Page 1 of 47

ALASKA
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 47

Table of Contents

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Disclaimer............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

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

Project Implementation......................................................................................................................................... 11

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 11

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 13

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 18

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 18

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 31

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 35

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 35

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 40

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 42
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 47

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 47

Executive Summary

Under the Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Alaska DOT&PF identifies high risk intersections and 

roads, scopes and prioritizes corrective projects, funds the most cost -effective projects, and evaluates actual project 

and program effectiveness. HSIP dollars are distributed to the most effective projects from a single statewide fund. The 

purpose of the Alaska HSIP is to “maximize lives saved and major injuries eliminated per dollar spent.” 

Regional Traffic and Safety personnel identify, scope, estimate, and rank candidate projects according to benefit-cost 

ratio (ranked projects) and potential for crash reduction (non-ranked projects). HQ Traffic & Safety reviews proposed 

new projects, works with the regions to clarify project description and scope, and submits recommended projects to 

DOT&PF's Chief Engineer for approval. Following approval of new HSIP projects, HQ Traffic and Safety selects the most 

effective projects and proposes a statewide HSIP funding plan for the coming federal fiscal year for approval by the Chief 

Engineer and the Director of Program Development. 

The HSIP funding plan typically includes a blend of on-going projects and new projects. Regions design and construct 

funded projects and generate before-after studies when three years of post-improvement crash data becomes available. 

HQ Traffic & Safety manages funding for the statewide HSIP, annually updates the HSIP Handbook, maintains program 

effectiveness data, and produces the annual HSIP report. 

Important Note on Performance Measures calculated by Online Reporting Tool: Alaska does not yet have serious injury 

data for 2015 and 2016. Alaska’s serious injury performance measures for 2015 and 2016 will be updated when the data 

for those years are finalized.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 47

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation and 

evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 

29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The general structure of Alaska's HSIP is basically described in Sec. 1.3 of the Alaska HSIP Handbook:

Regional Traffic and Safety Engineers in Alaska’s three regions (Northern, Central and Southcoast) screen crash 

data and consider other information to identify projects. Projects can be either ranked or non-ranked.

Ranked projects are implemented at locations with high crash history and are ranked by analyzing the benefit 

cost of specific safety-related improvements using estimated accident reduction factors and improvement 

costs. Non-ranked projects are implemented at locations with potential for severe crashes identified in SHSP 

strategies and may be spot or system-wide improvements. System wide, or systemic, improvement projects 

are implemented to reduce potential for fatal and serious injuries by mitigating road conditions or 

characteristics associated with specific crash types. Non-infrastructure projects are limited to those types 

specifically included in Appendix A (p. A-11) of this handbook, a reprinting of 23 U.S.C. Section 148 (a)(4)(B).

Alaska’s three regional traffic & safety sections submit proposed projects to the State Traffic and Safety 

Engineer for review. HQ Traffic & Safety reviews the proposed new projects, works with regions to clarify 

project descriptions and scope, and submits recommended projects to the Chief Engineer for advancement as 

safety projects. Following Chief Engineer approval of new HSIP projects, the State Traffic and Safety Engineer 

proposes a list of new and on-going projects for funding and coordinates with HQ Project Development to 

prepare a funding plan for the coming federal fiscal year. 

State Traffic and Safety personnel manage the federal funds for approved projects. Regional Traffic and Safety 

personnel work with preconstruction and construction personnel to ensure projects remain consistent with 

their HSIP scope throughout design and construction. The regions conduct follow-up studies to determine the 

effectiveness of completed projects. HQ Traffic & Safety summarizes the overall effectiveness of the 

statewide program in the annual HSIP Report.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 47

 Engineering

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

The program is managed out of the Chief Engineer's office of Design and Engineering Services.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

Describe how local and tribal roads are addressed as part of HSIP.

Safety projects on all public roads in Alaska are eligible to compete for HSIP funding. The same process is used 

to prioritize projects on both state and non-state (including local) roads.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Districts/Regions

Governors Highway Safety Office

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Design: Regional Traffic and Safety personnel identify, scope, estimate, and rank candidate projects according 

to benefit-cost ratio (ranked projects) and potential for crash reduction (non-ranked projects). 

HQ Traffic & Safety reviews proposed new projects, works with the regions to clarify project description and 

scope, and submits recommended projects to the DOT&PF Chief Engineer for funding approval. 

Planning: Funding plan developed in coordination with the Office of Program Development. 

Maintenance and Operations: M&O staff consulted to determine alternative project nominations where safety 

problems may exist despite the lack of historic crash data. 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 47

Governors Highway Safety Office: Split penalty transfer funding to address engineering solutions to highway 

safety.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

Local Government Agency 

FHWA

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

Local agencies: Municipality of Anchorage, City of Fairbanks

Describe coordination with external partners.

There are no formal mechanisms in the program for coordination with local agencies. Their input is valued and 

considered in the development and delivery of HSIP projects. Coordination with FHWA is described under the 

most recent Stewardship and Oversight Agreement.

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

period?

No

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

No

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

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

File Name:

hsip_hdbk_170101.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

HSIP (no subprograms)

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 47

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

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

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Critical rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 90
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 47

Available funding : 10

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 77

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

apply.

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Upgrade Guard Rails

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Horizontal curve signs

Other-Install Passing Lanes

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

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

Engineering Study

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

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

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Not at this time.

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

No

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

Not at this time. HSIP funding is being used to develop Alaska specific calibration factors for some SPFs in the 

HSM. DOT&PF envisioned the calibration factors for use at planning level for HSIP nominations.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 47

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

period?

No

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

No
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 47

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $30,277,371 $36,399,977 120.22%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$900,000 $975,197 108.36%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $11,060,227 $12,269,081 110.93%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $11,060,227 $12,269,081 110.93%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$1,150,000 $1,290,035 112.18%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $3,415,430 $4,187,779 122.61%

Totals $57,863,255 $67,391,150 116.47%

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

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

$3,986,500

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

$1,128,742

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 47

$1,588,500

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

$180,000

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$0

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

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

Alaska DOT&PF believe the flexibility lost under the FAST Act by removing eligibility for non-infrastructure projects is an 

impediment not only to obligation of HSIP funds but to the purpose of the HSIP program listed in 23 USC 148(b)(2) to 

achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

HSIP projects are often smaller projects that must compete with other state priorities for the same resources 

(personnel, equipment, etc.) as the larger projects in the state. Strategies for overcoming these impediments include 

bundling projects in the construction phase with larger projects, and consider program revisions to allow leveraging HSIP 

funds by combining with other eligible federal funding.

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

No
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 47

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

HSIP: COLLEGE 

ROAD RIGHT 

TURN LANES

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add rightturn lane1 Lanes $284278.5 $285197 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,076 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fairbanks: DanbyWembly 

Roundabout

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $425007 $472230 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

16,560 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fairbanks Area 

Signal Upgrades 

(combines 

10NR01, 13NN05, 

14NR01, 14NR02)

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

57 Locations $85277 $85277 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Parks Highway 

Rest Areas

Parking Truck parking facilities 29.759 Miles $29851 $29851 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Fox Intersection 

Conspicuity 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips - transverse 1 Intersections $67500 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

3,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

College Median 

Extension

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

0.2 Miles $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,036 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Badger Road Two 

Way Left Turn Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane10 Miles $378000 $420000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

9,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Richardson Hwy 

MP 351 

Interchange

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to interchange

1 Intersections $837000 $930000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

16,858 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fairbanks Ramp 

Sight Distance 

Improvements

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

3 Interchanges $182700 $203000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 47

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

address 

intersection 

crashes

Phillips Field Road 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Roadside grading 0.65 Miles $450000 $450000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,120 40 Other State 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

HSIP: Airport Way / 

Steese Expwy 

Interchange

Interchange 

design

Convert at-grade 

intersection to interchange

1 Intersections $2300000 $2300000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 36,265 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

NR Guardrail 

Inventory and 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier - other 970 Miles $1000000 $1000000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 State Highway

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Bragaw Street @ 

16th Avenue 5 

Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane0.5 Miles $236160 $236160 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,583 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Kodiak Island: Pillar 

Mountain Rock Fall 

Hazard 

Remediation

Roadside Barrier - other 1 Locations $296964 $329960 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

5,430 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Hazard correction 

and prevention

Implement 

infrastructure to 

prevent hazardous 

conditions

UPS Load Center 

Battery Backup for 

Traffic Signals

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

7 Locations $99449.1 $110499 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

HSIP: Parks Hwy 

Grade Separations 

2014

Railroad grade 

crossings

Grade separation 0.49 Miles $1148114.376 $1275682.64 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

2,640 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Implement 

infrastructure to 

address rail road 

crossings

C St Railroad 

Crossing - Pathway 

Traffic Control 

Devices

Railroad grade 

crossings

Upgrade railroad crossing 

signal

1 Intersections $72269.1 $80299 Other Federal-aid 

Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

18,893 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify and 

implement 

appropriate 

engineering 

strategies to 

address highcrash locations 

involving 

pedestrians

Northern Lights 

Boulevard @ UAA 

Drive

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $67531 $67531 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

41,858 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

CR School Zone 

Upgrades Phase II

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

8 Locations $263110.5 $292345 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

infrastructure to 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 47

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

address 

signing/delineation 

for drivers and 

pedestrians

Lake Otis Parkway 

@ 68th Avenue 

Channelization 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane1 Intersections $165795.3 $184217 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

26,054 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Son of Downtown 

Anchorage Curb 

Bulb Project

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

modify intersection corner 

radius

18 Locations $551038.5 $612265 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Palmer-Wasilla 

Highway HSIP: 

Center Left Turn 

Lane Widening

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add twoway left-turn lane10 Miles $1204400 $1204400 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address head-on 

crashes

Johns Road and 

Klatt Road 

Intersection

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way 

stop to roundabout

1 Intersections $960432.7 $1022831 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Collector

10,153 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Sterling Highway & 

Main Street 

(Homer) 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic control -

other

1 Intersections $136448 $136448 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

11,405 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

George Parks 

Highway Systemic 

Passing Lanes 

Project

Roadway Roadway widening - add 

lane(s) along segment

80.2 Miles $4963985 $4963985 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address passing 

crashes

CR Traffic Safety 

Corridor Left Turn 

Lanes

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add leftturn lane3 Intersections $3488801 $3488801 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address rear end 

crashes

Central Region 

Sign Assembly 

Compliance 

Improvement

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

2100 Signs $141696 $157440 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway and 

Special Users

Implement 

infrastructure to 

improve 

signing/delineation

54474 Flashing 

Yellow Arrows -

Kenai and Mat-Su

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

18 Locations $247489 $247489 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Sterling Highway 

Shoulder Widening 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

20.3 Miles $31607497.8 $35119442 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,677 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure to 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 47

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

- Soldotna to Clam 

Gulch

address SVROR 

and head-on 

crashes

Freeway/ Ped 

Safety Fence 

Seward Freeway 

and Glenn Freeway

Roadside Fencing 2 Locations $1674285 $1674285 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

infrastructure to 

address 

pedestrian safety 

improvements

Railroad Crossing 

Surface Upgrades

Railroad grade 

crossings

Surface treatment 6 Locations $666994.5 $741105 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Glenn Hwy Median 

Barrier, MP 30-34

Roadside Barrier - other 3.5 Miles $315000 $350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

27,750 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address head-on 

crashes

Tudor Rd at C St 

and Dimond Blvd at 

C St - Right Turn 

Channelization

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island - install on 

one or more approaches

2 Intersections $408000 $408000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Minnesota Dr 

Weaving Lane

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration 

/ merge lane

1 Locations $310000 $310000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

48,285 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Identify and 

implement work 

zone and railhighway crossing 

safety 

improvements, 

planning activities, 

improvements in 

data collection and 

analysis, road 

safety audits, and 

engineering 

strategies that 

correct or improve 

a hazardous road 

location or fea

Seward Highway 

Passing Lanes, MP 

37-52

Roadway Install / remove / modify 

passing zone

3.7 Miles $928250 $928250 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

4,429 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address head-on 

crashes

Minnesota Dr 

Guide Sign 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including 

post) - new or updated

3 Numbers $75000 $75000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

37,700 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Identify and 

implement work 

zone and railhighway crossing 

safety 

improvements, 

planning activities, 

improvements in 

data collection and 

analysis, road 

safety audits, and 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 47

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE 

SELECTION

EMPHASIS 

AREA

STRATEGY

engineering 

strategies that 

correct or improve 

a hazardous road 

location or fea

HSIP: Central 

Region Curve 

Warning Signs 

Evaluation/Upgrade 

(Systemic)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

413 Miles $81776.7 $90863 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Old Glenn Hwy and 

Knick Goose Bay 

Rd: Wider Lane 

Lines

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

23.5 Miles $75196.8 $83552 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

varies 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

KTN - North 

Tongass Highway 

Illumination 

Upgrade

Lighting Continuous roadway 

lighting

4.876 Miles $60534 $60534 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address night time 

crashes

SR Regionwide 

Traffic Signal 

System Upgrades

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal -

modernization/replacement

22 Locations $377856 $377856 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

SIT Halibut Point 

Road and Peterson 

Avenue 

Intersection Safety 

Improvements

Lighting Intersection lighting 1 Intersections $375000 $375000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

12,638 30 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

SR Regionwide 

Horizontal 

Alignment Signing 

Compliance

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

36 Numbers $500000 $500000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

SR FFY 18-19 

HSIP/SMS

Non-infrastructure Transportation safety 

planning

1 Numbers $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Other Roadways Identify and 

implement work 

zone and railhighway crossing 

safety 

improvements, 

planning activities, 

improvements in 

data collection and 

analysis, road 

safety audits, and 

engineering 

strategies that 

correct or improve 

a hazardous road 

location or fea

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 47

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 82 62 64 56 72 59 51 65 84

Serious Injuries 436 394 452 463 404 359 316 0 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.591 1.267 1.298 1.167 1.568 1.235 1.052 1.288 1.597

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.461 8.049 9.165 9.650 8.796 7.512 6.009 0.000 0.000

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

4 12 6 11 10 7 17 12 13

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

15 20 31 19 11 45 34 0 0
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 47

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 47

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

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

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

Year 2016

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial -

Interstate

13.2 23.8 1.41 2.55

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

4.6 18 0.71 2.4

Rural Minor Arterial 3.2 5.8 2.38 3.59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 47

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Minor Collector 3.4 7.8 2.34 5.14

Rural Major Collector 7.6 10 2.48 3.17

Rural Local Road or Street 4.8 6 1.35 1.84

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

7 15.2 1 2.49

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

7.4 41.4 0.63 3.33

Urban Minor Arterial 6.2 30.4 1.17 5.84

Urban Minor Collector 3 10 2.16 6.1

Urban Major Collector 0.6 4.4 0.25 1.86

Urban Local Road or Street 1.8 4.6 0.57 1.93

Missing Function Class 0.6 19.8 0 0

Other Function Class
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 47

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 51.4 140.8 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0.4 0 0 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

4.4 8.2 0 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation

BOROUGH 1.6 0 0 0

FEDERAL 0.2 0 0 0
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 47

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 47

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 47

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 47

0

5

10

15

20

25

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 47

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 47

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

BOROUGH FEDERAL

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 47

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

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

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 75.0 

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based 

on trend analysis, the influence of external factors, and the consideration of select 

scenarios. This target is representative of an upward trend combined with external 

upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP is currently under revision and will likely continue to reflect the State's 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

Other Local

Agency

Private (Other

than Railroad)

BOROUGH FEDERAL

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 47

vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD 

vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in 

consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

Number of Serious Injuries 375.0 

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based 

on trend analysis, the influence of external factors, and the consideration of select 

scenarios. This target is representative of an downward trend combined with external 

upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP is currently under revision and will likely continue to reflect the State's 

vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD 

vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in 

consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

Fatality Rate 1.500 

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based 

on trend analysis, the influence of external factors, and the consideration of select 

scenarios. This target is representative of an upward trend combined with external 

upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP is currently under revision and will likely continue to reflect the State's 

vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD 

vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in 

consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

Serious Injury Rate 7.500 

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based 

on trend analysis, the influence of external factors, and the consideration of select 

scenarios. This target is representative of an downward trend combined with external 

upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP is currently under revision and will likely continue to reflect the State's 

vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD 

vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in 

consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 55.0 

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based 

on trend analysis, the influence of external factors, and the consideration of select 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 47

scenarios. This target is representative of an upward trend combined with external 

upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP is currently under revision and will likely continue to reflect the State's 

vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD 

vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in 

consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

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

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

targets. 

Both the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) Executive Director and Anchorage 

Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Coordinator were included in meetings during the 

development of initial target recommendations that were delivered to DOT&PF management for review and 

edits. Coordination involved paying for their travel to attend a 1 day training by FHWA on target setting and 

coordination as well two conference calls to discuss external factors and a process for coordination beyond this 

first target setting effort.

The Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) was involved in establishing targets throughout the entire 

process. An AHSO data analyst attended every meeting and was instrumental in the analysis of data trends and 

external factors. The Governor's highway safety representative was a signatory to the memo signed by the 

Governor establishing the State's targets.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries for the past seven years.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 47

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

4 6 5 5 5 3 11

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

16 29 23 22 18 18 0

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

Alaska does not yet have suspected serious injury counts for 2015.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 47

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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

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

level evaluations.

The overall benefit / cost ratio of Alaska's HSIP program is 7.2:1 over the last 5 years of completed projects 

with at least 3 years of post construction crash data available. The B/C ratio includes three projects which may 

be considered outliers due to their high B/C ratios and excluding them would result in a 5 yr program B/C of 

2.9:1.

What other indicators of success does the State use to demonstrate effectiveness and success of the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

Other-None

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

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

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2016

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 22.4 47.8 0.45 1

Roadway Departure 22.6 10.6 0.45 0.22
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 47

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Intersections 13.4 70.6 0.27 1.46

Pedestrians 10.6 11.6 0.21 0.24

Bicyclists 1.2 6 0.02 0.12

Older Drivers 5.2 9.4 0.1 0.2

Motorcyclists 8.6 22.2 0.17 0.46

Work Zones 1 0.2 0.02 0
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 47

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 47

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

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

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 47

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 47

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

03CR11 -

International 

Airport Road @ 

Old Seward 

Highway 

Channelization 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

51.00 11.00 17.00 12.00 68.00 23.00 0.39:1

03CR12 - 13th 

Avenue @ 

Gambell Street 

Channelization 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

38.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 42.00 6.00 2.74:1

04CR9: 6th 

Avenue @ 

Muldoon Road 

Safety 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics -

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

16.00 6.00 1.00 22.00 1.00 0.98:1

08CR01: 

Anchorage Area 

Countdown 

Pedestrian 

Signals Project

Mixed FC Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

74.00 95.00 6.00 1.00 63.00 14.00 274.00 123.00 417.00 233.00 109.06:1

08CR02: NHS 

Warning & 

Delineation 

Improvements

Mixed FC Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

60.00 18.00 135.00 32.00 431.00 127.00 626.00 177.00 94.85:1

08CR03: Tudor 

Road: Laurel 

Street to Boniface 

Parkway 

Channelization 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

72.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 13.00 2.00 57.00 5.00 143.00 17.00 4.48:1

08CR05: Debarr 

Road: Bragaw 

Street to Hoyt 

Street 

Channelization & 

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

Access 

management

Change in access - close or 

restrict existing access

9.00 5.00 2.00 16.00 8.05:1

Chena Pump 

Road/Roland 

Right Turn Lane

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add right-turn 

lane

2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 7.82:1

Northern Region 

Speed Displays

Mixed FC Speed 

management

Radar speed signs 46.00 16.00 1.00 23.00 6.00 70.00 22.00 9.01:1

Johansen Expwy 

Offset Lighting

Urban Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Lighting Lighting - other 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.7:1
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 47

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY IMPROVEMENT TYPE PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

Denali Highway 

Signing

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related warning signs 

and flashers

8.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 15.00 2.00 2.05:1

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

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

No
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 47

Compliance Assessment

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

 09/30/2013

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2013 To: 2018

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

 2018

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

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 75 60 60 60

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

30 30 30 30 30 30

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

30 30 30 30 30 30

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 60 60
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 47

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 80

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

80 80 40 40

AADT Year (80) 80 80

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 95 100 95 100 95

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

30 30

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

80 80

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

80 80

AADT Year (80) 80 80

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 47

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0

Interchange Type (182) 20 20

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 100

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

86.39 85.28 33.75 33.75 65.45 65.45 73.33 70.56 72.00 71.00

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) currently does not have a specific plan for how to address the MIRE FDE requirements, however multiple activities are underway to build system capacity and collect the data.The focus 

over the last two years has been on establishing the software, hardware, and data necessary to support federal mandates such as MIRE and HPMS. The bullets below highlight the progress made in these core areas.

• DOT&PF are in the final stage of a two-year project to transition from a custom geographic information system/linear reference system (GIS/LRS) to a commercial off the shelf solution, Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (Esri) Roads and 

Highways. The new software enables DOT&PF business units to edit their roadway data via the web and provides standard interfaces for integrating with other business systems.

• In parallel with the GIS/LRS software upgrade, DOT&PF have also migrated their GIS IT infrastructure to a modern facility at the State Office in Juneau and updated the hardware. The IT enhancement has transformed the GIS/LRS from a division 

solution to a scalable enterprise solution.

• Recent changes to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) requirements have led DOT&PF to expand the road network to include all public roads in Alaska. A contractor has been used to assemble public road data from local, State, 

federal agencies, and native corporations and merged them with DOT&PF’s existing road network. The contract expanded the network from 2,800 routes to nearly 24,000.

• An annual roadway data collection program focuses on the state managed roads and non-state roads with a functional classification above local. This project provides the required FDE source data but only for roads accessible from the contiguous road 

system and those accessible from communities served by the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).

The new software, hardware, and data described above are the foundation components upon which HPMS and MIRE data elements reside. As these initial projects are completed, DOT&PF will shift attention to the MIRE FDE requirements. DOT&PF recently 

completed a Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) analysis, and below are a few MIRE specific issues that were identified:

• Determine which business unit or units in the department should own (edit/manage) the FDE data.

• Determine alternative methods/means to acquire FDE data sources for the newly added public roads. Output from the current data collection project provides a viable data source for the FDEs, but the data collection project only applies to roads 

accessible from the contiguous road system and those accessible from communities served by the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS). 

• Update DOT&PF's data model to address both the HPMS and MIRE requirements in the most efficient/practical manner possible if FHWA cannot or will not standardize common data elements between the two requirements. Many of the HPMS and 

MIRE data element definitions and domains are similar but not identical.

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

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 47

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

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

Crash Report Form Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Suspected Serious Injury Yes Suspected Serious Injury is an injury other 

than fatal which results in one or more of 

the following:

Yes ? Severe laceration resulting in exposure of 

underlying tissues/muscle/organs or 

resulting in significant loss of blood

? Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)

? Crush injuries

? Suspected skull, chest or abdominal 

injury other than bruises or minor 

lacerations

? Significant burns (second and third 

degree burns over 10% or more of the 

body)

? Unconsciousness when taken from the 

crash scene

? Paralysis

Yes

Crash Database Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Database Data Dictionary Not at this time No Not at this time No Not at this time No

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

Crash Database Data Dictionary is projected to be completed before the April 15, 2019 compliance date.

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

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

No

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

2018

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

Alaska Division has scheduled an HSIP program assessment for FHWA performance year 2018.
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 47

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

hsip_hdbk_170101.pdf

L_8-29-17 HSIP Ann Report Cover.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 47

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

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

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

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

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

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

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

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

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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