Arkansas

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2016 Annual Report

Prepared by: AR
ii

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 1

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 12

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 12

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 15

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 23

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 23

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 38

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................40

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 42

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 46

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 51

Project Evaluation....................................................................................................................................... 58

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 61
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

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 2015 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016). The format of this report is 

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

2013.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

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 and has implemented 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

2

eCrash and the Advance program that allows law enforcement agencies and other State and local 

agencies to have better access to crash data on all public roads, and run analytics and produce reports 

on numerous aspects of the crash data 

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. A project to 

provide a linear referencing system for all public roads is currently underway. Approximately 55% of all 

public roads now have a linear referencing system in place. 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.

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. Agencies using eCrash have also been provided with 

MapClick that allows law enforcement to accurately pin point crash locations while at the scene and 

send the LRS location, Lat/Long and all the roadway information associated with the crash location to 

the eCrash database. Staff is also attending the Local Road HSIP Exchange in Missouri in November 

2016.

We attended a Systemic Safety Peer Exchange in Phoenix, AZ, where we met several LTAP 

representatives. This peer exchange helped us to develop a policy for local road safety improvement 

program which is under development.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

Coordination with internal partners, along with the HSO and the eight Metro-Plan Organizations across 

the State, occurs on different levels. Design, planning, maintenance, operations, MPOs and the HSO are 

all on the SHSP Steering committee. Coordination has also taken place when addressing work zone 

safety, roadway departure safety, and in the identification of infrastructure and non-infrastructure 

projects. Traffic Safety and Maintenance work together on daily basis to address the spot treatments 

due to fatal crashes.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

3

Traffic Safety performs the preliminary scope of safety improvements on segment jobs according to the 

HSM guidelines to help with the design process. We have started a site visit protocol for scoping safety 

improvements for corridor program. It includes personnel from Roadway Design, Planning, 

Maintenance, and District/Construction engineers. We plan to include personnel from other Divisions as 

well to expedite the programming/design of these safety jobs.

Based on our field experience, we revised our scope to address safety improvements by choosing lowcost countermeasures such as replacement/installation of guard rails, signs, pavement markings, etc.

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

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

the last reporting period.

Other-New countermeasures such as enhanced pavement markings and centerline rumble strips were 

installed to address KA crashes. 

Other-Performance measure coordination with the Arkansas State Police, Highway Safety Office and 

some MPO organizations was accomplished in multiple meetings. Different methodologies and laws 

were discussed prior to setting targets.

Other-We perform a site visit which includes staff from different disciplines/divisions to help scope 

safety improvements on safety corridor projects.

Other-We have developed minor shoulder widening program in conjunction with the overlay program.

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

would like to elaborate.

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

Manual on case by case basis. The TSS now has 4 Engineers working on the Safety Program. Prior to 

May 2011, TSS did not have an Engineer. 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 continued to be a member State in the 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

4

Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. AHTD is coordinating with the FHWA 

Division Office to conduct a HSIP Peer Review during the 2017 Federal Fiscal Year. Information learned 

from this effort will be used to update the HSIP Process document.

We attended a systemic peer exchange in Phoenix, AZ, where we met several LTAP representatives. 

This peer exchange helped us to develop a policy for local road safety improvement program which is 

under development. Staff is also attending the Local Road HSIP Exchange in Missouri in November 2016. 

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Roadway Departure

Shoulder Improvement Segments Other-Pavement Marking 

Improvements

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/7/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic Median width

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Other-Systemic approach

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011.

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 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

5

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

Based on systemic approach 

considering median width, ADT, 

etc.

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Other-Rural vs Urban Other-ROW and utilities 

consideration

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011.

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

Cost Effectiveness 2

analyzed multiple locations 

statewide that were identified 

through various sources.

1
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

6

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology: 6/6/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Includes only signing improvements on high risk rural highways using state maintenance funds.

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

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Other-Wet pavement crashes Other-Skid resistance 

consideration

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011. 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

7

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

Wet pavement crashes were 

considered statewide and further 

analyzed to select the locations 

based on a certain threshold.

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Other-Converting from TRACS to 

E-Crash with the add-on 

software of ADVANCE for 

querying data.

Other-All types of data exposure 

considered for improvements

Other-MIRE roadway data 

elements are the priority for 

improvements.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

Yes

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

Yes

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The MIRE is connected with the eCrash which will improve the data quality for analysis.

Other-The AHTD continues to coordinate with the Arkansas State Police through the TRCC to implement 

eCrash and the Advance program that will allow law enforcement agencies and other State and local 

agencies to have timely access to the crash data.

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).

Various state agencies are 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

8

prioritizing and funding needed 

improvements through the TRCC.

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic Other-Minimum of 1 foot 

shoulder

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011. 

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

Available funding 2

The process was systemic based 

approach but due to available 

funding the systematic approach 

was also considered.

1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

9

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Functional classification

Lane miles

Other-Preventative 

maintenance.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011.

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

Cost Effectiveness 2

Sites were selected in conjuntion 

with the Overlay Program.

1

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Lane miles Horizontal curvature

Roadside features

Other-Clearzones and shoulder 

widths.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash rate

Other-Statewide average crash rates
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-Each segment is analyzed for low cost countermeasures and improvements as well as realignment 

or turn lanes at select locations. 

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 1

Program: Other-Pavement Marking Improvements

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2016

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes

Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

Traffic

Volume

Population

Functional classification

Other-APHN Routes excluding 

Interstates, Freeways, and 

Expressways.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash rate

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

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011. 

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
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Systematic approach was used to 

select rural APHN routes other 

than Interstates, Freeways and 

Expressways.

1

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

37%

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

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

last reporting period.

Systemic Approach

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 are underway. AHTD is already 

implementing cable median barrier projects, rumble strip/stripe projects, and enhanced pavement 

marking projects through a systemic process. With guidance from the Roadway Departure Safety 
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Implementation Plan, a systemic approach to install high friction surface treatment and shoulder 

widening/improvement is also underway. For segmental projects, AHTD continues to use B/C analysis to 

target low and medium cost improvements to hot spots while also applying the other low cost 

improvements for the entire length of the project.

The successful implementation of ongoing rumble strips is due in part by the development of a 

policy for the use of rumble strips in April 2012 that has increased the installation of both 

shoulder and centerline rumble strips throughout Arkansas. AHTD is working towards the 

installation of centerline rumble strips in passing zones by upgrading the policy considering lownoise rumble strips. 

AHTD is progressing toward the use of enhanced thermoplastic pavement marking by replacing

High Performance Pavement Marking in the policy. This change will provide cost saving for the 

department that will allow additional maintenance efforts through out the state.

AHTD is also developing Local Road Safety Program for the Highway Commission's approval.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) $43,449,423.00 26 % $35,636,182.00 40 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) $1,197,217.00 1 % $2,234,486.00 2 %

HRRR Special Rule $0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

$11,554,765.00 7 % $11,554,765.00 13 %

Penalty Transfer –

Section 164

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Incentive Grants (Section 

406)

$0.00 0 % $0.00 0 %

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

$91,841,961.00 55 % $31,407,808.00 35 %

State and Local Funds $20,208,233.00 12 % $8,717,879.00 10 %
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

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

$0.00

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

$0.00

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

$969,000.00

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

$450,132.00

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

period?

$0.00

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

period?

$0.00

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 

Totals $168,251,599.00 100% $89,551,120.00 100%
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

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

projects; implementing numerous low cost countermeasures.

AHTD is working on revising the HSIP process document to improve the program and plans to host a 

peer exchange next month that will be funded by FHWA. Four states representatives from their state or 

FHWA division offices will be participating to help us document the ways any impediments should be 

overcome.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

Over 600 miles of cable median barriers have been installed to reduce or eliminate KA crashes on 

interstates and other high speed routes. Statewide shoulder rumble strip/stripes are installed or being 

installed on 5,000 plus miles of the State Highway System by the end of calendar year 2016. Statewide 

HFST are being installed at 40 plus locations of the State Highway System by the end of this calendar 

year. Statewide 6" wide enhanced pavement markings are being installed on over 4200 miles of the 

State Highway System by the end of calendar year 2016.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

15

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Output HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y

Functional 

Classificatio

n

AADT Spee

d

Roadway 

Ownershi

p

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

01218

5

Noninfrastructur

e Outreach

0 Miles 132 147 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Arkansas 

Safety 

Summit

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Education Implement 

outreach 

program to 

local 

governments.

01222

1

Noninfrastructur

e Outreach

0 Miles 450000 450000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

AGIO LINEAR 

REFERENCIN

G SYSTEM 

UPGRADE

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Traffic Data 

Systems

Cont. to 

implement 

crash data 

location 

methods.

01222

7

Roadway 

signs and 

traffic 

control 

Roadway 

signs 

(including 

post) - new 

or updated

15.9 

Miles

141270 141270 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

5200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

low cost 

safety 

measures.

01222

8

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

1012.7

6 Miles

1083096

7

1191406

4

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Various 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install rumble 

strips.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

01223

0

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

922.45 

Miles

1188317

4

1307149

1

Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Various 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install rumble 

strips.

01223

1

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

24.71 

Miles

521275 573403 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

1500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

01223

9

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

3.7 

Miles

22900 22900 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface.

01225

7

Roadway 

delineation 

Roadway 

delineation -

other

1689.8

6 Miles

9306450 1023709

5

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Various 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Enhanced 

delineation.

02032

6

Railroad 

grade 

crossings 

Grade 

separation

0.1 

Miles

4116 4528 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

7800 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Railroad 

Crossings

Grade 

seperation.

02059

5

Intersection 

geometry 

Intersection 

geometrics -

modify skew 

angle

6.9 

Miles

50400 55440 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other

6600 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Improve sight 

distance.

02061

0

Intersection 

geometry 

0.1 

Miles

4500 5000 Penalty 

Transfer 

Rural 

Principal 

4350 60 State 

Highway 

Intersection

s

Install right 

turn lanes.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

auxiliary 

through lane

-

Section 

154

Arterial -

Other

Agency

05027

9

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

auxiliary 

through lane

2.55 

Miles

197501 197501 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

2900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Install turn 

lanes.

05028

0

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

auxiliary 

through lane

1.8 

Miles

125000 125000 Penalty 

Transfer

-

Section 

154

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

3400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Install turn 

lanes.

05031

3

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

3.75 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

4000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

High Friction 

Surface

06105

9

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

4.46 

Miles

173 190 HSIP -

HRRR

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

3100 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

06125

9

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

0.89 

Miles

19975 21973 HSIP -

HRRR

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

8600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

06130

9

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

3.8 

Miles

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

5600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

06142

8

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

17.99 

Miles

127286 140015 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban Local 

Road or 

Street

3200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

06143

7

Interchange 

design 

Installation 

of new lane 

on ramp

1.5 

Miles

67258 73984 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

6900

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Install right 

turn lane.

06143

8

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way leftturn lane

6.3 

Miles

100000 100000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

8300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Install turn 

lanes.

06144

0

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - high 

friction 

surface

17.34 

Miles

1558972 1714869 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

5000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

High friction 

surface.

06144

1

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

21.25 

Miles

7536666 7536666 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

3200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

other

06144

2

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

18.01 

Miles

22500 24750 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

3200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment.

07036

8

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

7.58 

Miles

897378 987116 HSIP -

HRRR

Rural Minor 

Collector

1400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment.

07042

1

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

5 Miles 496029 545632 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Collector

213 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

08049

4

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

6.83 

Miles

90000 90000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment.

08049

5

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

15.57 

Miles

180051 198056 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

4800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s

Install left 

turn lanes.

09040

6

Railroad 

grade 

crossings 

Grade 

separation

0.47 

Miles

1087830 1196613 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban Minor 

Arterial

1100

0

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Railroad 

Crossings

Grade 

seperation.

09042

2

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

2.35 

Miles

8312 8312 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

3300 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

High friction 

surface.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

Section 

154

09042

3

Roadway 

Roadway -

other

13.74 

Miles

22983 22983 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Collector

1800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment.

10081

9

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

19.23 

Miles

2805096 2805096 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

5800 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.

11062

6

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder -

paved or 

other

5.95 

Miles

749280 824208 HSIP 

(Section

148)

Rural Local 

Road or 

Street

1100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

widening.

11063

0

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

15.38 

Miles

3363253 3363253 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2900

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.

11064

9

Miscellaneou

s 

0 Miles 150000 150000 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural Major 

Collector

1500

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large 

Commercial 

Vehicles

CMV 

Compliance.

BB010

7

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

12.8 

Miles

60024 60024 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

3700

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Section 

154

Interstate

BB030

3

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

2.02 

Miles

49052 49052 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3000

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.

BB030

5

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

4.09 

Miles

2223228 2445551 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3000

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.

BB031

0

Shoulder 

treatments 

Pave existing 

shoulders

5.12 

Miles

953872 953872 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

3200

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Shoulder 

Improvement

s.

BB040

3

Roadside 

Barrier -

cable

13.86 

Miles

231 257 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

2900

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Rodway 

Departure

Cable median 

barriers.

BB040

7

Roadside 

Barrier -

concrete

7.46 

Miles

35331 38864 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

4200

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large 

Commercial 

Vehicles

High perf. 

barriers.

BB061

1

Roadside 

Barrier -

concrete

2.82 

Miles

65251 71776 Penalty 

Transfer 

-

Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

5400

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large 

Commercial 

Vehicles

High perf. 

barriers.

CA110

1

Roadside 

Barrier -

concrete

3.38 

Miles

51663 51663 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

6600

0

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Large 

Commercial 

Vehicles

High perf. 

barriers.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Interstate
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of fatalities 615.6 592.8 574.8 552.2 529.2

Number of serious injuries 3205.6 3361.2 3392 3310.8 3204

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.89 1.81 1.74 1.66 1.58

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 9.78 10.21 10.25 9.93 9.57

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

24
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

25
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

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

Year - 2014

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

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

26.6 122.6 0.65 2.99

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

3.4 15.6 0.71 3.41

RURAL PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

65.4 228.6 1.72 8.13

RURAL MINOR 

ARTERIAL

66 302 2.43 11.19

RURAL MINOR 

COLLECTOR

2 6.2 4.03 11.65

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

84.6 445.8 2.62 13.93

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 

STREET

1.2 2.4 1.71 3.77

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

24 181.2 0.48 3.65
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

8.6 42.2 16.77 3.52

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

40.6 277.2 1.16 7.91

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

20.8 152.4 1.33 8.54

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0.2 1.57

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

7 40 2.18 11.4

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

1.6 7.6 0.75 4.04
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

28
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

29
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

30
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

31
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 415 2576 1.64 10.18

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 63.5 227 2.03 7.26

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY 

AGENCY

51 343 0.96 6.47
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

35
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

36
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

38

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. 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 an increase in 2015 

and the upward trend appears to be continuing in 2016.

• 2009 – 596

• 2010 – 571

• 2011 – 551

• 2012 – 560

• 2013 – 498

• 2014 – 466 

• 2015 - 531

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fatality rate (per capita) 0.094 0.124 0.158 0.152 0.148

Serious injury rate (per 

capita)

0.258 0.334 0.406 0.458 0.44

Fatality and serious injury 

rate (per capita)

0.342 0.448 0.55 0.598 0.578

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

 2014 233/465=.501 or .50

 2013 329/454=.724 or .72

 2012 227/441=.514 or .51

 2011 228/429=.531 or .53

 2010 266/420=.633 or .63
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

39

 2009 249/413=.602 or .60

 2008 194/404=.480 or .48

2014=.50+.72+.51+.53+.63/5=.578 or .6

2012=.51+.53+.63+.60+.48/5=.550 or .6
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

40

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

No

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?

Policy change

if 'policy change', list the policy changes made.

AHTD is working on revising the pavement striping maintenance policy to reduce the cost of striping by 

using alternate low cost materials. This will not only stretch the state maintenance funds but will help 

the HSIP with improving safety through better maintenance. These policy change decisions were based 

on benefit-cost analysis using the Highway Safety Manual.

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

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

Organizational Changes

Other-More systemic programs included in HSIP.

Other-HSIP jobs are now prioritized based on benefit-cost ratio instead of considering other factors.

Other-Local Road Safety Program efforts are underway to include local roads in the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

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 and commencement of a system-wide implementation of shoulder rumble 

strips/stripes, minor shoulder widening, and enhanced pavement markings to address fatal and serious 

injuries.

Department policy changes are underway to improve maintenance of state routes. HSIP jobs are now 

prioritized based on benefit-cost ratio instead of considering other factors. Local Road Safety Program 

efforts are underway to include local roads in the Highway Safety Improvement Program
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

42

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2014

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Roadway Departure All 376.4 1738.6 1.12 5.18

Intersections Intersections 97.2 708.6 0.29 2.12

Work Zones All 14.8 94.8 0.04 0.28
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Groups of similar project types
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

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

Year - 2014

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Median Barrier Cross median 5.8 12.6 0.02 0.03

Intersection Intersections 97.2 542 0.24 1.59

Skid Hazard Wet road 51.6 347.6 0.15 1.04

Roadway 

Departure

Run-off-road 307 1521 0.9 4.47
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

48
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

49
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

50
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

Systemic Treatments
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

52

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2014

Systemic 

improvement

Target Crash 

Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1Other2Other3

Cable Median 

Barriers

Cross 

median

5.8 12.6 0.02 0.03
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

56
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

57

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, enhanced pavement markings, HFST and rumble strip 

projects has shown a clear reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes. Analysis recently presented to 

the Highway Commission helped justify additional system-wide projects of these types, which are being 

implemented.
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

58

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost Ratio)

Interstate 49, 

Section 28, 

Log Mile 

41.44-45.74

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

2 16 42 60 1 12 15 28 3.77

Interstate 

430, Section 

21, Log mile 

8.96-9.86

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

1 5 52 114 172 2 35 96 133 115.47
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

59

Interstate 40, 

Sections 43 

and 51, Log 

mile 216.10 

to 220.71

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial -

Interstate

Roadway Pavement 

surface - high 

friction surface

4 9 13 4 7 11 0.05
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

60

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance 

Targets: Overview of General Safety Trends

Setting Safety PM Targets - FY 2017.docx
2016 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.