Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 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 2013 (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). The format of this report is 

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

2013.

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

☐District

☐Other: 1T

If District, how are the HSIP funds allocated? 

☐Formula

☐Crash data

☐Other: 1T

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 Planning and Research 

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

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

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

have better access to crash data on all public roads.

Furthermore, the AHTD recently enhanced its roadway data base by providing a linear referencing 

system for 12,665 miles of Federal-aid local roads. This allowed the location of a crash that occurs on 

Federal-aid local roads to be identified by geographical location. Based on this data, crash queries can 

be conducted to determine if there are locations with a high frequency of crashes. This data can be 

provided to a local government agency or a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) upon request.

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. This tool has greatly enhanced both speed and accuracy in providing 

a crash location to the Crash Database.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 2

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

Check all that apply.

Design

Planning

Maintenance 

Operations

Governor’s Highway Safety Office

☐Other: 1T

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

and non-infrastructure projects.

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

Check all that apply.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governor’s Highway Safety Office

☐Local Government Association

☐Other: Click here to enter text.

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

the last reporting period.

☐Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

☐Other: 1T

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

would like to elaborate.

Since the last SFY, the AHTD Traffic Safety Section (TSS), which manages the HSIP, has hired an engineer. 

The TSS has also increased use of GIS. The TSS organized an HSM training workshop with FHWA in 

February 2013, and organized a workshop as part of NCHRP 8-76 in March 2013. The TSS worked with 

FHWA on the Roadway Departure Implementation Plan, and has begun work with FHWA on the Work 

Zone Safety Implementation Plan. The TSS also updated the SHSP (approved by FHWA in March 2013) 

with a focus on TZD.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier ☐Intersection ☐Safe Corridor
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 3

Horizontal Curve ☐Bicycle Safety Rural State Highway

Skid Hazard Crash Data ☐Red Light Running

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

Improvement

☐Local Safety ☐Pedestrian Safety ☐Right Angle Crash

☐Left-turn Crash ☐Shoulder Improvement ☐Segments

☐Other:

1T

For each program checked above, enter the following information:

Program: Below information applies to all programs checked above.

Date of Program Methodology: 7/7/2011

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

☐Fatal crashes only ☐Volume ☐Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

☐Population Functional classification

☐Other:

1T

Lane miles ☐Roadside features

☐Other:

1T

Other:

Pavement, curve, lane and 

shoulder width, rural/urban, 

etc.

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

Crash frequency

☐Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Equivalent property damage only (EPDO crash frequency)

☐Relative severity index

Crash rate

☐Critical rate

☐Level of service of safety (LOSS)

☐Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

☐Excess expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

☐Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

☐Probability of specific crash types
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 4

☐Excess proportions of specific crash types

☐Other: 1T

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

No

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

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

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

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

(LTAP).

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

☐Competitive application process

☐Selection committee

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

AHTD/FHWA HSIP process adopted in 2011. See attachment.

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

indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the 

weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are 

entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank and skip the next highest rank 

(as an example: 1, 2, 2, 4).

☐Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1T

Available funding 1T

Incremental B/C 1T

Ranking based on net benefit 1T

Cost effectiveness 1T

Other The process is consistent with the AHTD/FHWA 

HSIP process adopted in 2011. See attachment.

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

49%

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

systemic improvements? Please check all that apply.

Cable median barriers ☐Upgrade guard rails

☐Rumble strips ☐Clear zone improvements

☐Traffic control device rehabilitation ☐Safety edge

☐Pavement/shoulder widening ☐Install/improve lighting
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 5

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

☐Install/improve pavement 

marking/delineation

☐Other: 

1T

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

☐Road Safety Assessment 

☐Other: 1T

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

last reporting period. 

Highway Safety Manual

☐Road Safety Audits

Systemic Approach

☐Other: 1T

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

would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

rumble strips is also under way.

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

State Fiscal Year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013)

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

HSIP Project Funding

Reporting Period 07/01/2012 to 06/30/2013

Funding Category Programmed Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 23,864,000 25,146,777

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 0 0

HRRR Special Rule 0 0

Penalty Transfer - Section 154 15,660,000 28,625,004

Penalty Transfer – Section 164 0 0
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 6

Incentive Grants - Section 163 0 0

Incentive Grants (Section 406) 0 0

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. STP, NHPP) 98,108,000* 27,541,830*

State and Local Funds 28,176,000 9,679,544

Total 165,808,000 90,993,155

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

safety related studies

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

None directly

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects? 

None directly

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

$785,000

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

$785,000

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

period?

$10,285,611

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

period? 

None

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

overcome this in the future.

Develop a policy to systematically deploy the use of HSIP funds for the installation, improvement, and 

replacement of signs and raised pavement markers.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

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

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates and other high speed routes. 
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 7

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvement 

Category 

Output 

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

Relationship to SHSP

*Emphasis 

Area **Strategy

110516 Roadside 10.27 49,592 55,047 148 Interstate 2433 70 State Hwy. 3 B

110564

Roadside

9.82 267,975 297,452

148 Interstate 28000 70 State Hwy. 3 B

110576

Roadway 4.61 1,359,199 1,508,711

148 Interstate 28000 70 State Hwy. 2 C

020544

Roadside 15.47 3,377,725 3,749,275

148 Interstate 25500 65 State Hwy. 3 B

040472

Roadway 2.2 332,106 368,638

148

Minor Art. 4900 55 State Hwy. 2 D

040645 Roadside 5.1 974,476 1,081,668 148

Interstate/Oth

er Fwy. 18667 55 State Hwy. 3 B

061218 Alignment 0.07 64,242 71,309 148

Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

28000 35 State Hwy. 2 E

061328

Roadside 7.31 100,142 111,158

148 Interstate 74000 65 State Hwy. 3 B

061408

Roadway 1.0 123,385 136,957

148 Interstate 42000 65 State Hwy. 2 C

080273 Roadway 0.41 27,639 30,679 148

Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

18000 35 State Hwy. 2 D

080310 Alignment 0.91 557,047 618,322 148

Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

1100 55 State Hwy. 2 E

080465

Roadway 9.35 1,362,213 151,196

148 Interstate 32250 70 State Hwy. 3 B

090369

Roadside 4.96 1,364,714 1,514,833

148 Interstate 39000 70 State Hwy. 3 B

100768

Roadside 16.81 2,438,590 2,706,835

148 Interstate 13775 65 State Hwy. 3 B

012149

Roadside 17.27 246,179 273,259

148 Interstate 27667 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012166

Roadway 3.0 904,555 1,004,056

148 Interstate 25000 70 State Hwy. 3 C

012168

Roadside 27.7 4,436,244 4,924,231

148 Interstate 24800 70 State Hwy. 2 B

012169 Roadside 13.02 1,543,303 1,713,066 148

Interstate 

/Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

17250 65 State Hwy. 3 B

012170

Roadside 14.94 94,074 104,422

148 Interstate 25000 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012185 Non-Infrast. 0 8,506 9,442148 NA NA NA NA NA NA

012200

Roadway 11.84 2,930,090 3,252,400

148 Interstate 25000 70 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0403

Roadway 14.1 429,402 476,636

148 Interstate 26633 70 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0407

Roadway 7.46 800,391 888,434

148 Interstate 48167 65 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0614

Roadway 7.49 1,573,414 1,746,490

148 Interstate 22667 70 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0804

Roadway 7.4 693,837 770,159

148 Interstate 27000 70 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0806

Roadway 18.6 999,106 1,109,008

148 Interstate 29900 70 State Hwy. 2 C
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 8

BB1003

Roadway 7.82 588,261 652,970

148 Interstate 18500 70 State Hwy. 2 C

030425 Roadside 14.13 2,394,195 2,657,556 154 Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

9400 55 State Hwy. 3 B

050044 Roadway 0.73 45,698 50,725 154 Urban Prin. 

Art. Other

16000 35 State Hwy. 2 D

061309

Roadway 2.4 10,000 11,100 154 Minor Art. 8150 55 State Hwy. 2 D

061407

Roadway 2.56 865,183 960,353 154 Interstate 77000 65 State Hwy. 2 C

080466 Roadside 9.29 1,390,026 1,542,929 154 Prin. Art Other 6050 65 State Hwy. 3 B

012167

Roadside 64.6 6,166,368 6,844,668 154 Interstate 19400 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012170

Roadside 14.94 2,631,548 2,921,018 154 Interstate 25000 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012177

Roadside 36.96 7,031,189 7,804,620 154 Interstate 31943 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012179 Roadside 39.19 6,231,092 6,916,512 154 Urban Prin. Art 

Other

26667 70 State Hwy. 3 B

012190 Non-Infrast. 0 785,000 871,350 154 NA NA NA NA 1 A

012200

Roadway 11.84 663,948 736,982 154 Interstate 25000 70 State Hwy. 2 C

BB0105

Roadway 7.88 410,757 455,940 154 Interstate 30800 70 State Hwy. 2 C

*1=Curbing aggressive driving; 2=Keeping vehicles in roadway; 3=Reducing head on and across median crashes 

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

D=Widening/Passing lanes; E=Realignment

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* 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of fatalities 650 600 592 571 551

Number of serious injuries 3072 3471 3693 3331 3239

Fatality rate (per100MVMT) 2.01 1.86 1.79 1.70 1.67

Serious injury rate (per 

100MVMT)

9.48 10.70 11.14 9.90 9.83

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

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

Function Classification

2011

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per 100MVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per 100MVMT)

Interstate 74 479 0.87 5.64

Other Freeways 13 77 0.91 5.37
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 9

Other Principal Arterials 129 831 1.73 11.12

Minor Arterials 87 578 1.46 9.71

Major Collector 99 641 1.87 12.12

Minor Collector 5 12 0.66 1.58

Local 144 621 4.05 17.46

Roadway Ownership

2011

Number

of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per 100MVMT)

Serious injury 

rate (per 

100MVMT)

State Highway System 417 2652 1.67 10.63

City Streets and County Roads 134 587 1.67 7.33

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.

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Show table from template with 7 years

Older 

Driver/Pedestrian

Performance 

Measures

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.56 0.42 0.48 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.45

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

16.04 12.73 15.69 18.03 18.12 17.17 16.40

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per 

capita)

16.59 13.15 16.17 18.50 18.55 17.59 16.84
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 10

Show your calculations.

Rolling Average for 2009 and 2011 for Comparison

2011= SUM((2459/146)+(2533/144)+(2652/143)+(2627/142)+(2264/140))/5=17.5

2009= SUM((2652/143)+(2627/142)+(2264/140)+(1815/138)+(2240/135))/5=16.6

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

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

rates in the State SHSP.

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

strategies include:

• Improved roadway visibility features;

• Implementation of the FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers;

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

performance;

• Education of older drivers on alternative transportation modes;

• Increase frequency of vision assessments for older drivers; and

• Promote the use of restricted drivers licenses for older drivers.

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

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

SHSP subcommittee.

Secondary Analysis

Older Pedestrians 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fatalities 9 5 6 8 3 5 1

Serious injuries 10 8 6 6 4 7 7

Fatalities and serious 

injuries

19 13 12 14 7 12 8

The increase is not due to pedestrians.

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? Select all that apply.

B/C ratio

☐Policy change

Other: AHTD moving toward a systemic and risk-based approach to address safety.
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 11

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

apply.

Shift focus to fatalities and serious injuries

☐Organizational changes

More systemic programs included in HSIP

☐Other: 1T

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

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

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

roadway departure safety is underway.

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

measures. Show 5 tables for each year

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2011

Roadway Departure 358 1998 1.08 6.06

Intersections 108 961 0.33 2.92

Work Zones 16 117 0.05 0.36

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2010

Roadway Departure 358 2056 1.06 6.11

Intersections 132 945 0.39 2.81

Work Zones 16 89 0.05 0.26

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2009

Roadway Departure 398 2311 1.20 6.97

Intersections 125 1095 0.38 3.30

Work Zones 23 93 0.07 0.28

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate

(per HMVMT)
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 12

2008

Roadway Departure 402 2096 1.24 6.44

Intersections 110 1042 0.34 3.20

Work Zones 12 113 0.04 0.35

HSIP-related

SHSP Emphasis 

Areas

Number of 

fatalities

Number of

serious injuries

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

2007

Roadway Departure 422 1945 1.30 6.00

Intersections 131 954 0.40 2.95

Work Zones 22 98 0.07 0.30

Groups of similar project types

Present the overall effectiveness of HSIP subprograms.

Before and After Crash Analysis

Job 012053, Shoulder Rumble Strips (Selected Sections) (Statewide)

24 Months Before 

Rumble Strips 

(2007-2008)

24 Months After 

Rumble Strips 

(2010-2011)

Percent 

Change

Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) 5,501 5,664 3.0%

Total Number of Crashes 3,275 2,677 (18.3%)

Annual Crash Rate1 0.80 0.64 (20.0%)

Number of Fatal Crashes 108 70 (35.2%)

Number of Fatalities 123 84 (31.7%)

Statewide Number of Fatalities 1,250 1,122 (10.2%)

Number of Serious Injury Crashes 386 309 (20.0%)

Number of Minor Injury Crashes 557 392 (29.6%)

Number of Possible Injury Crashes 692 425 (38.6%)

Number of PDO2 Crashes 1532 1481 (3.3%)

Human Capital Crash Cost3,5, all severities $303.8 million $210.5 million (30.7%)

Comprehensive Crash Cost4,5, all severities $795.0 million $624.4 million (21.5%)

Average Annual Human Capital Crash Cost Savings $46.7 million

Average Annual Comprehensive Crash Cost Savings $85.3 million

Construction cost of Job 012053 $0.9 million

1 Crash Rate = number of crashes per year per million vehicle miles traveled

2 PDO = Property Damage Only

3 Human capital crash costs include monetary losses associated with medical care, emergency services, property damage, and lost

productivity.

4 Comprehensive crash costs include human capital crash costs in addition to non-monetary costs related to the reduction in the quality of life 

in order to capture a more accurate level of the burden of injury. Comprehensive costs are generally used in analyses conducted by nontransportation state and federal agencies.

5 Crash costs were calculated using the costs provided in Table 4A-1 in the 2010 Highway Safety Manual and adjusted to July 2013 dollars 

based on the latest Consumer Price Index. 
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 13

Before and After Crash Analysis

Highway 7 Centerline Rumble Strips1

36 Months Before 

Rumble Strips 

(2001-2004)

36 Months After 

Rumble Strips 

(2005-2007)

Additional 

48 Months After 

(2008-2011)

Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) 1,970 1,940 1,773

Average Annual Number of Crashes 104.0 61.7 81.0

Average Annual Number of Fatal Crashes 3.7 1.3 1.5

Average Annual Number of Fatalities 3.7 1.3 1.5

Average Annual Number of Serious Injury Crashes 12.7 8.7 13.8

Average Annual Number of Minor Injury Crashes 26.3 14.3 14.8

Average Annual Number of Possible Injury Crashes 14.3 16.7 9.5

Average Annual Number of PDO2 Crashes 47.0 20.7 41.5

1 Section 15 (LM 9.68-19.13); Section 16 (LM 0.00-19.34); Section 17 (LM 0.00-13.52); Section 18 (LM 0.00-14.21 and 14.80-25.33); Section 19 (LM 0.00-7.26)

2 PDO = Property Damage Only

Before and After Crash Analysis

Job 012016, I-40 Cable Median Barrier (Biscoe-Brinkley)

36 Months Before 

Cable Median Barrier

36 Months After 

Cable Median Barrier

Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) 31,900 30,900

Total Number of Crashes 95 108

Number of Fatal Crashes 10 0

Number of Fatalities 11 0

Number of Serious Injury Crashes 5 6

Number of Minor Injury Crashes 12 6

Number of Possible Injury Crashes 27 16

Number of PDO1 Crashes 41 80

Human Capital Crash Cost2,4, all severities $18.82 million $2.44 million

Comprehensive Crash Cost3,4, all severities $56.45 million $3.98 million

Average Annual Human Capital Crash Cost Savings $5.46 million

Average Annual Comprehensive Crash Cost Savings $17.49 million

Construction cost of Job 012016 $2.05 million

 Job 012016: I-40, Sections 42 and 43, Log Mile 204.50-213.00 (8.50 miles in length)

Before and After Crash Analysis

Job 110495, I-55 Cable Median Barrier (So. of Highway 64-James Mill Road)

36 Months Before 

Cable Median Barrier

36 Months After 

Cable Median Barrier

Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) 34,800 31,800

Total Number of Crashes 77 102

Number of Fatal Crashes 2 0

Number of Fatalities 2 0
Arkansas’ Highway Safety Improvement Program Report for

State Fiscal Year 2013

AHTD:P&R:TSS:TE/ASB 09.16.13 14

Number of Serious Injury Crashes 7 2

Number of Minor Injury Crashes 4 4

Number of Possible Injury Crashes 34 24

Number of PDO1 Crashes 30 72

Human Capital Crash Cost2,4, all severities $5.95 million $1.98 million

Comprehensive Crash Cost3,4, all severities $15.00 million $3.05 million

Average Annual Human Capital Crash Cost Savings $1.32 million

Average Annual Comprehensive Crash Cost Savings $3.98 million

Construction cost of Job 012016 $0.85 million

 Job 110495: I-55, Section 11, Log Mile 8.50-12.62 (4.12 miles in length)

1PDO = Property Damage Only

2Human capital crash costs include monetary losses associated with medical care, emergency services, property damage, and lost productivity.

3Comprehensive crash costs include human capital crash costs in addition to non-monetary costs related to the reduction in the quality of life in order to capture a 

more accurate level of the burden of injury. Comprehensive costs are generally used in analyses conducted by non-transportation state and federal agencies.

4Crash costs were calculated using the costs provided in Table 4A-1 in the 2010 Highway Safety Manual, which are based on a 2005 FHWA report in 2001 

dollars, and adjusting to July 2012 dollars based on the latest Consumer Price Index. 

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

HSIP Sub-program 

Types

Number of 

fatalities*

Number of

serious injuries*

Fatality rate

(per HMVMT)*

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)*

**Cable Median 

Barriers/Median 

Crossover Crashes 

on Interstates and 

Freeways

14 42 1.41 4.23

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

** First year for data, 2011 only.

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

you would like to elaborate.

1T

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

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

reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes.