Page 1 of 46

ALASKA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 46

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 

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 41 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 46

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.” 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 46

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 2017. Alaska’s serious injury performance measures for 2017 will be updated when the 

data for those years are finalized.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 46

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? 

 Engineering 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 46

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

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.

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

safety.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 46

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.

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 change

period?

d since the last reporting 

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_18th_ed_180221.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.

Program: HSIP (no subprograms) 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 46

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 

Available funding : 10

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 46

 34 

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

apply.

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

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.

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

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 46

Alaska DOT&PF experimented with a new screening methodology in our Handbook this year (Sec. 2.2). Our 

new crash data analysis program allows users to perform robust sliding spot analysis with variable inputs. 

DOT&PF's Traffic and Safety Engineers developed the methodology and allowable variable inputs to ensure a 

fair analysis system wide.

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

No
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 46

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) $23,986,088 $22,768,963 94.93%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$785,178 $900,000 114.62%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $13,337,000 $12,593,047 94.42%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $10,427,000 $13,443,062 128.93%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

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

$1,004,580 $1,129,413 112.43%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $2,863,983 $2,317,442 80.92%

Totals $52,403,829 $53,151,927 101.43%

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?

$13,092,674 

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

$18,090,106 

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?

$3,022,175 

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

$3,022,175 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 46

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.

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

No
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 46

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

Fairbanks: DanbyWembly RoundaboutIntersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $4333679.8 $4790244 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 Numbers $1884469.553 $1911703 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Steese 

Expressway/Chena 

Hot Springs Road 

Ramp Termini 

Roundabouts

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

2 Numbers $700000 $700000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

8,155 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fox Intersection 

Conspicuity 

Improvements

Roadway Rumble strips - transverse 1 Numbers $178771 $178771 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

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 $90000 $100000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

15,036 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fairbanks Ramp 

Sight Distance 

Improvements

Alignment Horizontal and vertical 

alignment

3 Numbers $67500 $75000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Phillips Field Road 

Safety 

Improvements

Roadside Roadside grading 0.65 Miles $71646 $71646 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

Fairbanks Area 

Concrete Barrier 

Upgrade (HSIP)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 35 Miles $144000 $160000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Lake Otis Parkway 

@ 68th Avenue 

Channelization 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

1 Numbers $157255.2 $174728 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

26,054 45 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 46

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

intersection 

crashes

Son of Downtown 

Anchorage Curb 

Bulb Project

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

intersection corner radius

18 Numbers $412172.1 $457969 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 two-way 

left-turn lane

10 Miles $645200 $702800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

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 Numbers $78069 $78069 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

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 Numbers $2880000 $3200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

11,405 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Jewel Lake Road: 

88th to Strawberry 

TWLTL

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.75 Miles $8679090.88 $8679090.88 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

14,734 40 State 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 $9264028 $9264028 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address passing 

crashes

Sterling Highway 

Shoulder Widening - 

Soldotna to Clam 

Gulch

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - paved or 

other

20.3 Miles $826227.438 $826227.66 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

4,677 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure to 

address SVROR 

and head-on 

crashes

Freeway/ Ped Safety 

Fence Seward 

Freeway and Glenn 

Freeway

Roadside Fencing 2 Numbers $411824.1 $411824.1 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

infrastructure to 

address 

pedestrian safety 

improvements

Bethel Ridgecrest 

Drive School Zone 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Numbers $176754 $176754 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,982 20 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify and 

implement 

strategies to 

address highcrash locations 

involving 

pedestrians
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 46

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

Akakeek Street and 

Ridgecrest Drive (in 

Bethel) Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - modify 

skew angle

1 Numbers $98562 $98562 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major 

Collector

5,169 30 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Minnesota Dr / 

Seward Hwy / Tudor 

Rd / Muldoon Rd 

Lighting 

Improvements

Lighting Lighting - other 1.16 Miles $125580 $125580 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

strategies to 

address highcrash locations 

involving older 

drivers and 

pedestrians

Glenn Hwy Median 

Barrier, MP 30-34

Roadside Barrier - other 3.5 Miles $450000.009 $500000.01 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

27,750 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address head-on 

crashes

Minnesota Dr 

Weaving Lane

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / deceleration / 

merge lane

1 Numbers $195000 $195000 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

48,285 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

Minnesota Dr Guide 

Sign Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

3 Numbers $7785.22 $7785.22 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

37,700 60 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

HSIP: Central 

Region Curve 

Warning Signs 

Evaluation/Upgrade 

(Systemic)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

413 Numbers $540776.7 $600863 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 $2277101.511 $2530112.79 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

Bogard Rd at 

Engstrom Rd / 

Green Forest Dr 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Vine Rd at 

Hollywood Rd 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Numbers $450000 $500000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

varies 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Kodiak Bridge Rail 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier - other 18 Numbers $198724.8 $198724.8 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

Rural Major 

Collector, Rural 

Minor Collector

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

preemptively 

prevent roadway 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 46

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

departure 

crashes

HSIP: 36th Ave, 

Arctic to C St 5 Lane 

Conversiont 

(formerly Group 5A. 

Anchorage Area 

HSIP Projects)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

0.75 Miles $156033 $173370 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

All FCs - 

channelization & 

other geometric 

improvements at 

multiple locations

0 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Eklutna Overpass 

Low Bridge Warning 

System

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs (including post) 

- new or updated

1 Numbers $49300 $49300 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

29,950 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Implement 

infrastructure to 

address existing 

highway safety 

problem

Regional High 

Friction Surface 

Treatment Project

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

37 Numbers $192727.089 $214141.21 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure Implement 

infrastruture 

projects to help 

motorists 

maintain control

Bragaw Street @ 

16th Avenue 5 Lane

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add two-way 

left-turn lane

0.5 Miles $178592.4 $198436 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

18,583 City of Municipal 

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 $352740.1 $352740.1 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 Numbers $1409144 $1430000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

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 Numbers $215616 $215616 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 164)

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 $3305469.078 $3672743.42 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Mixed FCs 0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address run-offroad crashes

YAK School Zone 

Crossing 

Improvements HSIP

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs and traffic 

control - other

1 Numbers $20209.5 $22455 Penalty Funds 

(23 U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Collector

1,013 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

strategies to 

address highcrash locations 

involving older 

drivers and 

pedestrians

CR: SMS/HSIP 

Program 2015-2017

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $54000 $60000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Regional HSIP 

planning

Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 46

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-qualified 

activities and 

projects

HSIP/SMS Central 

Region FFY 2018-

2019

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $1215000 $1350000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Regional HSIP 

planning

Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

NR SMS/HSIP FFY 

2018-2020

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $648000 $720000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Regional HSIP 

planning

Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

SR FFY 18-19 

HSIP/SMS

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $180000 $200000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Statewide HSIP 

planning

Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

FFY18/19 

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM/SAFETY 

MGMT

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure - other 1 Numbers $676957.86 $752175.4 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

N/A 0 0 N/A Regional HSIP 

planning

Roadways Improve roadway 

safety through 

HSIP-qualified 

activities and 

projects

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 46

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 64 56 72 59 51 73 65 84 79

Serious Injuries 452 463 404 359 340 316 337 392 0

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.298 1.167 1.568 1.235 1.052 1.503 1.288 1.602 1.431

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.165 9.650 8.796 7.512 7.013 6.507 6.680 7.475 0.000

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

12 6 11 10 7 17 12 13 17

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

20 31 19 11 45 37 56 55 0
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 46

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

Serious injury data is not yet available for 2017.

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 2017

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 

(RPA) - Interstate

13 38.4 1.47 4.37

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

4.4 16.2 0.88 4.08

Rural Minor Arterial 3.6 6.8 2.74 5.03

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 46

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 4 13.4 2.69 9.12

Rural Major Collector 7 21 2.3 6.8

Rural Local Road or Street 6 9.6 1.48 2.44

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

8.2 27.2 1.15 3.87

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

9 50.4 0.84 4.98

Urban Minor Arterial 6 39.8 1.13 7.48

Urban Minor Collector 2.8 8.8 2.3 7.16

Urban Major Collector 0.8 16.2 0.33 6.75

Urban Local Road or Street 1.8 7.4 0.51 2.28

Missing Function Class 0.2
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 46

Year 2017

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 54.6 191.8

County Highway Agency 1 20.2

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0.4 0 0 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

5 12.6

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0.2

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0.2

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 46

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 46

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 46

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 46

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

State Highway

Agency

County

Highway

Agency

Town or

Township

Highway

Agency

City of

Municipal

Highway

Agency

Other Local

Agency

BOROUGH FEDERAL

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 46

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Town or Township

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency BOROUGH FEDERAL

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 46

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

Serious injury data is not yet complete for 2017. Alaska does not have traffic volumes broken down by 

ownership, and therefore cannot calculate rates by ownership.

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 2019 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 optimistic view of annual fatality numbers 

leveling off even considering the external upward pressures for this performance 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Town or Township

Highway Agency

Other Local Agency BOROUGH FEDERAL

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 46

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. 

Number of Serious Injuries 350.0 

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 optimistic view of annual serious injury 

numbers continuing to decline even considering the 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 optimistic view of annual fatality numbers 

leveling off even considering the 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 7.000 

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 optimistic view of annual serious injury 

numbers continuing to decline even considering the 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 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 46

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. 

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. 

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 65 years of age and 

older for the past seven years.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 46

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

5 5 5 3 11 11 9

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

23 22 18 18 22 26 0

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

2017 serious injury data is not yet available.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 46

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 6.4:1 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 

2.6:1.

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 2017 

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 27.8 32.6 0.54 0.65 0 0 0
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 36 of 46

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

Roadway Departure 24.4 59.2 0.47 1.18 0 0 0

Intersections 14.6 95.8 0.29 1.91 0 0 0

Pedestrians 12 25.8 0.23 0.51 0 0 0

Bicyclists 1.2 10.6 0.02 0.21 0 0 0

Older Drivers 6 9.4 0.11 0.19 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 8 31.8 0.16 0.64 0 0 0

Work Zones 1 3.2 0.02 0.06 0 0 0
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

50

100

150

200

250

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 46

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

Serious injury data is not yet complete for 2017.

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 46

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 46

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 OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

05CR03: Gambell 

Street

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

Roadside Removal of roadside objects 

(trees, poles, etc.)

3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 2.57:1

07CR11: 

Anchorage - 

Internation Airport 

Rd at Jewel Lake 

Rd

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - add left-turn 

lane

72.00 2.00 4.00 38.00 1.00 114.00 3.00 3.10:1

08CR06: 

Anchorage - 

Jewel Lake Rd: 

63rd Ave to Old 

International 

Airport Rd

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Access 

management

Median crossover - close 

crossover

43.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 20.00 2.00 68.00 7.00 2.02:1

JNU Thane Rd Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadside Roadside grading 6.00 1.00 2.00 9.00 0.95:1

SEA Signal 

Upgrade

Regionwide Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic signal - add 

flashing yellow arrow

43.00 5.00 1.00 14.00 2.00 58.00 7.00 2.48:1

JNU Egan / 

Yandukin

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecified

8.00 6.00 2.00 12.00 3.00 22.00 9.00 5.76:1

JNU Cordova & 

Douglas Hwy

Urban Major 

Collector

Lighting Intersection lighting 1.00 1.00 13.37:1

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
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 46

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.

Update process expected to be completed before end of calendar year 2018.

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) 100 100 100 75

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 60 60
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 46

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)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

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)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

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
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 46

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) 0 0

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):

92.22 92.22 28.75 28.75 63.64 63.64 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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.

Since the last report the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) Information Systems and Services Division (ISSD) completed migration from a custom LRS management solution to version 10.5 of 

Environmental Systems Research Institute’s Roads and Highways (R&H). ISSD now uses R&H to maintain the state's road centerline/linear reference system network as well as the related roadway features and attributes required for the 

annual submittal to the Highway Performance Monitoring System. It's expected R&H will also be the system of record for the MIRE FDEs. 

In addition to deploying R&H, ISSD is meeting regularly with Statewide Traffic and Safety to develop a plan to meet the MIRE FDE requirements and deadline. The initial meetings were used to review each FDE and group them into the 

following categories: 

• Elements that already exist as feature classes or those that could be derived from existing feature classes in the department’s R&H geodatabase, 

• Elements that could be produced from feature classes in the department’s R&H geodatabase but would require modifications to the existing data set, 

• Elements that will need to be added to the departments R&H geodatabase, and 

• Elements which the department needs clarification to fully understand and develop a solution. 

Potential data owners and data sources for each FDE were also identified and technical questions for some of the elements were documented. 

During the coming performance period the FDE plan and timeline will be finalized. Anticipated tasks in the formalization process include:

• Seek clarification from FHWA on some of the FDEs 

• Model the modifications to the existing R&H feature classes as well as the new feature classes required to address the FDE requirements 

• Designate data owners and data stewards 

• Verify data sources and secure funding (if needed) 

• Develop a strategy to prioritize element deployment 

• Deploy the initial subset of prioritized elements (likely to be those that already exist or could be derived from the current geodatabase) 

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. 
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 44 of 46

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 Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

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?

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

The purpose of the recent HSIP program assessment was to compare current conditions to the baseline 2011 assessment.

Assessment outcomes: 

Leadership - improved in general

Administration - improved in general

Planning - stable

Implementation - regressed slightly since the last assessment, but perhaps because the program hasn't advanced on goal activities as much as we'd have liked.

Evaluation - regressed slightly since data availability has been an issue, but is improving recently.
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 45 of 46

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

L_8-31-18 HSIP Ann Report Cover_signed.pdf

hsip_hdbk_18th_ed_180221.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 46

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.