Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 1 

Executive Summary 

In accordance with 23 USC 148 and pursuant to 23 CFR 924, the Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department (AHTD) has prepared a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Annual 

Report for State Fiscal Year 2014 (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014). The format of this report is 

consistent with the reporting guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration on February 13,

2013.

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

☐District

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

 

If District, how are the HSIP funds allocated? 

☐Formula

☐Crash data

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

 

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

To address safety concerns on local roads, the AHTD continues to provide technical assistance and 

training programs on safety issues to local governments through its efforts by System Information and 

Research Division staff and the Technology Transfer Program. The AHTD continues to coordinate with 

the Arkansas State Police through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee to implement eCrash and 

the CARE (Critical Analysis Reporting Environment) program that will allow law enforcement agencies to 

have better access to crash data on all public roads.

Furthermore, the AHTD continues to update our linear referencing system. This allowed the location of 

a crash that occurs on Federal-aid local roads to be identified by geographical location. Based on this 

data, crash queries can be conducted to determine if there are locations with a high frequency of 

crashes. This data can be provided to a local government agency or a Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) upon request.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 2 

AHTD has provided a GIS and Aerial photograph driven tool, VISUAL-T, to the Arkansas State Police and 

various county and local law enforcement agencies to assist the agencies with providing an accurate 

crash location on the crash report. The AHTD technical staff provided continued support to the local law 

enforcement agencies in this reporting period. This tool has greatly enhanced both speed and accuracy 

in providing a crash location to the Crash Database.

 

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

Check all that apply.

Design 

Planning

Maintenance 

Operations

☐Governor’s Highway Safety Office

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Coordination with internal partners, along with the HSO, occurs on different levels. Design, planning, 

maintenance, operations and the HSO are all on the SHSP committee. Coordination has also taken place 

when addressing work zone safety, roadway departure safety, and in the identification of infrastructure 

and non-infrastructure projects.

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

Check all that apply.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governor’s Highway Safety Office

☐Local Government Association

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

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

the last reporting period.

☐Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

Other: Performance measure coordination with Arkansas State Police, Highway Safety Office. 

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

would like to elaborate.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 3 

The AHTD Traffic Safety Section (TSS), which manages the HSIP, continued to use the Highway Safety 

Manual on case by case basis. The TSS has also hired a Professional Engineer with the Roadway Design 

background to help with streamlining HSIP project delivery. The TSS has also hired another civil 

engineering graduate with a Ph.D. in Traffic Safety effective August, 2014. The TSS has marketed the

SHSP (approved by FHWA in March 2013) with a focus on TZD through the Arkansas Highways Magazine, 

idrivearkansas.com and tzdarkansas.org. Also HSM Safety Performance Functions’ research is under 

progress along with continued improvements to data analysis processes and tools used by the TSS.

AHTD became a member State in the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. 

Two members of the TSS and their FHWA counterpart participated in the Roadway Departure peer 

exchange in Alabama.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier ☐Intersection ☐Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve ☐Bicycle Safety Rural State Highway

Skid Hazard Crash Data ☐Red Light Running

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement and 

Improvement

☐Local Safety ☐Pedestrian Safety ☐Right Angle Crash

☐Left-turn Crash ☐Shoulder Improvement ☐Segments

☐Other:

Click here to enter text.

For each program checked above, enter the following information:

Program: Below information applies to all programs checked above.

Date of Program Methodology: 7/7/2011

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

☐Fatal crashes only ☐Volume ☐Horizontal curvature
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 4

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

☐Population Functional classification

☐Other:

Click here to enter text.

Lane miles ☐Roadside features

☐Other:

Click here to enter text.

Other:

Pavement, curve, lane and 

shoulder width, rural/urban, 

etc.

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

Crash frequency

☐Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Equivalent property damage only (EPDO crash frequency)

☐Relative severity index

Crash rate

☐Critical rate

☐Level of service of safety (LOSS)

☐Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

☐Excess expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

☐Probability of specific crash types

☐Excess proportions of specific crash types

☐Other: 

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

No

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

Choose an item.

If no, describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

AHTD is working on a linear referencing system (LRS) for all public roads. It is also working 

toward expanding its safety training options to locals through the local technical assistance 

program (LTAP).

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

☐Competitive application process

☐Selection committee
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 5

Other: The project selection process is consistent with the recent HSIP guidance and the 

AHTD/FHWA HSIP process adopted in 2011. This process shall be revised as necessary to address the 

new MAP-21 requirements.

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

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

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

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

☐Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C Click here to enter text.

Available funding Click here to enter text.

Incremental B/C Click here to enter text.

Ranking based on net benefit Click here to enter text.

Cost effectiveness Click here to enter text.

Other The process is consistent with the AHTD/FHWA HSIP 

process adopted in 2011.

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

55%

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

improvements? Please check all that apply.

Cable median barriers ☐Upgrade guard rails

☐Rumble strips ☐Clear zone improvements

☐Traffic control device rehabilitation ☐Safety edge

☐Pavement/shoulder widening ☐Install/improve lighting

☐Install/Improve Signing ☐Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal

☐Install/improve pavement 

marking/delineation

☐Other: 

Click here to enter text.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

☐Road Safety Assessment 

☐Other: Click here to enter text.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 6 

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

last reporting period. 

Highway Safety Manual

☐Road Safety Audits

Systemic Approach

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

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

would like to elaborate. 

Systemic approaches to addressing roadway departure safety is underway. AHTD is already 

implementing cable median barrier projects through a systemic process. With guidance from the 

Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, a systemic approach to install signs, markings, and 

rumble strips is also under way. New methods are being used on projects such as HWY 5 where B/C is 

being used to target lower cost improvements to hot spots while also applying the other low cost 

improvements for the entire length. 

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014) 

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

HSIP Project Funding

Reporting Period 07/01/2013 to 06/30/2014

Funding Category Programmed Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 36,324,000 (298,402)

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0

HRRR Special Rule 8,000 0

Penalty Transfer - Section 154 10,798,500 20,810,890

Penalty Transfer – Section 164 10,798,500 0
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 7 

Incentive Grants - Section 163 0 0

Incentive Grants (Section 406) 0 0

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP) 126,264,000* 44,674,116*

State and Local Funds 22,586,000 11,129,554

Total 206,779,000 76,316,158

*Includes signals, intersection/interchange improvements, passing lanes, Safe Routes to School, and 

safety related studies 

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

None directly

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects? 

None directly

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

$2,614,000

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

$2,614,000

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

period?

None

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

period? 

HSIP to STP(Flex) - $11,293,608

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

overcome this in the future.

Developing policies to systematically deploy the use of HSIP funds for the implementation of minor 

shoulder widening, horizontal curves, signs, raised pavement markers etc. Better streamlining of the 

HSIP project development process (into the normal project development process) for corridor safety 

projects implementing numerous low cost countermeasures.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 8 

Significant progress has been made towards the installation of cable median barriers to reduce or 

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates and other high speed routes. 

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output 

(miles) HSIP Cost Total Cost Funding Cat. Func. Class. AADT Speed Roadway Ownership^

Relationship to SHSP

*Emphasis 

Area **Strategy

Other 

012195 Roadside 37.28 164,402 174,402 154 Freeways 

&Exprwy. 

5988 70 State Hwy 3 B 

012196

Roadside

31.78 159,395 169,395

154

Other 

Freeways 

&Exprwy. 

12000 70 State Hwy 3 B 

012216

Roadway UNK 2,754,661 2,754,661

154

Various Various Various State Hwy 2 C 

012220 Non-Infrast. NA 214,000 214,000154 NA NA NA NA 4 G 

012221 Non-Infrast. NA 500,000 500,000154 NA NA NA NA 4 G 

Other 

030435 Roadside 28.91 130,122 130,122 154 Freeways 

&Exprwy. 

4800 70 State Hwy 3 B 

61309 Roadway 2.41 110,719 120,719 154 Minor Arterial 6412 55 State Hwy 2 D 

061407

Roadway 2.59 484,881 2,650,372

154

Interstate 84190 65 State Hwy 2 C 

061431

Roadside 4.58 5,000 5,000

154 Other Principal 

Art.

9546 45 State Hwy

3 B

090379 Roadside 15.15 85,015 85,015 154 Other Principal 

Art.

10000 65 State Hwy 3 B 

090414 Roadway 3.16 1,887,347 1,907,347 154 Various Various Various State Hwy 2 C 

BB0101

Roadway 4.10 549,358 549,358

154

Interstate 28000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0104

Roadway 11.62 1,727,627 1,727,627

154

Interstate 30000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0301

Roadway 7.10 1,706,739 1,706,739

154

Interstate 26784 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0613

Roadway 8.80 1,512,356 1,512,356

154

Interstate 43000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0702

Roadway 8.30 498,535 927,221

154

Interstate 27000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0803

Roadway 13.10 1,046,552 1,046,552

154

Interstate 22000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0805 Roadway 10.80 1,043,983 1,043,983 154 Interstate 30827 70 State Hwy 2 C 

 
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 9 

BB1103

Roadway 16.10 159,050 159,050

154

Interstate 21000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

012200 Roadway 5.26 98,392 762,340154

Interstate 27000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

012208 Non-Infrast. NA 900,000 1,362,264154 NA NA NA NA 7 I 

012211 Non-Infrast. NA 1,000,000 1,000,000154 NA NA NA NA 7 I 

061194

Roadway .80 4,067,576 4,067,576

154 Other Principal 

Art.

32166 35 State Hwy 2 D 

100819

Roadside 19.89 5,000 5,000

154

Other 

Freeways 

&Exprwy 

5600 70 State Hwy 3 B 

001827

Roadside NA 2,171,746 2,413,051

148

Interstate Various Various State Hwy 6 F 

012053

Roadway NA 855,204 950,226

148

Various Various Various State Hwy 2 H 

040646

Roadside 3.36 139,700 155,222

148

Various Various Various State Hwy 3 B 

050175 Roadway .77 4,160,202 4,622,447 148 Minor Arterial 13000 25 State Hwy 2 D 

070396 Roadside 5.59 133,116 147,906 148

Other 

Freeways 

&Exprwy 

6600 55 State Hwy 3 B 

090221

Roadway 0.63 150,448 167,163

148

Minor Arterial 2400 55 State Hwy 2 D 

090406

Roadway R.R.

Overpass 18,000 20,000

148 Other Principal 

Art.

10520 55 State Hwy 5 E 

012166 Roadway 18.50 799,784 888,649 148 Interstate 26000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

012200

Roadway 5.26 2,007,581 2,230,646

148

Interstate 25500 70 State Hwy 2 C 

061408

Roadway 1.00 316,793 351,992

148

Interstate 43989 70 State Hwy 2 C 

110564

Roadside 9.82 1,643,668 1,826,298

148

Interstate 26000 70 State Hwy 3 B 

110576 Roadway 4.64 1,397,549 1,552,832 148 Interstate 26000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0806 Roadway 18.60 1,263,770 1,404,189148

Interstate 28000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

BB1003

Roadway 7.90 389,644 432,938

148

Interstate 18000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

061248

Roadway 5.40 55,537 61,708

148

Minor Arterial 2500 55 State Hwy 2 C 

BB0108 Roadway 2.97 280,328 311,477 148 Interstate 24000 70 State Hwy 2 C 

*1=Curbing aggressive driving; 2=Keeping vehicles in roadway; 3=Reducing head on and across median crashes; 4=Traffic Data Systems; 5=Rail 

Road Crossings; 6=Older Drivers; 7= Traffic Safety Planning

**A=Enhancement Speed enforcement; B=Installation of cable median barriers; C=Increase surface friction; 

D=Widening/Passing lanes; E=Realignment; F=Enhanced signage; G=Enhanced, accurate and timely crash data; H=Shoulder Rumble 

Strips/Stripes; I= Safety Studies
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 10

Coordination of Setting Safety Performance Targets for 2015

The following 2015 Targets were submitted in the 2015 Highway Safety Plan by the Arkansas State 

Police Highway Safety Office and were developed in coordination between ASP and AHTD. Target setting 

process is based on 5-year rolling average. Those targets are listed as follows:

Total fatalities: 475

Total serious injuries: 2,810

Fatality rate (per 100 MVMT): 1.49

AHTD will also set target for the serious injury rate (per 100 MVMT) in the next report.

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2004-2008 2005-2009 2006-2010 2007-2011 2008-2012

Number of fatalities 658 632.2 615.6 592.8 574.8

Number of serious injuries 3114.2 3151.2 3205.6 3361.2 3392.0

Fatality rate (per 100MVMT) 2.07 1.97 1.89 1.81 1.74

Serious injury rate (per 100

MVMT)

9.80 9.76 9.78 10.21 10.25

*States should use a 5-year rolling average to present the performance measures 

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

Function Classification

2012

Number of Number of Fatality rate Serious injury rate 

fatalities serious injuries (per 100MVMT) (per 100MVMT)

Interstate 56 466 0.62 5.19

Other Freeways 22 78 1.45 5.13

Other Principal Arterials 145 797 2.0 10.98

Minor Arterials 116 602 2.76 14.33

Major Collector 119 683 3.33 19.10

Minor Collector 2 15 3.38 25.34

Local 2 10 .93 4.67
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 11

Roadway Ownership

2012

Number 

of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per 100MVMT) 

Serious injury 

rate (per 

100MVMT) 

State Highway System 462 2651 1.80 10.31

City Streets and County Roads 98 575 1.32 7.76

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

The definition for reporting incapacitating injuries (which we use for reporting serious injuries) was 

updated in 2007 by Arkansas State Police (ASP). The trend for incapacitating injuries has followed 

fatalities except for the jump in 2008 and 2009. We think this can be partly explained by the updated 

definition used by law enforcement officers from 2007. The fatality data from the ASP shows a 

continued drop in 2013 and 2014.

• 2009 – 592 

• 2010 – 571

• 2011 – 551

• 2012 – 560

• 2013 – 483

• 2014 – 253 (through July - versus 289 in 2013)

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older 

Driver/Pedestrian 

Performance 

Measures

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.42 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.47 0.54

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.84 1.20 1.41 1.80 1.46 1.70 1.60

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per 

capita)

1.27 1.7 1.88 2.24 1.9 2.16 2.14
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 12

Show your calculations.

Rolling Average for 2010 and 2012 for Comparison

2012= (321/150)+(316/146)+(274/144)+(321/143)+(267/142)/5=2.1

2010= (274/144)+(321/143)+(267/142)+(238/140)+(175/138)/5=1.8

Corrected from last year.

2011= (316/143)+(274/144)+(321/143)+(267/142)+(238/140)/5 =2.0

2009=(321/143)+(267/142)+(238/140)+(175/138)+(263/135)/5=1.8

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

If yes, describe the approach to include respective strategies to address the increase in those rates in 

the State SHSP.

Current strategies listed in the SHSP to address older drivers will be considered. These strategies 

include:

Improved roadway visibility features;

Implementation of the FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers;

Education of older drivers on the safety risks resulting from reduced driving task performance;

Education of older drivers on alternative transportation modes;

Increase frequency of vision assessments for older drivers; and

Promote the use of restricted drivers licenses for older drivers.

SHSP steering committee will review these strategies in the near future and determine if any changes 

are needed. This may also include an establishment of an older driver action plan and SHSP 

subcommittee.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 13

Secondary Analysis

Older Pedestrians 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fatalities 5 6 8 3 5 1 6

Serious injuries 8 6 6 4 7 7 6

Fatalities and serious 

injuries

13 12 14 7 12 8 12

The increase is not due to pedestrians.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? Select all that apply.

B/C ratio

☐Policy change

Other: AHTD moving toward a systemic and risk-based approach to address safety.

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

apply.

☐Shift focus to fatalities and serious injuries

Organizational changes

More systemic programs included in HSIP

Other: Continued focus to fatalities and serious injuries by initiated using economic appraisals.

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

More systemic projects have been programmed. Specifically, continued system-wide implementation of 

cable median barriers to address fatal and serious injuries. Other areas as mentioned previously to 

address roadway departure safety is underway. The Traffic Safety Section staff has increased from 1 to 3 

Engineers to address the added demand created by the new process/project data analysis 

improvements to HSIP.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 14

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

measures. Show 5 tables for each year

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2012

Roadway Departure 426 1921 1.65 7.46

Intersections 119 944 0.46 3.66

Work Zones 11 105 0.04 0.41

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2011

Roadway Departure 358 1998 1.08 6.06

Intersections 108 961 0.33 2.92

Work Zones 16 117 0.05 0.36

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2010

Roadway Departure 358 2056 1.06 6.11

Intersections 132 945 0.39 2.81

Work Zones 16 89 0.05 0.26

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2009

Roadway Departure 398 2311 1.20 6.97

Intersections 125 1095 0.38 3.30

Work Zones 23 93 0.07 0.28
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 15

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2008

Roadway Departure 402 2096 1.24 6.44

Intersections 110 1042 0.34 3.20

Work Zones 12 113 0.04 0.35

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms. 

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments. 

HSIP Sub-program Types Year

Number of 

fatalities* 

Number of

serious 

injuries* 

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)* 

Serious injury 

rate (per 

HMVMT)* 

Cable Median 

Barriers/Median 

Crossover Crashes on 

Interstates and Freeways

2012 3 6 0.03 0.06

Cable Median 

Barriers/Median 

Crossover Crashes on

Interstates and Freeways

2011 8 22** 0.08 0.22**

Cable Median 

Barriers/Median 

Crossover Crashes on 

Interstates and Freeways

2010 10 14 0.10 0.14

Cable Median 

Barriers/Median 

Crossover Crashes on 

Interstates and Freeways

2009 15 17 0.16 0.18

*For the target crash type Head On and Sideswipe Opposite Direction Crashes.

**Review of crash reports indicated that some of the vehicles had high number of passengers and all of 

them had serious injuries.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2014

AHTD:TP&P:TSS:TE/ARQ 07.01.14 16

 

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

which you would like to elaborate.

Previous implementation of cable median barrier and rumble strip projects have shown a clear 

reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes. Rumble strip analysis recently presented to the Highway 

Commission helped justify additional systemwide rumble strips projects.

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional).