improvement
16 NHTSA-HE-I-40-3(135) Dickson/Williamson I-40 County Line Cable Barrier-1.42 miles (Dickson) &.64 miles (Williamson)
17 HSIP-245(5) Maury SR-245 Southport Rd. Intersection Improvement - Signing and Marking
18 STP-M3-30(45) McMinn SR-30 Log Mile 10.53 Crosswalk at Tennessee Wesleyan College
19 HRRR-266-(14) Rutherford SR-266 Log Mile 6.94 - 9.71 Signing, marking and sight distance improvements
20 HSIP-3(99) Shelby SR-3 SB Market St. Intersection and Miscellaneous Safety Improvements
21 HSIP-176(4) Shelby SR-176 Raines Rd. Intersection Improvement
22 HSIP-70(14) Greene SR-70 Marvin Rd. Intersection and Miscellaneous Safety Improvements
23 HSIP -IE-40-5(133) Davidson Stewarts Ferry I-40 WB Ramps Intersection Improvement - Channelization & turn lanes
24 HSIP-NHE-33(66) Monroe SR-333 Wal-Mart Driveway Intersection Improvement - Channelization & turn lanes
25 HSIP-IE-40-6(141) & Roane I-40 Log Mile 4.68 - 6.78 Skid Resistant Resurface
NHTSA-HE-I-40-6(139)
26 HSIP-1(217) Shelby SR-1 Georgia Avenue Intersection Improvements-Turn Lanes
27 HSIP-126(11) Sullivan SR-126 Carolina Pottery Rd. Intersection Improvements-Turn Lanes
28 HSIP-6(62) Davidson SR-6 Maple Street Intersection Improvements-Signing & Markings
20
Table 4-B
Project Evaluations
Cost of NUMBER 0F ACCIDENTS Volume
Safety Safety Evaluated Quantity BEFORE AFTER Evaluation Before After Rural Number Divided
Line Improvement Classification Improvements of Status AADT AADT or of or
Program Code ($1000) Improvements Units Mos. Fat. Inj. *Pdo. Total Mos. Fat. Inj. *Pdo. Total Urban Lanes Undivided
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)
1 HE 1A 1,424.8 1 X 36 0 9 13 22 36 0 9 17 26 F 19,767 23,551 R 4 D
2 HE 1A 681.8 1 X 36 0 13 15 28 36 0 0 6 6 F 15,270 15,113 R 2 U
3 HE 1A 569.0 1 X 36 2 12 11 25 36 0 4 4 8 F 9,501 10,489 R 4 D
4 HE 1A 371.0 1 X 36 0 6 16 22 36 0 2 3 5 F 12,156 13,314 U 4 D
5 HE 1A 997.0 1 X 36 0 11 38 49 24 0 2 4 6 P 13,539 13,801 R 2 U
6 HE 1A 1,496.1 1 X 36 0 15 14 29 24 0 1 4 5 P 9,669 9,320 U 2 U
7 HE 1A 1,904.0 1 X 36 1 14 30 45 24 0 8 9 17 P 12,921 11,320 R 4 D
8 HE 1A 1,820.0 1 X 36 1 15 66 82 24 0 12 26 38 P 38,951 34,909 U 4 D
9 HE 3B 811.2 0.25 M 36 0 2 18 20 24 0 0 1 1 P 7,224 6,843 R 2 U
10 HE 1G 112.2 1 X 36 0 11 22 33 24 0 0 5 5 P 19,560 17,721 U 2 U
11 HE 1A 574.0 1 x 36 0 10 13 23 24 0 1 2 3 p 11,703 11,248 R 2 U
12 HE 1A 14.6 1 x 36 0 3 17 20 12 0 2 1 3 p 18,610 17,549 U 4 U
13 HE 3B 120.0 0.46 M 36 0 2 9 11 24 0 2 6 8 P 4,987 4,233 R 4 D
14 FA 3B 60.0 0.42 M 36 2 4 5 11 36 0 1 2 3 F 13,730 14,127 R 4 D
15 HE 1A 87.8 1 X 36 0 4 5 9 24 0 2 7 9 P 10,133 9,750 U 4 D
16 FA 3L 73.0 0.64 X 36 0 18 38 56 12 0 1 6 7 P 40,539 37,194 R 4 D
17 HE 1D 5.4 1 X 36 2 4 2 8 36 0 0 1 1 P 860 822 R 2 U
18 SL 4CW 51.4 1 X 36 0 2 12 14 24 0 1 0 1 P 13,104 12,567 U 4 U
21
19 HRRR 3 58.0 2.77 M 36 1 28 36 64 24 0 7 13 20 P 10,102 9,925 R 2 U
20 HE 1D 31.0 1 X 36 0 3 17 20 24 0 0 5 7 P 8,809 8,919 U 5 U
21 HE 1A 149.5 1 X 36 0 6 59 65 24 0 8 42 50 P 33,756 34,160 U 5 U
22 HE 1C 28.6 1 X 36 0 6 25 31 12 0 0 1 1 P 1,314 1380 R 2 U
23 HE 1A 649.4 1 X 36 0 10 29 39 12 0 4 6 10 P 24,798 25253 U 4 D
24 HE 1A 484.6 1 X 36 0 8 22 30 12 0 0 1 1 P 19,004 16839 U 4 D
25 HE 3F 458.8 2.1 M 36 2 68 114 184 12 0 2 14 16 P 35,298 27,274 R 4 D
26 HE 1A 179.0 1 X 36 0 10 14 24 12 0 4 1 5 P 10,912 8,703 U 4 D
27 HE 1A 213.5 1 X 36 0 12 17 29 12 0 6 4 10 P 9,208 9,009 U 4 D
28 HE 1D 10.0 1 X 36 0 19 33 52 24 0 13 22 35 P 36,632 33,109 U 4 D
29
30
*Threshold for reporting PDO accidents that are included in this table (i.e., minimum dollar value, towaway, etc.) $400
22
Table 5
Overview of General Highway Safety Trends
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fatalities 1,339 1,270 1,284 1,211 1,043 989
Fatality Rate 1.89 1.8 1.82 1.7 1.50 1.41
Fatal Crashes 1,191 1,149 1,161 1,111 958 918
Lane Departure Fatalities 870 843 824 784 652 667
% Lane Departure Fatalities 65% 66% 64% 65% 62% 50%
Intersection or Intersection-Related
185 214 241 198 191 149
Fatalities*
% Intersection Fatalities 14% 17% 19% 16% 18% 15%
Work Zone Fatal Crashes 21 13 24 19 12 11
Work Zone Fatalities 25 14 28 21 12 11
% Work Zone Fatalities 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Large Truck Fatal Crashes 128 134 129 129 83 80
Large Truck Fatalities 155 163 148 149 95 94
% Large Truck Fatalities 12% 13% 12% 12% 9% 10%
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities
439 376 414 377 306 303
(BAC=.08+)**
% Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities
33% 30% 32% 31% 29% 31%
(BAC=.08+)**
Fatalities By The Highest Blood
Alcohol Concentration (BAC=.08+) in 469 400 444 398 324 332
the Crash***
Fatalities By The Highest Blood
Alcohol Concentration (BAC=.01+) in 542 473 518 468 396 374
the Crash***
Fatalities Involving Speeding 308 270 297 269 244 209
% Fatalities Involving Speeding 23% 21% 23% 22% 23% 21%
Fatalities Involving Failure to Yield ♪ 130 151 148 155 109 88
Fatalities Involving Following
44 37 25 32 21 17
Improperly ♪
Fatalities Involving Reckless Driving ♪ 223 184 187 136 81 76
Passenger Vehicle Fatalities-
668 563 562 535 459 424
Unrestrained
% Unrestrained 50% 44% 44% 44% 44% 43%
Passenger Vehicle Fatalities-Restrained 372 366 370 336 267 286
% Restrained 28% 29% 29% 28% 26% 29%
Tennessee Safety Belt Usage Rate 72.0% 74.4% 78.6% 80.2% 81.5% 80.6%
*Crash Occurred Within an Intersection or Within the Approach to an Intersection
**Based on the BAC of All Involved Drivers and Motorcycle Riders Only
***Based on the BAC of All Involved Drivers, Motorcycle Riders, Pedalcyclists and Pedestrians
♪ 2009 data is preliminary.
23
Table 5 (continued)
TN Traffic Fatalities by Age
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
15 & Under 72 53 67 53 43 33
16-20 197 145 185 168 126 110
21-24 123 133 132 117 95 90
25-34 228 210 218 189 167 171
35-44 187 211 205 177 163 137
45-54 216 180 188 197 179 168
55-64 135 135 104 129 109 111
65-74 82 84 96 95 71 66
75+ 99 119 89 85 90 96
Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 7
Total 1,339 1,270 1,284 1,211 1,043 989
Tennessee VMT 2004-2009***
715
710
705
700
695
690
685
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**
Tennessee Traffic Fatalities 2004-2009
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**
Year
24
Fatality Rate
Fatalities per 100 Million VMT***
2
1.8
1.6
Rate
1.4
1.2
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**
**2009 fatality figures are preliminary.
***Fatality Rate = (Total Fatalities/VMT)
****Source for Fatality data is TDOS FARS unit. Fatality data published by NHTSA in summer of following year.
Fatality data can be modified up until December 31 of following year.
Fatalities in Lane Departure Crashes
# of Fatalities % of All Fatalities
950 70%
900 68%
850 66%
800 64%
750 62%
700 60%
650 58%
600 56%
550 54%
500 52%
450 50%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009**
Year
25
Fatalities in Intersection Related Crashes
# of Fatalities % of All Fatalities
300 20%
19%
250 18%
17%
200 16%
15%
150 14%
13%
100 12%
11%
50 10%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Work Zone Fatalities and Fatal Crashes
# of Fatalities # of Fatal Crashes % of All Fatalities
35 3.5%
30 3.0%
25 2.5%
20 2.0%
15 1.5%
10 1.0%
5 0.5%
0 0.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Overall HSIP Effectiveness
Preliminary fatality figures show a continuing downward trend in the state's traffic fatalities for 2009 with
the number of fatalities decreasing by 5% from the previous year. Tennessee has seen an unprecedented
decline in fatalities over the course of the past two years - 6% in 2007, 14% in 2008, and 5% in 2009.
This produced a three year decrease of 25%, achieving Tennessee's lowest fatality total since 1963. After
trending upward for many years, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) dropped from 712.5 in 2007 to 696.6 in
2008, and then increased to 702.9 in 2009, (an average decrease of 1.4% between 2007 and 2009).
Tennessee's fatality rate for 2009 dipped to an all time low of 1.41 deaths per 100 million VMT. The
previous low mark was set in 2008 with 1.50 deaths per 100 million VMT. Tennessee is ranked in the top
5 states in the nation in terms of percentage decreases in fatalities and fatality rate. In addition, fatalities
appear to be dropping again this year which may lead to an even lower fatality count and fatality rate for
2010.
26
Subprogram Types
Systemwide Treatments
The following subprograms are administered under the HSIP. All except rumble stripes are in the initial
phase of implementation; therefore, very limited effectiveness data is available at this time.
Median Cable Barrier – Systemwide Improvements
Corridor Safety Improvements – see Table 6A.
Ramp Queue Safety Improvements – see Table 6B.
Table 6A
Davidson/Sumner State Route 386, From I-65 to SR-174, Scheduled for 2011
County Letting.
Lauderdale County State Route 3, Ripley City Limits to Dyer County Line, PE – N
has been obligated for $46,000.00, 6/24/2010, Scheduled for
2011 Letting.
Table 6B
These 6 locations will be reviewed before the end of the year:
Knox County Knox CountyI-40 westbound at Campbell Station Road, exit 373
Knox County I-140 eastbound at Westland Drive, exit 3
Sevier County
I-40 eastbound at SR-66
Marion County I-24 eastbound, mile marker 136 at the Truck Inspection Station
Davidson County I-40 westbound at Church Street, Nashville
Sumner County I-65 northbound, exit 98, Millersville
Rumble Stripes – Systemwide Improvements - see Table 5 for Lane Departure trends.
27
D. High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP)
Program Implementation Information
The 2010 list of potential High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) safety projects includes thirty-nine (39) sites.
TDOT will conduct RSARs on all of these within the next year. Most of these locations are identified
using the HSIP software with other sites added when identified during routine safety analysis or studied at
the request of local or state safety professionals, or other concerned individuals. Specific criteria as
discussed below were used to generate the list using the HSIP software; but any location that meets the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requirements will be considered for additional projects.
The basic criteria from SAFETEA-LU are that the crash rate for fatal and incapacitating injury crashes
exceeds the statewide average crash rate for the qualifying functional class roadways. A Highway Risk
Rural Road is defined as a rural major collector, minor collector, and local roadway. High Risk Rural
Road projects consist of intersection, spot or short sections of roadway that have experienced a fatal or
incapacitating injury crash (severe crash). The severe crash rate must exceed the statewide average severe
crash rate for similar locations. A total of three crashes must have occurred during a three year period.
As stated above, any location that is identified that meets these basic criteria will be reviewed and
considered for a HRRR project. Table 8 contains projects that were identified and approved as of the
SFY ’09-10 for the HRRR Program during normal work activity.
Local roads have been difficult to address and fund for safety improvements due to lack of data on the
non-state owned roads. The Safety Circuit Rider Program previously attempted to address these needs.
The Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) Program was discontinued effective April 2009. Development is
underway to put in place a Local Roads Safety Initiative (LRSI). Two engineering consulting companies
have been selected and two pilot projects should be underway before the end of 2010. This initiative will
require the assistance of the local officials to obtain crash reports for the identified locations. This
program will use primarily HRRR funding.
Methodology used to identify HRRR locations
The routes eligible for the HRRR program are rural Major Collectors, Minor Collectors, and local routes
that are not functionally classified. As sufficient data are not available for the local unclassified routes,
the stated process will identify only major and minor collector routes.
As severe crashes are relatively infrequent, the HRRR process uses data for a six (6) year period to get a
better pattern of these crashes. At least one (1) fatal crash and a total of seven (7) fatal and incapacitating
injury crashes (severe crashes) during the study period were required. Additionally, the crash rate had to
exceed the statewide average crash rate and the severe crash rate had to exceed the statewide average
severe crash rate for the same type routes.
As the stated criteria resulted in relatively long sections of highway, additional criteria were used to
identify the need for improvements at intersections and shorter sections of roadway. The minimum
criteria for adding HRRR projects at intersections, spots, or short sections of roadway are as follows:
1. A location must have experienced a severe crash.
2. The severe crash rate must exceed the statewide average severe crash rate for similar locations.
3. A total of three (3) crashes must have occurred during a three (3) year period.
4. The total crash rate must exceed the statewide average crash rate.
Although the statistics were calculated for a three (3) year period, data for a longer period of time (at least
six (6) years) were studied to gain a better understanding of the severe crash history. The qualifying
statistics were developed for any consecutive three (3) years during this six (6) year period.
28
Overall HRRRP Effectiveness
A Local Roads Safety Initiative is being developed to identify counties that have a high fatality rate on
local roadways. The purpose of this program is to identify safety concerns and to develop recommended
improvements. Local officials will submit potential projects with supporting data for TDOT’s review and
approval. TDOT will work with Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) or other local agencies to analyze
and implement justifiable safety concerns.
RSARs have been conducted and implemented on a number of major and minor collectors that qualify for
HRRR funding. Guidance has been implemented on several and continues on other routes. (See Table 8)
FARS data shows that rural fatalities have decreased over the past year, but have decreased at a lower rate
than urban fatalities.
Table 7
FEDERAL FUNDS
HRRRP Project Funding
Reporting Period: 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2010
Funding Category Programmed Obligated
HRRRP $ 9,306,389 $ 971,001
Other Federal-aid funds (i.e. STP, ARRA,
Rural Safety Innovation Program) 0 0
State and Local funds 0 0
29
Table 8
High Risk Rural Road Projects
(SFY '09-10)
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment Emphasis Area Strategy
1)
Cheatham, SR-249, From SR-49 to Old Clarksville Corridor Safety
Pike 3 6.73 miles ($8,260.00) Lane Departure Improvements
Cheatham, SR-249, (River Rd), From SR-251 to Corridor Safety
SR-49 3 3.81 miles $16,250.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Signage and
Cocke, SR-32, From Trail Hollow Road to SR-73 11 2.98 miles ($8,514.12 ) Lane Departure Marking
Cocke, SR-160, From SR-35 to Fowler Grove Rd Corridor Safety
3 3.54 miles $68,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Cocke, SR-160, Fowler Grove Rd to Airport Rd 3 5.47 miles $24,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Giles, 02800, Kerr Hill Rd, SR-7 to SR-166 3 3.72 miles $10,700.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Hardeman, 01609, Park Swain Rd, SR-57 to TN Corridor Safety
State Line 3 4.18 miles $5,100.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Jefferson, 01296, Dumplin Valley Rd, Chucky Pike Corridor Safety
to SR-92 3 5.35 miles $3,850.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Jefferson, SR-9, Dalton Rd to Green Hill Rd 3 4.01 miles $146,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Knox, 04700, Asbury Rd/Thorngrove Pike/East End Corridor Safety
Rd, from Knoxville UL to SR-9 (Asheville Hwy) 3 10.32 miles $10,074.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Lincoln, SR-110, Giles County Line to SR-274 3 8.61 miles $42,200.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Lincoln, SR-274, From SR-110 (Ardmore Hwy) to Corridor Safety
SR-273 (Old Elkton Pike) 3 11.12 miles $30,300.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Madison, SR-186, From SR-43 (US-45E) to Futrell Signage and
Rd 11 1.70 miles $2,365.00 Lane Departure Marking
Corridor Safety
McMinn, SR-163, Piney Grove Rd to Coghill Rd 3 4.46 miles $6,560.00 Lane Departure Improvements
30
Project Improvement Output Cost Relationship to SHSP
Category (i.e. #, miles)
(see Attachment Emphasis Area Strategy
1)
McNairy, 0876, Bethesda-Purdy Rd, Lipford Rd to Corridor Safety
Gann Rd 3 5.42 miles $2,100.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Putnam, SR-135, (Burgess Falls Rd), Intersection of Signage and
Ditty Rd, LM 4.02 11 0.00 miles $15,000.00 Intersection Safety Marking
Sevier, SR-338, Sevierville City Limit to Douglas Corridor Safety
Dam Rd (SR-139) 3 6.23 miles $18,940.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Sevier, SR-339, Jones Cove Rd to Wilhite Rd Corridor Safety
(Phase I) 3 5.74 miles $84,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Stewart, SR-120, Joiner Hollow Rd to Bumpus Corridor Safety
Mills/Tobaccoport Rd 3 4.63 miles $22,400.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Stewart, SR-232, Houston County Line to Corridor Safety
Brownfield Rd 3 6.98 miles $136,700.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Corridor Safety
Stewart, SR-232, Brownfield Rd to SR-76 3 4.27 miles $213,500.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Stewart, SR-46, S of Moore Ln to Lower Cross Signage and
Creek Rd, LM 10.32 - LM 11.86 11 1.54 miles $27,800.00 Lane Departure Marking
Tipton, SR-206, From Atoka City Limit to SR-14 Corridor Safety
(Austin Peay Hwy) 3 4.36 miles $12,800.00 Lane Departure Improvements
Washington, SR-67, From SR-81 to Cherokee Mtn Corridor Safety
Rd 3 406 miles $140,000.00 Lane Departure Improvements
TOTALS $1,021,664.88
31
4. Protection of data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence
Section 148(g)(4) stipulates that data compiled or collected for the preparation of the HSIP Report “…shall not be
subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes
in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports…” This
information is also protected by 23 USC 409 (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).
Project Effectiveness
General Highway Safety Trends
Despite a 1.2% increase in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) from 2008 to 2009, the number of fatalities decreased by
5.8% from 1,043 in 2008 to 983 in 2009. This translates into a decrease in the fatality rate, from 1.50 fatalities per
100 million VMT to 1.40 fatalities per 100 million VMT. Tennessee’s traffic fatalities and fatality rate have
decreased each year since 2006 when there were 1,284 fatalities in the state and the fatality rate was 1.82 fatalities
per 100 million VMT. The statistics are provided by the Department of Safety’s Office of Research, Statistics, and
Analysis, TDOT Project Planning Office and the Governor’s Highway Safety Office. The data trend which includes
the last five (5) year trends are illustrated on the following graphs. The data trend for the last five (5) years is shown
on the tables and graphs starting on page 22 of this report.
32
Attachment 1 Highway Safety Improvement Categories
Highway Safety Improvement Project Categories
(Source: 23 CFR 924)
(1) An intersection safety improvement project
(2) Pavement and shoulder widening
(3) Installation of rumble strips or other warning devices
(4) Installation of skid resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of crashes
(5) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or for the safety of persons with disabilities
(6) Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is eligible for
funding under 23 U.S.C. 130, including the separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings.
(7) Construction of railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of highway-railway grade crossing
protective devices
(8) The conduct of an effective traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing
(9) Construction of a traffic calming feature
(10) Elimination of a roadside obstacle or roadside hazard
(11) Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings
(12) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections
(13) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash potential
(14) Transportation safety planning
(15) Improvement in the collection and analysis of data
(16) Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities or traffic
enforcement activities (including law enforcement assistance) relating to work zone safety.
(17) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the
safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators.
(18) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and
wildlife
(19) Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle crossings
and in school zones.
(21) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads. [Do not use for the HRRRP portion of the
report.]
(22) Conducting road safety audits.
33
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Project Planning Division
Safety Planning & Travel Data Office
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Section
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Section 130 Program
From July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010
34
General Program
A. Overall efforts funded by Section 130 Program
The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) implements the Section 130 Program through its
Project Planning Division/Project Safety Office/Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Program to make safety
improvements at public highway-railroad grade crossings. These safety improvements take into
consideration all crossing users, including motor vehicle operators, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Funding for the Section 130 Program is now allocated under the Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The two overlapping time
periods for funding (federal fiscal year of October 1 to September 30) and required program reporting
(July 1 to June 30) make accounting of projects and funding somewhat complicated. Some safety
improvement projects for crossings discussed in this report were authorized by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) during this report period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 while others are
awaiting environmental approval. Details of the federal funding allocations for the Section 130 Program
are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Federal Funding Allocations for the Section 130 Program
Tennessee Apportionment for Rail-Highway
Federal Fiscal Year
Crossing Hazard Elimination
FY2007 (Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009) $4,615,389
FY2009 (Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010) $4,615,389
All federal fund expenditures by the TDOT Section 130 Program are authorized by FHWA. Materials
and labor for the safety improvements projects were provided through work orders and contracts with
railroad companies, local governments, state government forces, and/or consultant firms.
B. Status of data acquisition, analysis efforts, and expenditures
The Section 130 Program maintains the railroad crossing inventory in the Tennessee Roadway
Information Management System (TRIMS) database. The TDOT Information Technology Division is
responsible for the coordination and management of TRIMS. The railroad crossing inventory includes
the data required to be maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Additional data for
individual public grade crossings is stored in standard file cabinets as paper copies.
The annual list prioritizing crossings for safety improvements was created from a four-step analysis
process of the public grade crossings in the railroad crossing inventory data (maintained by the Section
130 Program) and crash data (obtained from FRA). The first step in the analysis used the Rail-Highway
Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure, developed by FRA and FHWA. The TRIMS database contains
a module that performed the calculations of the procedure, which predicted the crash rate at each crossing.
The TRIMS module was run in December of 2009. Using newly updated railroad crossing inventory data,
the TRIMS module outputted a list, called the “Railroad Grade Crossing Priority Listing Report”, ranking
the public grade crossings by predicted crash rates.
35
The second step eliminated crossings from the list based on 1) information not taken into account by the
Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure; 2) SAFETEA-LU crash history criteria; and 3)
crossing conditions that have extremely rare crash experience. If any of the following occurred, the
crossing was eliminated from the list:
Maximum train speed is less than 25 mph;
Maximum number of trains is 2 or less per day;
No crashes since last safety improvement project; or
Crossing is currently an ongoing project from a previous year.
The third step was determination of the number of projects that could be funded for the upcoming year
based on the average cost of a safety improvement project (currently $196,200) and the funding available.
Crossings were then selected, with the highest predicted crash rates given priority, for field reviews as
potential projects.
The fourth (and final) step was performing field reviews. The Section 130 Program used consultants to
perform most Diagnostic Team Investigation Reviews (DTRs). The DTRs were conducted in the field at
the selected crossings with representatives from TDOT, the railroad, the local government, and
occasionally others. Existing conditions and proposed improvements were noted in the DTR report for
each crossing. TDOT used consultants’ services to perform DTRs, reviews of plans and cost estimates
prepared by railroad companies, and inspection of constructions. A summary of the use of consultants for
performing DTRs, reviews and inspections during the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 is
provided in Table 2.
Table 2. The Consultant Companies Performed Engineering Services
Consultant Number of Cost
DTRs/Reviews/Inspections/Studies
Long Engineering, Inc. 27 DTRs $84,031.84
Neel-Schaffer, Inc. 29 Reviews
Neel-Schaffer, Inc. 10 Inspections $37,056.61
RPM Transportation, LLC 3 Signal Preemption Studies and $117,187.56
Crossing Data Collection
Sain Associates, Inc. 6 DTRs and 3 Special Studies $81,178.20
Total 78 $319,454.21
After the DTR is received the process of project implementation may begin. This process constitutes the
steps which are presented in Figure 1.
36
Figure 1 Railroad Crossing Project Process
C. Projects and Costs
Twenty (20) safety improvement projects at public highway-railroad grade crossings have been submitted
for authorization for funding based on estimates totaling $2,979,700 from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009
through the Section 130 Program. The estimates occasionally included participation by railroad
companies. These safety improvement projects often take more than one year to complete, so actual costs
will not be known until each project is completed. The number of crossing projects from July 1, 2009 to
June 30, 2010 by functional class is provided in Table 3.
Table 3 Railroad Crossing Projects by Highway Functional Classification
Functional Class Number of Projects Funding Allocation
Rural Local 5 $990,000
Rural Major Collector 1 $208,900
Rural Minor Collector 1 $51,000
Urban Collector 3 $131,000
Urban Local 8 $1,366,800
Urban Minor Arterial 2 $232,000
Urban Other Principal Arterial 0 -
Total 20 $2,979,700
D. Total number of crossing
The number of railroad crossings by type in Tennessee, based on the recently updated inventory data, is
provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Number of Railroad Crossings by Type in Tennessee
Crossing Type Number of Crossings
Public vehicle – grade 2,815
Public vehicle – grade-separated RR under 516
Public vehicle – grade-separated RR over 447
Public pedestrian 22
Private 1,853
Total 5,653
The number of public vehicle-grade-crossings by warning devices is presented in Table 5.
37
Table 5. Number of Public Vehicle-Grade-Crossings by Warning Devices
Public vehicle – grade crossings:
Number of Crossings
Warning devices
Active - Flashing light signals and gates 727
Active - Flashing light signals only 907
Passive 1,181
Total 2,815
E. Specific program emphasis areas
As stated previously, the Section 130 Program prioritizes crossings for the allotted federal funding with
the Rail-Highway Resource Allocation Procedure. SAFETEA-LU has placed additional criteria on the
use of federal funds. Specifically, there must be a documented history of crashes with injuries and/or
fatalities before federal funds may be used at a location. Consideration was also given to crossings used
by school buses, public transportation vehicles, and/or vehicles carrying hazardous materials.
Safety improvements were determined individually for each crossing project, but typically the following
were considered:
Crossing elimination (closure or replacement with a grade separation structure);
Signs;
Pavement markings;
Flashing light signals;
Gates;
Bells;
Highway traffic signals;
Highway signal timing (for nearby roadway intersections);
Railroad signal timing and train detection timing;
Battery backup for both highway signals and railroad signals;
Signal preemption;
Pre-signals;
Raised median (to discourage drivers from going around gates);
Crossing surface replacement;
Roadway horizontal alignment improvements;
Reduction of humped profile crossings;
Crossing widening;
Sidewalk upgrades (compiling with the Americans with Disabilities Act);
Guardrail; and
Sight distance improvements (vegetation removal or relocation of items such as the railroad
signals control box).
Occasionally (with FHWA approval), corridors of crossings are planned for safety improvements. In
such situations, one or two crossings closely located are qualified and selected for DTRs through the
standard analysis process. Then, other nearby crossings was also scheduled for DTRs to add efficiency to
the Section 130 Program process. Closures are normally required for corridor projects.
38
F. Assessment of overall Section 130 Program effectiveness
Incidents that occurred at highway-railroad grade crossings in Tennessee over the past 30 years (from
January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2009) were compiled, graphed and presented in Figure 2 on the
following page. Incidents were classified as Property Damage Only (PDO), Injury, or Fatal.
The downward trend of Total, PDO, and Injury incidents at highway-railroad grade crossings has
continued. Fatal incidents averaged 5.4 annually for the past 10 years and decreased to 3.75 annually for
the past 4 years. These downward trends in incidents at highway-railroad grade crossings in Tennessee
are directly attributable to the safety improvements made through the Section 130 Program. There were
only 1 fatal crashes with 1 fatality reported in 2009 at public highway-railroad grade crossings.
Project Metrics
G. Projects funded from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010
Twenty (20) safety improvement projects at public highway-railroad grade crossings were presented for
authorization for funding based on estimates totaling $2,979,700 from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010
through the Section 130 Program. Project Metrics are presented in Table 8 on following two pages.
Exact cost data will not be known until the projects are completed. Allocations from Section 130 and
from the participating railroad based on estimates for the projects are included. Crash data used during
data analysis by the Rail-Highway Resource Allocation Procedure for the 5-year period from January 1,
2003 to December 31, 2010 are included. Abbreviations used in the Project Metrics table are presented in
Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 6 Abbreviations and Functional Class
Abbreviation Functional Class
RL Rural Local
RMajC Rural Major Collector
RMinC Rural Minor Collector
UC Urban Collector
UL Urban Local
UMA Urban Minor Arterial
UOFE Urban Other Freeways and Expressways
UOPA Urban Other Principal Arterial
Table 7 Abbreviations and Warning Type
Existing Warning Type/Proposed Warning Type
P Passive
AL Active - Flashing Light Signals Only
AG Active - Flashing Light Signals and Automatic Gates
NA Not Applicable
39
H. Effectiveness of prior projects
Records of completion of Section 130 Program projects have not been regularly maintained by the
previous managers. Much more detailed tracking of progress and the completion dates of new projects
are now being kept to provide an analysis of the effectiveness of individual projects. The effectiveness of
the Section 130 Program projects, however, can be seen in the continuing reduction of statewide incidents
at highway-railroad grade crossings presented earlier.
40
Table 8 Railway-Highway Crossing Project Metrics 23 USC 130 STATE
No Location USDOT FHW Project Crossing Crossing Total Fundin Before Crash Data 2 Effectiveness
After Crash Data
Crossing A 1 Protection Type Project g Type ( 2003-2008) 3
Type
Number Road Existing/ Cost
Funct. Proposed Fatal Serious Other P Fatal Serious Other P
Class Injury Injury D Injury Injury D
6 O O
1 Maple Ave. 348347Y UL AEI & P/AL Vehicle $181,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Carroll Co. SMI 130
2 Old Ashville Hwy. 730357E RL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $176,000 Section 0 0 1 0
Cocke Co. SMI 130
3 Poplar St. 348416E RMaj AEI & AL/AG Vehicle $208,900 Section 0 0 1 0
Crockett Co. C SMI 130
4 Pond Switch 350813C RL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $176,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Dickson Co. SMI 130
5 Main St. 298603X UMA AEI & AL Vehicle $31,000 Section 0 0 1 0
Dyer Co. SMI 130
6 Double Springs Rd. 348383U RL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $226,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Gibson Co. SMI 130
7 Gutherie Gap Rd. 730236G RL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $211,000 Section 0 0 1 0
Hawkins Co. SMI 130
8 Ludlow Ave. NE 730466H UL AEI & Al/AG Vehicle $201,000 Section 0 0 0 1
Knox Co SMI 130
9 Grand St. 731482V UMA AEI & AL/AG Vehicle $201,000 Section 0 0 1 1
Loudon Co. SMI 130
10 Ashport Rd 299403S UC AEI & P/S Vehicle $2,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Madison Co. SMI 130
11 Perry Switch Rd. 299382B RL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $201,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Madison Co. SMI 130
12 Royal St. 299398X UL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $176,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Madison Co. SMI 130
13 Frye St. 731577D UL AEI & AL/AG Vehicle $19,800 Section 0 0 2 0
McMinn Co. SMI 130
14 Delaware Ave. 841940K UC AEI & AG/NA Vehicle $76,000 Section 0 0 0 1
Rhea Co. SMI 130
15 Iowa Ave. 841943F UL AEI & AG/NA Vehicle $156,000 Section 0 0 0 1
Rhea Co. SMI 130
16 Brunswick Rd. 348494L RMin AEI & AG Vehicle $51,000 Section 0 0 1 0
Shelby Co. C SMI 130
41
No Location USDOT FHW Project Crossing Crossing Total Fundin Before Crash Data 2 Effectiveness
After Crash Data
Crossing A 1 Protection Type Project g Type ( 2003-2008) 3
Type
Number Road Existing/ Cost
Funct. Proposed Fatal Serious Other P Fatal Serious Other P
Class Injury Injury D Injury Injury D
6 O O
17 Jetway Rd. 348484F UL AEI & AL/AG Vehicle $181,000 Section 0 0 1 0
Shelby Co. SMI 130
18 Perkins Rd 732172E UC AEI & AG Vehicle $53,000 Section 0 0 0 1
Shelby Co. SMI 130
19 Lilac St. 243963S UL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $226,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Sullivan Co. SMI 130
20 W Gray St. 343793B UL AEI & P/AG Vehicle $226,000 Section 0 0 0 0
Sumner Co. SMI 130
Totals $2,979,700
Any type of injury is in “Other Injury” column, information on “Serious Injury” are not available
1. Project Type Abbreviations: AEI=Active Equipment Installation; AEU=Active Equipment Upgrade; SMI=Sign and Marking Improvements; AI=Approach Improvements, E=Elimination
2. Listed projects are ongoing and After Crash Data are not available
3. Overall Effectiveness of Section 130 Program is reduction of crashes each year. Data for effectiveness of single project are not available.
4. Railroad Company would participate 50% of Total Project Cost
5. Locals would participate $10,000 in Total Project Cost
42
STATE OF TENNESSEE
5 Percent Report
From July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010
Project Planning Division
43
Tennessee 5 Percent Report
a. Purpose of 5 Percent Report
Section 1401 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended Section 148 of Title 23 USC to create the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) as a “core” FHWA program with separate funding, replacing the
Hazard Elimination Program in 23 USC Section 152, effective October 1, 2005. The purpose of
the HSIP as stated in Section 148(b)(2) is to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public
roads. As part of the HSIP, States are required to submit an annual report describing not less than
5 percent of their highway locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs [Section
148(c)(1)(D)].
The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) implements the HSIP through its Project
Planning Division to make safety improvements at highway locations exhibiting the most severe
safety needs through Road Safety Audit Reviews (RSARs). These safety improvement projects
take into consideration all road users, including motor vehicle operators, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. The purpose of this report is to describe the locations ranked highest for safety needs
in fulfillment of the annual 5 percent report requirement for the period from July 1, 2009 to June
30, 2010 for the State of Tennessee.
b. Extent of coverage of public roads
Tennessee maintains crash data for approximately 28,100 miles of its 90,400 miles of public
roads. These consist of approximately 1,100 miles of Interstates, 12,700 miles of State Routes,
and 14,300 miles of Local Minor Collectors. The remaining 62,300 miles of Local Other Roads
are owned/maintained by counties or cities. TDOT maintains crash data for the Interstates, State
Routes, and Local Minor Collectors within TRIMS (Tennessee Road Information Management
System), the Department’s roadway database. The database is in the process of being updated so
that Local Other Roads will be included.
c. Methodology
The projects reported in the 5% report are Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HESP) type
projects because these are the locations that have the highest crash rates and that are considered to
have the greatest safety issues. The criteria used to identify these locations are reported
elsewhere in the annual report and are repeated here. The number of projects reported is based on
the number of RSARs conducted during the year. These RSARs were primarily for High Risk
Rural Roads (HRRR) and HESP type projects.
For the HESP process, the most current three years of data are used. To qualify for consideration,
a location must have had a minimum of seven crashes. The crash rate must equal or exceed 3.5
times the critical rate and a fatal or serious injury crash must have occurred. Additionally,
locations were included if a lane departure fatal or serious injury crash occurred and the crash rate
was 3.0 times the critical rate.
44
Additional sites may be added when qualifying locations are identified during normal working
process.
The locations were ranked by severity index. The severity index was calculated by the formula of
the sum of four (4) times the number of fatal crashes plus two (2) times the number of
incapacitating injury crashes plus the number of other injury crashes divided by the total number
of crashes. This weighting of the fatal and incapacitating injury crashes gives a higher ranking to
locations with a large number of more severe crashes.
d. Total number of projects
From July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, a total of fifty (50) RSARs were conducted by TDOT.
Based on the federal criteria of describing not less than 5 percent of Tennessee’s highway
locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs, the calculation for the minimum number of
projects required to be described is provided below.
50× 0.05 = 3.0
e. Specific project descriptions
Description of the highest ranking highway location exhibiting the most severe safety needs in
Tennessee is provided in the following table. With the creation of the Safety Planning Office on
May 1, 2010 its mission was to complete existing projects first. TDOT was only able to complete
one (1) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project from the 5 percent list.
45
Table 1
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5%)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments Comments
SR - 374
Montgomery
County Install two (2) Wrong Way (R5-1a) signs. $1,250,000 Funding Signs
Cold plane and overlay asphalt pavement from L.M. 13.03 to L.M. 13.18. Overlay
Install two (2) Do Not Enter (R5-1) signs. Signs
Install one (1) No U-Turn/No Left Turn (R3-18) sign. Signs
Install one (1) One Way (R6-1) sign. Signs
U-turn and
Construct u-turn median crossover and median deceleration lane at existing Deceleration
median crossing location at L.M. 13.14. Lane
Construct bulb-out with full-depth pavement to accommodate a 45' turning
radius (WB-50). Turning Radius
Install 225' of guardrail with type 38 end terminal. Guardrail
Pavement
Install two (2) plastic pavement marking turn arrows. Markings
Install four (4) state highway route signs with u-turn and straight directional
arrows on green guide sign backgrounds. Signs
Stripe pavement markings as shown with 4” sprayable thermoplastic Pavement
pavement markings from L.M. 13.03 to L.M. 13.18. Markings
Cold plane and overlay asphalt pavement from L.M. 12.85 to L.M. 13.03. Overlay
Stripe pavement markings as shown with 4” sprayable thermoplastic Pavement
pavement markings from L.M. 12.85 to L.M. 13.03. Markings
46
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5%)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments Comments
Construct 4 foot wide raised concrete divisional island with 4 inch Construct Island
mountable curb. and Curb
Install two (2) Wrong Way (R5-1a) signs Signs
Install thirty-six (36) flexible post delineators on raised concrete islands per Flexible Post
T-PBR-2. Delineators
Construct offset left turn lanes from SR-374 approaching Evans Rd. with Offset Let Turn
full depth pavement. Lanes
Install four (4) plastic pavement marking turn arrows on SR-374 left turn Pavement
lanes. Markings
Install two (2) Do Not Enter (R5-1) signs. Signs
Install two (2) One Way (R6-1R) signs. Signs
Construct 3800 sq. foot raised concrete median island with 4 inch mountable Construct Island
curb. and Curb
Install four (4) Stop (R-1) and Right Turn Only (M3-5R) combinations
signs. Signs
Construct 385 sq. foot concrete corner island. Construct Island
Install four (4) state highway route signs with right-turn directional arrows
on Evans Rd. Signs
Install two (2) Specialty Guide Signs. Signs
Construct 510 sq. foot concrete corner island. Construct Island
Install two (2) No U-Turn (R3-4) signs. Signs
Cold plane and overlay asphalt pavement from L.M. 12.65 to L.M. 12.85. Overlay
47
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5%)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments Comments
Stripe pavement markings as shown with 4" sprayable thermoplastic Pavement
pavement markings from L.M. 12.65 to L.M. 12.85. Markings
Construct 4 foot wide raised concrete divisional island with 4 inch Construct Island
mountable curb. and Curb
Install two (2) Wrong Way (R5-1a) signs. Signs
Flexible Post
Install thirty-eight (38) flexible post delineators on raised concrete islands. Delineators
Construct offset left turn lanes from SR-374 approaching Ash Ridge Rd.
with full depth pavement. Turn Lanes
Install four (4) plastic pavement marking turn arrows on SR-374 left turn Pavement
lanes. Markings
Install two (2) Do Not Enter (R5-1) signs. Signs
Install two (2) One Way (R6-1R) signs. Signs
Construct 5250 sq. foot raised concrete median island with 4 inch mountable Construct Island
curb. and Curb
Install four (4) Stop (R-1) and Right Turn Only (M3-5R) combination signs. Signs
Construct 900 sq. foot concrete corner island. Construct Island
Install four (4) state highway route signs with right-turn directional arrows. Signs
Install two (2) Specialty Guidance signs. Signs
Construct 400 sq. foot concrete corner island. Construct Island
Install two (2) No U-Turn (R3-4) signs. Signs
Install four (4) state highway route signs with u-turn and straight directional
arrows on green guide sign backgrounds. Signs
48
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5%)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments Comments
Stripe pavement markings as shown with 4” sprayable thermoplastic Pavement
pavement markings from L.M. 12.52 to L.M. 12.65. Markings
Pavement
Install three (3) plastic pavement marking turn arrows. Markings
Replace 325’ of guardrail. Guardrail
Construct bulb-out with full-depth pavement to accommodate a 45' turning
radius (WB-50). Turning Radius
Construct U-
turn and
Construct u-turn median crossover and median deceleration lane at existing Deceleration
median crossing location at Bevard Rd. at L.M. 12.55. Lane
Install one (1) One Way (R6-1) sign. Signs
Install two (2) Do Not Enter (R5-1) signs. Signs
Cold plane and overlay asphalt pavement from L.M. 12.53 to L.M. 12.65. Overlay
Install two (2) Wrong Way (R5-1a) signs. Signs
Local Route
2642 Not able to
Washington complete at this
County N/A N/A N/A time.
Not able to
SR-29 complete at this
Morgan County N/A N/A N/A time
49