Page 1 of 56

ARKANSAS

HIGHWAY SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

2021 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Photo source: Federal Highway Administration
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 56

Table of Contents

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

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence............................................................. 3

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Program Structure................................................................................................................................. 6

Program Administration..................................................................................................................... 6

Program Methodology .....................................................................................................................11

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................24

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................24

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................27

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................32

General Highway Safety Trends......................................................................................................32

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................39

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................44

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................45

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................45

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................46

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................50

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................51

Optional Attachments..........................................................................................................................55

Glossary..............................................................................................................................................56
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 56

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. 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.”
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 56

Executive Summary

In accordance with 23 USC 148 and pursuant to 23 CFR 924, the Arkansas Department of Transportation 

(ARDOT) has prepared a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Annual Report for State Fiscal Year 

2021 (July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021). The format of this report is consistent with the reporting guidelines 

issued by the Federal Highway Administration on February 13, 2013. Some notable accomplishments are as 

follows:

• A Local Road Safety Program is in development for the Highway Commission’s approval. It will help the local 

agencies to improve safety on local roads.

• A statewide pavement friction improvement study is under construction with completion expected at the end 

of 2021.

• A statewide guardrail project is in development to upgrade substandard guardrails to meet the MASH 

standards on NHS routes.

• New rounds of cable median barrier installation have been approved to continue to reduce and eliminate KA 

crashes on Interstates and other high speed highways.

• While not directly related to the HSIP program, ARDOT has now made retroreflective signal backplates a 

standard item on all ARDOT projects involving signal work.

• A systemic, low-cost unsignalized intersection project is under development.

• A systemic low-cost, Y-type intersection (selected realignment locations) project is under development.

• The pavement preservation program was used to accomplish shoulder widening and rumble strip installation 

along various routes where crash history showed such improvements would be effective.

• A new HSIP Process has been developed and is under administration review.

• FHWA Safety Data and Analysis Technical Assistance Program (SDATAP) technical assistance concluded 

this FY. The assistance provided planning documents for a Roadway Safety Management System (RSMS) 

software tool. These will be used to hire a consultant to develop the software.

• Online data query tools and dashboards have been maintained for public use. 

https://ardot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7976060331fb4930933bf560f8a9c91b

• A SHSP tracking tool is being developed for use in tracking emphasis area action plans and projects.

• ARDOT has had an initial meeting regarding a Roadway Data Improvement Plan and is planning on moving 

forward with this FHWA technical assistance program. This will assess ARDOT's roadway data and make 

recommendations for improvements.

• A statewide centerline rumble stripe project is under development.

• A statewide shoulder rumble stripes and strip study is under development.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 56

• SHSP is being updated for 2022.

• ARDOT is taking efforts to develop a horizontal curve and intersection program.
Page 6 of 56

2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

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 ARDOT HSIP process is structured to be consistent with the following requirements specified in 23 CFR

924 and the procedures outlined in the HSIP Manual i.e. Planning (23 CFR 924.9), Implementation (23 CFR

924.11), and Evaluation & Reporting (23 CFR 924.13 and 23 CFR 924.15). It should be noted that the state 

SHSP influences decisions made during each step of the HSIP process. The HSIP process is developed with 

the consideration of the relationships and interactions between the SHSP and HSIP according to the 1st 

edition of HSIP Manual published in January, 2010. The Process is currently under review by ARDOT

Administration to ensure compliance with the latest HSIP requirements.

COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION

Identifying high-risk corridors, roadway segments, locations, etc., is a critical part of the road safety

improvement analysis process. However, the analysis task is not complete until contributing factors are 

identified and appropriated, and effective countermeasures are selected and prioritized. 

Analyze Data

High risk locations identified through the problem identification process as well as requests from ARDOT 

officials, ARDOT Divisions and District Offices, public officials, and other interested parties provide a basis for

conducting engineering studies and crash analyses. A network screening tool has also been developed that is

used to rank corridors and intersections based on total and KA crash rates. The ranking is used to prioritize the 

list of facilities according to their safety conditions. These facilities are then further grouped based on functional

and area classifications. This list will be updated as new crash data becomes available or on yearly basis,

whichever is more relevant. This network screening tool is being enhanced since the completion of ARNOLD

LRS and will eventually include intersections on all public roads.

Following the list created from network screening, the analysis of the higher risked locations will be conducted 

by closely examining the crash data. A crash map is created for the study location which shows the types and 

severities of crashes occurred in the area. The following factors are then considered for the analysis of crash 

data and diagnosing the safety problems

• Crash type

• Contributing crash factors

o Roadway factors

o Human factors

o Vehicle factors
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 56

o Environmental factors

• Crash pattern analysis

• Collision diagram for intersection analysis

Identify Potential Countermeasures

Once the crash data has been reviewed and assessed, some of the results will be forwarded to other safety 

partners who are involved in the SHSP for consideration of behavioral countermeasures. Others are 

considered for infrastructural improvements. Some of the countermeasures may include low-cost safety 

improvements such as signing, striping or rumble strips. In other cases, major improvements in a corridor or at 

a hotspot may be recommended for roadway realignment, or widening based on the specific needs. 

Countermeasures are recommended specifically for a location based on a corridor or intersection safety study. 

This type of study analyzes crash statistics, types, severities, etc. and identifies appropriate safety treatments 

for the study area. Additionally, systemic studies are conducted which are based on specific types of crashes 

and/or facilities. In contrast to the spot studies which manage risk at certain locations, systemic studies take a 

broader view and evaluate safety condition across the entire system of highways. Examples of risk factors in a 

systemic study could be the skew angle of intersections, and median types. A systemic study can also target a 

specific type of crash across the roadway system; for example, system-wide improvements such as 

installation of rumble strips, median cable barriers, curve delineators, etc., may be recommended to address 

roadway departure crashes. 

Assess Site Conditions

After potential countermeasures have been identified, the Maintenance Division is contacted if necessary to 

conduct an on-site review of the identified treatments resulting from the crash analysis. After their 

recommendations are received, a more thorough site visit is performed by a multidisciplinary team. The team 

consists of participants from Design, Planning, Maintenance, Research, Highway Police, and Construction. 

Environmental and Right-Of-Way are also invited if their input is necessary in the project development. 

The on-site assessment is typically conducted during the time of day that can reflect the safety problem. 

Information such as the roadway geometry, lane/shoulder width, access, sight distance, operations, traffic, the 

existing traffic control devices, etc., is collected. The purpose of the on-site review is to: 

• Confirm any previous analysis and proposed countermeasures based on preliminary review;

• Identify additional conditions which may have contributed to the crash; and

• Identify any other countermeasures that would address the existing safety risks.

Assess Countermeasure Effectiveness (Economic Appraisal)

Once a set of countermeasures or potential solutions are identified, the list must be prioritized based on the 

results of an economic appraisal (benefit-cost analysis) and paired to meet existing resources. To accomplish 

the prioritization of improvements, effectiveness of the countermeasures should be evaluated. 

Cost of the proposed countermeasures are estimated using the available Department's cost-per-mile sheet, 

and unit-price sheets, which are developed based on the past projects and contracts. Roadway Design division 

is contacted to provide a more accurate cost estimate for each countermeasure. Through coordination with 

Roadway Design, the costs of the recommended treatments are finalized and used in the economic appraisal 

process.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 56

This process includes the estimation of a monetary value for the potential benefits of implementing the 

countermeasures. The benefits of each countermeasure is estimated by using the CMFs reported in various 

sources including but not limited to the CMF-Clearinghouse website, HSM, research studies, and in-house past 

projects evaluations. The change in the expected crash number associated with each countermeasure is then 

converted into monetary values according to the comprehensive crash costs for each severity level reported in 

the HSM. These costs are further adjusted based on socio-economic factors such as the consumer price index 

(CPI) and Employee Cost Index (ECI) to count for the inflation and changes in economic fluctuations. The 

“KABCO” injury scale developed by the National Safety Council (NSC) has been frequently used by law 

enforcement for classifying injuries. The crash costs based on the KABCO scale can also be found from NSC 

or FHWA. ARDOT is also working with the Arkansas Department of Health on a project to further validate our 

injury severities with hospital ICD codes.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

HSIP staff are located in the Transportation Planning and Policy Division that also deals with Multimodal, 

Project Planning, GIS/Mapping, and Public Transportation.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

According to the emphasis areas in the state SHSP, spot and systemic safety improvement projects are 

identified through network screening in the central office. These projects are ranked and programmed based 

on the availability of funds. Systemic projects are usually prioritized over spot projects.

An analysis may also be initiated based on the requests received from the public or local agencies.

ARDOT is in the process of developing a local road safety program which will require local agencies to 

compete for HSIP funds based on the type of projects submitted to the central office. These projects will be 

screened and ranked for prioritization.

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

ARDOT addresses safety concerns on local roads and provides 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 ARDOT continues to coordinate with the Arkansas State Police through 

the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) and has implemented 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.

ARDOT has completed the All Public Roads Linear Referencing System (ARNOLD) to meet the federal 

requirement. ARNOLD will allow for crash locations to be recorded on all public roads within the state of 

Arkansas vs only located on the federal aid system that was previously being done. All public roads are now 

reflected on the LRS. Queries can be performed on all public roads so that analysis can be done on any road 

in the LRS.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 56

ARDOT currently utilizes ARNOLD to generate a point every 100 ft. along the road centerlines and dual 

carriageways and will carry the roadway attributes as well as the log mile and lat/long for the point location. 

These points are used within eCrash so that law enforcement can more easily identify a crash location and 

have the road attribute data needed for the crash report. ARDOT will be enhancing this system by providing 

Roadway Inventory Data for each of these points in the future.

ARDOT is still in the process of developing a local road safety program policy that will allow the department to 

annually allocate a portion of HSIP funds for safety projects on local roads. The amount of allocated HSIP 

funds will be presented in the annual project solicitation. Half of the funds will be awarded to 

systemic/systematic projects while the other half will be awarded to hot spot projects. Local public agencies 

(LPAs) may apply to the LRSP for systemic or hot spot safety projects on the roads and streets within their 

jurisdiction. Additionally, universities may apply for projects on institutional routes maintained by the 

Department. If an LPA is awarded LRSP funds, they are required to provide a match at 10 percent of the 

project’s construction cost. The Department and its partners will provide training opportunities for LPAs to 

assist them in developing good safety projects. Currently, the Center for Training Transportation Professionals 

(CTTP) classes will assist LPAs in project development: Safety Countermeasures for Local Roadways and 

Guide for Traffic Signs, Marking, and Signals. Currently, ARDOT is developing the program administration 

structure to submit to ARDOT Administration for review and approval.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

The core HSIP planning takes place by staff in planning; however, extensive coordination with the other groups 

identified occurs during the study process

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Coordination with internal partners, occurs on different levels. ARDOT design, planning, maintenance, and 

operations Divisions, are all on the SHSP Steering committee. Coordination has also taken place when 

addressing other safety improvement programs such as work zone safety, roadway departure safety, and in 

the identification of infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. Traffic Safety and Maintenance work together 

to address the spot treatments due to fatal and serious injury crashes.

ARDOT is not required to have a High Risk Rural Road Program but chooses to do so anyway. This process is 

done in coordination with the Traffic Safety Section, Maintenance Division and with the 10 ARDOT Districts. 

Traffic Safety finds possible trouble areas through use of data analysis. The areas are then turned over to the 

Maintenance Division for a field review to determine if any low cost safety measures could be implemented. 

Based on the Maintenance Division's recommended improvements the Districts are then involved in 

implementation of the low cost safety measures.

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

guidelines to help with the design process. This scope also incorporates comments from site visits that 

includes representatives from the other Divisions such as the Roadway Design Division, the Maintenance 

Division, the System Information and Research Division and the Environmental Division, and the Districts. 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 56

When the study and job is approved by the Chief Engineer and the Highway Commission, respectively, 

Roadway Design further looks into it. If there is any need of change in the scope, Traffic Safety is informed 

about it. This results in review of the change based on the benefit-cost analysis and Traffic Safety responds 

back accordingly. Currently Administration recommends changes that are more than 2 million dollars require 

the Chief Engineer's approval. Based on the draft updated HSIP Process the change amount will be based on 

a percentage of the total project cost, with different percentages requiring different levels of approval. Traffic 

Safety also works on the development of specification for the new countermeasures to make sure their 

installation is correct. This requires input from the other aforementioned Divisions including the Construction 

Division as necessary.

For major safety projects such as statewide sub-programs, the Roadway Design Division, the Maintenance 

Division, the Districts, the System Information and Research Division and the Environmental Division are 

involved to help finalize the scope of these projects in coordination with the Traffic Safety Section. Most of the 

project and specification development is done by the Traffic Safety section for these kind of jobs.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

• Regional Planning Organizations (e.g. MPOs, RPOs, COGs)

Describe coordination with external partners.

Coordination with external partners, such as Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Arkansas State Police 

(ASP) the Highway Safety Office (HSO) and the eight Metropolitan Organizations (MPOs) across the State, 

occurs on different levels. MPOs, ASP, and the HSO are also on the SHSP Steering committee. Coordination 

has also taken place when addressing other safety improvement programs such as work zone safety, roadway 

departure safety, target setting, and in the identification of infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. 

The Maintenance Division and the Traffic Safety Section will often meet with local agencies and officials when 

conducting a field review in a local jurisdiction to gather their input. 

Traffic Safety partners with the Highway Safety Office on numerous projects resulting from the Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee. An example of this is a project currently in progress to provide the necessary 

equipment and training to local law enforcement agencies for eCrash.

Preliminary and final corridor and sub-program job scopes are developed in collaboration with FHWA.

Describe other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to 

elaborate. 

The Traffic Safety Section (TSS) at ARDOT manages the HSIP. TSS continues to use the Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM) on a routine basis. TSS has three engineers working on different safety projects/programs. 

In 2017 Arkansas updated the Strategic Highway Safety Plan for the State. This process was done in 

coordination with a steering committee that encompassed many stakeholders from the four E's with 

representatives from various government agencies as well as private industries. Action plans were developed 

by sub-committees for each emphasis area. These action plans will be tracked in an ongoing fashion 

throughout the life of the plan. Additionally, TSS has marketed the SHSP (approved by FHWA in July 2017) 

with a focus on TZD through the Arkansas Highways Magazine, idrivearkansas.com and tzdarkansas.org. 

Currently, ARDOT is in the process of updating the SHSP for 2022. This is the first time ARDOT hired a 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 56

consultant to update the SHSP. This allowed the ARDOT Traffic Safety Section to focus on other priority tasks.

ARDOT continues to be a member State in the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund 

Study. ARDOT is also updating the HSIP Process document based on the information learned from this effort 

and the latest HSIP guidelines.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes 

The HSIP Process is undergoing an update that is being reviewed at the Chief Engineer level at the time of 

submitting this report. It is anticipated that the new Process will go into effect by the early part of next year. No 

proposed changes are currently in effect; however, templates and framework have already been developed to 

allow for a seamless transition once approval is received.

An evaluation database has also been developed that allows for a simple before/after analysis for all HSIP 

projects dating back to 2008. Steps are being taken to further this database by looking at targeted crash 

performance based on countermeasures in various projects.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Intersection

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Shoulder Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Crash Data

• Other-Guardrail

The Crash Data program allows the Department to make HSIP funds available for local law enforcement to 

enhance their crash reporting as to make more crash data readily available for analysis.

The Guardrail program utilizes HSIP funds to upgrade guardrail on the National Highway System (NHS) that 

pre-dates NCHRP 350 standards.

While we do not have an official HRRR program under HSIP, Traffic Safety staff still facilitate similar work 

through coordination with our Maintenance Division.

We do not currently have a pedestrian and horizontal curve program, however Traffic Safety is in the process 

of developing these program to address pedestrian and roadway departure crashes occurring in curves. 

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 56

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Intersection related 

crashes

• Volume • Functional classification

• Other-Rural/Urban

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Based on study and approval by Adminstration

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

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/25/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Systemic safety improvements
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 56

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Based on the suggested 

treatments (roadway departure, 

wet pavement, and wrong-way 

crashes)

• Traffic • Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Based on the study and analysis memo from TS in Planning Division 

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

Cost Effectiveness:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 56

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Cross-Median Crashes 

• 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

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

How are projects under this program 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

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:4

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Systemic-risk based:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 56

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes

• Traffic

• Horizontal curvature

• Other-Minimum of 1 foot 

shoulder

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The process is consistent with the ARDOT 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

Other-The process is mainly systemic based approach but due to available funding the spot treatment 

approach is also considered:1

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:6/6/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Based on HRRR safety program.

• Other-Roadway departure crashes. 

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 56

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

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

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

How are projects under this program 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

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Addressing roadway departure crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 56

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-Clearzone and shoulder 

widths

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

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

How are projects under this program 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

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-to be able to apply rumble strip/stripe on wider shoulders for addressing roadway 

departure crashes

• Other-Roadway departure crashes.

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 56

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes.

• Traffic

• Volume

• Other-State System

• Other-Shoulder width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program 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:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Sites were selected in conjunction with the pavement preservation Program:1

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-treating spots for wet pavement crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 56

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Wet pavement crashes

• Traffic

• Horizontal curvature

• Other-Skid resistance 

consideration

• Other-Intersection

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety analysis by TS in Planning

• 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:4

Incremental B/C:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Wet pavement crashes were considered statewide and further analyzed to select the locations 

based on a certain threshold:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:12/9/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Treating wrong-way crashes and the Act 641 of the 87th Arkansas General Assembly 

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 56

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Other-All wrong-way crashes • Traffic • Functional classification

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Based on the study and analysis memo from TS in Planning Division 

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:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Meeting federal regulations and better data quality

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 56

• All crashes

• 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? 

• Other-Provided funding for local agencies to purchase computer equipment to implement 

eCrash.

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The ARDOT 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.

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

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

Other-Various state agencies are prioritizing and funding needed improvements through the TRCC :1

Program: Other-Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 56

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes • Traffic • Functional classification

• Other-NHS Routes

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

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Will be implemented as part of HSIP 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

Other-Standard of guardrail:2

Other-On NHS:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 6.5

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Stakeholder input
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 56

The HSM and CMF Clearinghouse are the primary data-driven safety analysis tools utilized by ARDOT. We 

also use FHWA resources and proven countermeasures listed on FHWA website. 

Multidisciplinary Roadway Safety Design Reviews that consist of ARDOT staff are being performed as part of

the project development process in lieu of road safety assessments.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes 

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ARDOT is looking into the modern ITS techs as AV/CV technology. Our State HSIP does not include any CV 

technologies as of now; although, the more well-known ITS techs such as variable message signs, speed 

display monitors, etc. are still being utilized. Also, the 2022 update of the SHSP will include connected vehicles 

as an emphasis area. Automated Work Zone Information (AWIS) is being used for queue detection but not 

using HSIP funds. ARDOT is also looking into implementing advanced wrong way detection as part of an inhouse research project.

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

Yes 

Please describe how the State uses the HSM to support HSIP efforts.

As part of the HSIP process in Arkansas, the six steps of the safety management process described in HSM 

are followed. These steps, including the details from the initial network screening to the evaluation of safety 

treatments, are considered in our HSIP process. Also, the CMFs presented in the HSM are used in our 

analysis for the economic appraisal. When a project is completed, it is evaluated for its safety effectiveness.

Describe other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to 

elaborate.

Updates to the State's HSIP process document is still under final review. That includes justification of why 

there should be changes from using the crash rate method to the critical crash rate method. 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 56

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

The State Fiscal Years begins July 1 and ends June 30

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $32,160,000 $51,184,909 159.16%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $1,106,932 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $10,164,000 0%

State and Local Funds $3,240,000 $6,862,132 211.79%

Totals $35,400,000 $69,317,973 195.81%

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

safety projects?

0%

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

0%

A Local Road Safety Program is currently under review to make HSIP funds available to local public agencies 

for local safety projects.

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

$0

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

$3,851,460
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 56

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?

$31,798,442

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

the future.

Some of the impediments to obligating HSIP funds at ARDOT include:

• Lack of resources and employees needed to accomplish the safety tasks and studies.

• Due to short staffing it takes longer to get studies and jobs completed, which also takes time away from 

other tasks.

• Issues with the crash data being reported and collected. 

• Working from home for a full year during the pandemic was another challenge that ARDOT faced. 

We have been working with a consultant to collect safety roadway data elements to help with systemic and 

systematic countermeasure deployment. Due to quality and timeliness issues with the crash data we have 

implemented an in house system to produce the crash database. The HSIP process is currently under review 

by the administration that should address the issues indicated above. Other plans to overcome the above 

challenges are listed below.

• Developing policies to systemically and systematically deploy the use of HSIP funds for the 

implementation of horizontal curves, intersections, signing/striping, rumble strips, etc.;

• Better streamlining of the HSIP project development process (into the normal project development 

process) for all safety projects;

• Implementing numerous low cost countermeasures. 

• Develop/Obtain Safety Management System tool through FHWA technical assistance.

• Streamlining the process of "Change Order" approval. 

• In the process of hiring on-call consultants to help get future studies implemented more efficiently. 

Describe any other aspects of the State’s progress in implementing HSIP projects on 

which the State would like to elaborate. 

• Local road safety program implementation is being developed for the Highway Commission’s approval. 

It will help the local agencies to improve safety on local roads.

• A round of statewide friction improvement projects (UTBWC) under construction is nearly complete.

• Wrong-way crash low-cost countermeasures have been completed statewide. More advanced 

countermeasures are currently being researched

• Statewide guardrail project is under Administration review to upgrade guardrail to meet the MASH 

standards on NHS routes.

• The installation of cable median barriers is continued to reduce or eliminate KA crashes on interstates 

and other high speed routes.

• Funding provided to ASP HSO to allow local agencies to update/purchase equipment to implement 

eCrash, the electronic crash reporting system used by ASP.

• Statewide low-cost Y intersection improvement program is close to implementation.

• A statewide rumble strip database is in the final stages of development for use in future statewide 

rumble strip projects.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 56

• A statewide centerline rumble stripes project was implemented and the first round of projects will go 

under construction early next year.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 56

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Hwy. 70 -

Oakgrove 

Rd. (Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

2.90 Miles $1656000 $2177500 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 230 -

Hwy. 167 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

6.130 Miles $1811828 $2013143 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 64 -

Hwy. 5 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

22.55 Miles $9171000 $10245000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 2,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Plumerville -

East (S)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

5.9 Miles $65547 $72830 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate39,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work zones 

queue 

protection 

I-55 - Hwy . 

149 (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

12.98 Miles $46517 $51686 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate12,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Izard Co. 

Line - Hwy. 

62 (Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

18 Miles $9051709 $10057454 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

District 9 

APHN 

Raised 

Pavement 

Markers 

(2020) (S)

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

81000 RPMs $346872 $385414 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure

District 5 & 8 

APHN 

Raised 

Pavement 

Markers 

(2020) (S)

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

155219 RPMs $556640 $618489 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

Pavement 

Condition 

Data & 

Miscellaneous Data collection Data $425520 $472800 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Data 

Collection 

Data Collect data
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 56

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Imagery 

Collection 

(2020-2022)

Hwy. 10 -

Hwy. 7 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

15.120 Miles $92921.40 $103246 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 5,000 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Pulaski Co. 

Line - Pine 

Bluff (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

19.270 Miles $11830 $13144 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 670 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 105 -

Hwy. 213 (S)

Roadway Rumble strips –

edge or shoulder

10.105 Miles $3177 $3530 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,200 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwys. 82 & 

167 (El 

Dorado) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(Cable 

Median 

Barrier) 

(Hwy. 82)

Roadside Barrier – cable 5.173 Miles $219 $243.07 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

8,900 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 1 & 

10 Bridge 

Preservation 

(2020) (S)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

3.90 Miles $60724 $67471 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Local 

Agency 

eCrash 

Equipment 

Upgrade (S)

Miscellaneous Data collection Data $2160000 $2400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Other State 

Agency

Spot Data Collect data

Pavement 

Friction Data 

Collection

Miscellaneous Data collection Data $103500 $115000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Data Collect data

Pangburn -

Fourmile Hill 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel.Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

2.949 Miles $56867 $63185.56 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

North of 

Lawrence 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

8.12 Miles $2130.08 $2366.2 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 1,200 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 56

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Co. Line -

Hwy. 62 (S)

(includes add 

shoulder)

Hwy. 65BHwy. 65Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

10.350 Miles $20807.21 $23119.12 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate24,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Atkins -

Plumerville 

(S)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

19.338 Miles $62568 $69520 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 31,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Traffic 

Safety 

Planning 

Activities 

(HSIP) (S)

Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

Planning $900000 $1000000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Planning Data All SHSP 

strategies 

47th St. -

Remount 

Rd. Safety 

Impvts. 

(NLR) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

1.050 Miles $95108.96 $105676.84 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

intersection 

related 

crashes

Baptist 

Hospital - 

Univeristy 

Ave. 

(Widening) 

(F)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

2.160 Miles $3095.63 $3439.15 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate116,000 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Garland Co. 

Line - Benton 

(Safety 

Impvts)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

3.199 Miles $8132013.07 $9035570.08 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Strategic 

Highway 

Safety Plan 

Update 

(2022) (S)

Miscellaneous SHSP 

Development

Planning $262440 $291600 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

SHSP Plan All Prevent all 

crash types

Bryant Rd. -

Hwy. 298 

West (Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.456 Miles $1086518.10 $1107240.60 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,900 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Joy-Searcy 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder –

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

8.67 Miles $545000 $464947.11 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 6,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 56

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Alma - Hwy. 

164 (S)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

29.51 Miles $66122.10 $73469 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate34,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Hwy. 70 -

Sevier St. 

(Widening) 

(F)

Miscellaneous Work zone 

enforcement

5.402 Miles $540000 $600000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate81,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

E. 

Clarkedale 

Rd. RR 

Signals 

Upgrade 

(Clarkedale)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $1368.34 $1368.34 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Lake Francis 

Dr. RR 

Signal 

Upgrade 

(Siloam 

Springs)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $14663.71 $14663.71 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

N. H St. RR 

Signals 

(Forth Smith)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $74467 $74467 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Old Post Rd. 

RR Signals 

(NE of 

Texarkana) 

(S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $200000 $200000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

W. 10th St. 

RR Signals 

(Stuttgart)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $75000 $75000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Old Post Rd. 

RR Signals 

(NE of 

Texarkana) 

(S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $65000 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

N. 3rd St. RR 

Signals (Van 

Buren) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $60778.98 $60778.98 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

E. Ash St. 

RR Signals 

Upgrade & 

Surf. 

(Brinkley) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $40000 $40000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 56

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

CR 124 RR 

Signals 

(Waldo) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Railroad grade 

crossings - other

1 Intersections $137251.35 $137251.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

W. South St. 

RR Signals & 

Surf. 

(Gurdon) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $260000 $260000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Mitzi Pkwy. -

Hwy. 290 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.907 Miles $11286000 $12540000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,300 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Mitzi Pkwy. -

Hwy. 290 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

3.907 Miles $1633705.15 $1505227.94 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,300 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences 

of intersection 

crashes
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 56

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 560 498 470 550 561 525 516 511 638

Serious Injuries 3,226 3,066 3,154 2,888 3,032 2,816 2,272 2,389 2,721

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.671 1.487 1.381 1.576 1.569 1.443 1.407 1.377 1.866

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.624 9.154 9.270 8.276 8.480 7.739 6.195 6.440 8.044

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

54 52 44 47 52 45 62 60 88

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

93 97 97 65 102 144 143 153 178

Number of nonmotorized fatalities and 

serious inj

147 149 141 112 154 189 205 213 236
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 56

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Fatalities

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Annual Serious Injuries
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 56

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 56

Value for fatalities and fatality rate is based on the actual FARS fatality numbers for 2016, 2017, 2018, FARS 

ARF number for 2019 and NSC number for 2020.

Value for suspected serious injuries, suspected serious injury rate, and non-motorized suspected serious 

injuries for 2016-2020 is the actual number using the ARDOT crash data. The number of non-motorized 

fatalities for 2020 is derived from the ARDOT crash data and may be different when FARS is completed for 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious inj 5 Year Rolling Avg.

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

inj
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 56

2020. The AVMT for 2016-2019 comes from the FHWA VM-2 table. The 2020 AVMT comes from the ARDOT 

HPMS submittal.

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

National Safety Council, FARS, and FARSARF

Value for fatalities and fatality rate is based on the actual FARS fatality numbers for 2016, 2017, 2018, FARS 

ARF number for 2019 and NSC number for 2020. 

Value for suspected serious injuries, suspected serious injury rate, and non-motorized suspected serious 

injuries for 2016-2020 is the actual number using the ARDOT crash data. The number of non-motorized 

fatalities for 2020 is derived from the ARDOT crash data and may be different when FARS is completed for 

2020. The AVMT for 2016-2019 comes from the FHWA VM-2 table. The 2020 AVMT comes from the ARDOT 

HPMS submittal.

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

ownership.

Year 2020

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

32.4 99.8 0.79 2.44

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

3 10 1.01 3.31

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

83.8 271.2 2.31 7.44

Rural Minor Arterial 73.4 291.4 2.65 10.46

Rural Minor Collector 17.4 89 2.18 14.7

Rural Major Collector 91.8 407.8 2.73 12.13

Rural Local Road or 

Street

40.4 219.6 1.86 10.23

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

39.8 153.4 0.73 2.8

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

10.8 38.8 1.12 4
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 56

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)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

65 318.4 1.79 8.84

Urban Minor Arterial 60.6 362.4 1.38 8.2

Urban Minor Collector 1.8 7 2.64 11.29

Urban Major Collector 31 180.2 1.83 10.52

Urban Local Road or 

Street

24.2 192.2 1.66 12.65
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 56

Year 2020

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

448.6 2,005.4 1.69 7.54

County Highway 

Agency

54.8 232.8 1.48 6.29

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

50 401 0.81 6.52

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

In July of 2015 Arkansas began converting over from a paper based reporting system to eCrash. This process 

has greatly increased the number of crashes being entered into the crash database. The Arkansas crash 

database showed 60,947 crashes in 2014 and it has increased to 79,233 crashes in 2018. During this process 

we discovered that 29 out of 75 County Sheriff Offices were not submitting any crash reports. Arkansas has 

recently granted 2.4 million dollars to 39 local agencies to get them on the eCrash system. There are now 274 

law enforcement agencies out of approximately 340 total agencies utilizing the eCrash system. Due to our 

effort to get better and more accurate data, crash numbers are going up because they were previously not 

reported to the owner agency of crash database. Any sort of trend analysis at this point would be greatly 

skewed because of the factors previously mentioned.

Other factors include: The AVMT in Arkansas has been on a steady increase of around 3% per year since 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 56

2015. Arkansas has recently legalized medical marijuana. The speed limit on interstates was approved by the 

legislature and took effect in the summer of 2020.

We have also seen an increase in Non-Motorist KA crashes. We are not sure if this increase is due to actual 

crashes increasing or if it is because of more data being collected on these type crashes. We are continuing to 

monitor this trend.

Traffic Safety is working hard to improve safety statewide. Some notable accomplishments are as follows:

• A Local road safety program is in development for the Highway Commission’s approval. It will help the 

local agencies to improve safety on local roads.

• The second set of statewide HFST projects are nearing completion, and a third pavement friction 

improvement study is under development.

• A Statewide guardrail project is in development to upgrade substandard guardrails to meet the MASH 

standards on NHS routes.

• New rounds of Cable Median Barrier installation have been approved to continue to reduce and 

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates and other high speed highways.

• While not directly related to the HSIP program, ARDOT has now made retroreflective signal backplates 

a standard item on all ARDOT projects involving signal work.

• Two rural roundabout projects are currently under construction. 

• A systemic, low-cost unsignalized intersection project is under development. 

• A systemic low-cost, Y-type intersection project is under development. 

• The pavement preservation program was used to accomplish shoulder widening and rumble strip 

installation along various routes where crash history showed such improvements would be effective.

• A new HSIP Process has been developed and is under administration review. 

• Several safety analysis tools are being examined for possible use at ARDOT, this spurred the Roadway 

Safety Management System technical assistance through FHWA which is currently underway.

• Online data query tools and dashboards are/have been developed for other agencies and possible 

public use. One such tool that has already been developed is the Arkansas Crash Analytics Tool 

(ACAT) which is a dashboard available to the public via ArcGIS Online. 

• A SHSP tracking tool has been developed for use in tracking emphasis area action plans and projects.

• ARDOT has had an initial meeting regarding a Roadway Data Improvement Plan and is in the initial 

stages of determining appropriate personnel to schedule and oversee project.

• During the time of initial shutdown from COVID-19, ARDOT saw significant decreases in total crashes 

compared to the same timeframe a year ago, this trend stayed consistent for several months. As things 

gradually reopened, crashes began to return to similar levels as previous years. There has been a 

noted and significant increase in fatal crashes in 2020 and 2021. ARDOT is trying to determine what 

has caused this spike. Based on the preliminary crash data for 2020 that was reviewed in January of 

2021, the main cause for the increase in crashes was due to aggressive, distracted, speed-related 

driving. 

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2022 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:631.5

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

Through extensive coordination with the Arkansas Highway Safety Office, FHWA, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 56

targets was finalize d in 2OI7 .

Description of Methodology

The target-setting method, similar to previous years, is generally described below

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average "smooths" the variation from

year to year. For this target setting, the moving average was calculated for the last five years that

crash data is available (2OL1.-2OI5,20'J.2-20'J.6,2Ot3-20L7 ,2O14-2OL8, and 2015-2019).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.

3. Consider external factors to account for uncertainties. Past safety performance alone is not

necessarily the best indicator of future performance, given numerous external factors outside of

ARDOT's control. For instance, to account for the fact that 2020 crash data is incomplete, an

adjustment factor may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers

will be, rather than attempting to predict exact numbers.

4. Apply any adjustment factors as needed based on Step 3 to the averages calculated in Step 2 to

determine targets. 

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document.

Number of Serious Injuries:2996.9

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

Through extensive coordination with the Arkansas Highway Safety Office, FHWA, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the

targets was finalize d in 2OI7 .

Description of Methodology

The target-setting method, similar to previous years, is generally described below

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average "smooths" the variation from

year to year. For this target setting, the moving average was calculated for the last five years that

crash data is available (2OL1.-2OI5,20'J.2-20'J.6,2Ot3-20L7 ,2O14-2OL8, and 2015-2019).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 56

3. Consider external factors to account for uncertainties. Past safety performance alone is not

necessarily the best indicator of future performance, given numerous external factors outside of

ARDOT's control. For instance, to account for the fact that 2020 crash data is incomplete, an

adjustment factor may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers

will be, rather than attempting to predict exact numbers.

4. Apply any adjustment factors as needed based on Step 3 to the averages calculated in Step 2 to

determine targets.

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document.

Fatality Rate:1.808

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

Through extensive coordination with the Arkansas Highway Safety Office, FHWA, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the

targets was finalize d in 2OI7 .

Description of Methodology

The target-setting method, similar to previous years, is generally described below

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average "smooths" the variation from

year to year. For this target setting, the moving average was calculated for the last five years that

crash data is available (2OL1.-2OI5,20'J.2-20'J.6,2Ot3-20L7 ,2O14-2OL8, and 2015-2019).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.

3. Consider external factors to account for uncertainties. Past safety performance alone is not

necessarily the best indicator of future performance, given numerous external factors outside of

ARDOT's control. For instance, to account for the fact that 2020 crash data is incomplete, an

adjustment factor may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers

will be, rather than attempting to predict exact numbers.

4. Apply any adjustment factors as needed based on Step 3 to the averages calculated in Step 2 to

determine targets.

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 56

. 

Serious Injury Rate:8.608

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

Through extensive coordination with the Arkansas Highway Safety Office, FHWA, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the

targets was finalize d in 2OI7 .

Description of Methodology

The target-setting method, similar to previous years, is generally described below

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average "smooths" the variation from

year to year. For this target setting, the moving average was calculated for the last five years that

crash data is available (2OL1.-2OI5,20'J.2-20'J.6,2Ot3-20L7 ,2O14-2OL8, and 2015-2019).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.

3. Consider external factors to account for uncertainties. Past safety performance alone is not

necessarily the best indicator of future performance, given numerous external factors outside of

ARDOT's control. For instance, to account for the fact that 2020 crash data is incomplete, an

adjustment factor may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers

will be, rather than attempting to predict exact numbers.

4. Apply any adjustment factors as needed based on Step 3 to the averages calculated in Step 2 to

determine targets.

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:229.2

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

Through extensive coordination with the Arkansas Highway Safety Office, FHWA, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the

targets was finalize d in 2OI7 .

Description of Methodology
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 56

The target-setting method, similar to previous years, is generally described below

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average "smooths" the variation from

year to year. For this target setting, the moving average was calculated for the last five years that

crash data is available (2OL1.-2OI5,20'J.2-20'J.6,2Ot3-20L7 ,2O14-2OL8, and 2015-2019).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.

3. Consider external factors to account for uncertainties. Past safety performance alone is not

necessarily the best indicator of future performance, given numerous external factors outside of

ARDOT's control. For instance, to account for the fact that 2020 crash data is incomplete, an

adjustment factor may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers

will be, rather than attempting to predict exact numbers.

4. Apply any adjustment factors as needed based on Step 3 to the averages calculated in Step 2 to

determine targets.

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document.

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

safety performance targets. 

Several meetings were held involving ARDOT, FHWA and the Arkansas Highway Safety Office to establish a 

methodology and preliminary targets. The method and preliminary targets were then presented to the SHSP 

Steering Committee which included all MPOs, other stakeholder agencies and private industry and 

organizations. Comments were taken from the committee and considered. Some of the topics that created the 

most discussion evolved around adjustments to targets for internal and external factors as shown below:

• The recent state legalization of medical marijuana. 

• The increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways. 

• The effects COVID-19 has had on crashes in Arkansas.

• A drop in vehicle miles traveled due to COVID-19. In addition to the above external factors, crash reporting is 

another major consideration. The number of crashes being captured in the database has been increasing due 

to eCrash implementation, which impacts fatal and serious injury crash data. Traffic Safety is working hard to 

improve safety with other safety stakeholders. Some notable accomplishments are as follows:

• A Local road safety program is in development for the Highway Commission’s approval. It will help the local 

agencies to improve safety on local roads.

• While not directly related to the HSIP program, ARDOT has now made retroreflective signal backplates a 

standard item on all ARDOT projects involving signal work owned by local agencies.

• Two rural roundabout projects are under construction which will be partially maintained by local agencies.

• FHWA Safety Data and Analysis Technical Assistance Program (SDATAP) technical assistance concluded 

this FY. The assistance provided planning documents for a Roadway Safety Management System (RSMS) 

software tool. These will be used to hire a consultant to develop the software.

• Increase in pedestrian related KA crashes.

• Increase in extreme speeding citations over 100PMH. 

• Online data query tools and dashboards have been developed for other agencies and public use. One such
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 56

tool, called the Arkansas Crash Analytics Tool, was developed through ArcGIS Online and is available to the 

public.

• A project with the Arkansas Department of Health is underway to link the crash data with hospital injury data 

to enhance EMS and Crash Data.

• An effort to mitigate CMV crashes in work zones is being coordinated with other safety stakeholders.

Also, for more information regarding target setting, please refer to the attached Target Setting document.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Arkansas does not have any additional targets other than the targets for the five HSIP performance measures.

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2020 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 541.2 550.2

Number of Serious Injuries 3201.4 2646.0

Fatality Rate 1.595 1.532

Serious Injury Rate 9.441 7.380

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

300.3 205.4

Based on the latest 2020 fatality and SI data. During the pandemic in 2020 we had an increase in fatalities due 

to less traffic and higher speeds.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

Provide the number of older driver and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 65 

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

65 63 72 83 80 74 86

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

270 244 233 257 263 212 221

FARS data is not finalized currently for 2020.
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 56

Evaluation 

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

The new HSIP Process being developed will develop a method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the 

HSIP as well as target crash performance for specific countermeasures in the subprograms established by the 

updated Process. This process has been reviewed by FHWA and is still under ARDOT administration review 

due to changes in staff and additional feedback. As part of this new process the economic effectiveness/BCR 

could also be used as a performance measurement.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations.

Most of our safety projects which were initiated in recent years are either under design or construction. Most 

projects that have been constructed do not yet have crash data available for evaluation. However, we have 

evaluated all HSIP projects implemented since 2008 using a simple before-after analysis that helped us 

expand certain countermeasures at the statewide level. Some of them are discussed below.

One of the sub-programs of High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Program was evaluated on an annual basis and it 

was found effective. However, after the implementation of this project we found out that the crashes would 

migrate. In order to address this issue, logical termini points are considered instead of data driven termini 

points. Another major statewide safety improvement program has been the installation of cable median barrier 

to address roadway departure crashes, which has been very effective and still it is continued. HFST has also 

been installed on several ramps/curves across the state which has proved to be effective on preventing wetpavement crashes. We have been receiving positive feedback from the public and additional rounds of 

installation of friction improvement countermeasures is complete and currently a third round of pavement 

friction improvements under construction. Shoulder Rumble Strips/Stripes have been installed on thousands of 

miles statewide and have proven effective in preventing roadway departure crashes especially on curves 

located in rural areas. Similarly, Centerline Rumble Stripes have been installed in passing lane segments and 

a statewide study has been completed. Currently, ARDOT is in the process of studying the mumble stripe 

design for low noise and its safety effectiveness compared to rumble stripes. If the evaluation is positive, it will 

be implemented statewide where noise will be an issue. ARDOT will continue to evaluate these projects as 

data and resources become available. The new HSIP Process being developed will develop an improved 

method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of programs and sub-programs. The process has been reviewed 

by FHWA and is under ARDOT Administration review.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program?

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 56

As we shift to more low-cost systemic projects, # of miles improved will be a good indicator. However, we are 

still getting many of these programs off the ground.

The amount of HSIP funds obligated each year indicates that we are planning well for improving the safety 

conditions throughout the State by following the HSIP guidelines. However, a good amount of resources was 

utilized to analyze the increases of fatalities during the COVID-19 pandemic in this fiscal year. 

Most of the projects' scopes defined and programmed are based on a data driven process where the benefitcost calculations show cost effectiveness of the treatments recommended to problematic locations. In addition, 

a more proactive approach is being taken toward systemic programs which address the crash risks rather than 

historical crash occurrences. These are undertaken by making changes to the HSIP process organization and 

policies toward data-driven approaches, especially where the KA crashes are of main importance when 

examining for safety concerns. The HSIP process is currently being updated.

ARDOT is also in the process of developing a policy for local road safety assistance using HSIP funds in which 

local agencies can apply for the funds to be used on local safety improvement projects on a competitive basis.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2020

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)

Roadway Departure Head on 374.2 1,615 1.04 4.5

Intersections Angle 78 662.8 0.21 1.85

Older Drivers All 136.2 457.8 0.38 1.27

Motorcycles Speed-related 71 312.2 0.19 0.86

Work Zones Work Zone 

Crashes

14.6 56.6 0.04 0.15

Young Drivers All 67.2 493.8 0.18 1.37

Pedestrians/Bicycles Vehicle/pedestrian 63.6 131.4 0.17 0.36

Aggressive Speed-related 134.2 498.6 0.37 1.39

CMV All 83.4 187.2 0.23 0.52

Impaired All 123.2 279 0.34 0.78
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 56

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Fatalities

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Serious Injuries

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 56

Trends for each SHSP emphasis area over the most recent years:

• Roadway Departure – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes have increased for 

roadway departure crashes in the most recent year. However, 2020 crash data they both were 

decreasing.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 56

• Intersections – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes have increased at intersections 

in the most recent year.

• Older Drivers – The fatalities and rate for older drivers have been decreasing over the last few years. 

However, the serious and suspected injuries have been increasing.

• Motorcycles – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes for motorcyclist have been 

increasing over the last few years.

• Work Zones – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes have stayed consistent in recent 

years.

• Young Drivers – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes for young drivers have been 

increasing over the last few years.

• Pedestrians/Bicycles – The pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and rate have been decreasing over the 

last few years. However, the serious and suspected injuries have been increasing.

• Aggressive – Both the fatalities and suspected serious injury crashes for aggressive drivers have been 

increasing over the last few years.

• CMV – The CMV driving fatalities and rate have been decreasing over the last few years. However, the 

serious and suspected injuries have been increasing.

• Impaired – The impaired driving fatalities and rate have been decreasing over the last few years. 

However, the serious and suspected injuries have been increasing.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: High Friction Surface Treatment 

Description: 

HFST was applied at 12 locations in 

Northwest Arkansas to reduce wet 

pavement crashes. 

Target Crash Type: Wet road 

Number of Installations: 12 

Number of Installations: 12 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

The 3 years prior to the project's start date 

(January 2013 to April 2016), showed a 

total of 62 crashes due to wet pavement. 

In the 3 years after the project's 

substantial completion date (September 

2016 to December 2019), only 11 crashes 

occurred due to wet pavement conditions. 

This is a reduction of 82 percent. Fatal and 

suspected serious injury crashes had a 

reduction of 90 and 100 percent, 

respectively. (Job 090429) 

File Name: Hyperlink
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 56

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 56

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/26/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

The 2017 SHSP was approved in July of 2017. We are currently in the process of updating the 2022 SHSP utilizing a consultant and plan to finalize it by July 2022.

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

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 56

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 30

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 70

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 70

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 20

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 20

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 30

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 56

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 94.44 94.44 100.00 72.50 100.00 93.64 100.00 92.22 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification (MIRE 1.0 Element Number) [MIRE 2.0 Element Number]

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.

SEGMENTS 

• ARDOT is currently working on the methodology to determine compass direction to meet the direction of inventory MIRE requirement for state routes. We know that federal routes have to state the signed direction of travel. The 

current method would be to report compass direction by total route/section rather than each individual segment of the route.

• ARDOT will be utilizing aerial imagery and street view to determine number of through lanes and surface type on the local paved system. Additionally, some local governments have that information in their road inventory that could 

also be utilized.

• ARDOT has a current research project in place that is using address points/types to estimate local road traffic.

• ARDOT already has a robust road inventory database in place that already meets many of the MIRE FDE requirements

INTERSECTIONS
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 56

• ARDOT purchased RIZING Geospatial’s Intersection Manager software Fall of 2017. This software utilizes the all public road LRS or ARNOLD to generate intersections. It provides the unique identifier, identifies the crossing 

routes, calculates the approach segments/angle, and allows for us to enter the junction geometry and traffic control present. We made the final initial run in May 2019 and started maintaining it as the system changes. Methodology 

to input junction geometry and traffic control are underway. We have 30% left to go to have all public road intersection data completed. After that, we will be in full data maintenance mode as routes are updated.

INTERCHANGES

• ARDOT is developing an Interchange/Complex Intersection dataset that will serve as a parent/childrelationship with intersections. 

• The geometry for these areas is a polygon that encompasses all intersections and approach segments.

• Identifying the policy/procedure to create complex intersections 

Below are the tools that are being utilized to collect/report the needed MIRE FDEs currently:

• Video Log (FUGRO’s iVision software): Can be used for collecting certain roadside elements.

• Transcend Spatial Solutions Intersection Manager 

• ESRI - ArcMap/ArcGIS Online/ArcGIS Field Maps 
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 56

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Signed_2022 Safety Performance Targets Document.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2021 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 56 of 56

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 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.