Arkansas

Highway Safety Improvement Program

2015 Annual Report

Prepared by: AR

 

 
ii 

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery & Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Program Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Program Administration ........................................................................................................................... 2

Program Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 5

Progress in Implementing Projects............................................................................................................. 21

Funds Programmed............................................................................................................................. 21

General Listing of Projects.................................................................................................................. 24

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets .................................................................................... 32

Overview of General Safety Trends........................................................................................................ 32

Application of Special Rules.................................................................................................................... 46

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program Evaluation) ..........................................49

SHSP Emphasis Areas.............................................................................................................................. 51

Groups of similar project types............................................................................................................... 56

Systemic Treatments............................................................................................................................... 61

Project Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 67

Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 69
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

1 

Executive Summary

In accordance with 23 USC 148 and pursuant to 23 CFR 924, the Arkansas State Highway and 

Transportation Department (AHTD) has prepared a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Annual 

Report for State Fiscal Year 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015). The format of this report is 

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

2013.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

2 

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progress in achieving safety performance targets, and assessment of the 

effectiveness of the improvements. 

Program Structure

Program Administration

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

Central

District

Other

Describe how local roads are addressed as part of Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

 

To address safety concerns on local roads, the AHTD continues to provide technical assistance and 

training programs on safety issues to local governments through its efforts by System Information and 

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

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

the Advance program that will allow law enforcement agencies and other State and local agencies to 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

3 

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

aspects of the crash data 

Furthermore, the AHTD continues to update our linear referencing system. This allowed the location of a 

crash that occurs on Federal-aid local roads to be identified by geographical location. A project to 

provide a linear referencing system for all public roads is currently underway. Approximately 35% of all 

public roads now have a linear referencing system in place. Based on this data, crash queries can be 

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

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

 

AHTD has provided a GIS and Aerial photograph driven tool, VISUAL-T, to the Arkansas State Police and 

various county and local law enforcement agencies to assist the agencies with providing an accurate 

crash location on the crash report. The AHTD technical staff provided continued support to the local law 

enforcement agencies in this reporting period. This tool has greatly enhanced both speed and accuracy 

in providing a crash location to the Crash Database.

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

Design

Planning

Maintenance

Operations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Other: 

Briefly describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

and non-infrastructure projects. Traffic Safety and Maintenance work together on daily basis to address 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

4 

the spot treatments due to fatal crashes. Traffic Safety performs the preliminary scope of safety 

improvements on segment jobs according to the HSM guidelines to help with the design process. 

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

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Governors Highway Safety Office

Local Government Association

Other: 

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

the last reporting period. 

Multi-disciplinary HSIP steering committee

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

Office had more thorough discussion in multiple meetings. Different methodologies and laws were 

discussed prior to setting targets.

Other: Other-New countermeasures such as roundabouts were proposed for intersections with KA 

crashes. Locations for preliminary fatal crashes are immediately evaluated for possible safety 

improvements on daily basis.

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

would like to elaborate. 

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

Manual on case by case basis. The TSS has also hired another civil engineering graduate effective May, 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

5 

2015. TSS now has 4 Engineers working on the Safety Program. Prior to May 2011, TSS did not have an 

Engineer. The TSS has marketed the SHSP (approved by FHWA in March 2013) with a focus on TZD 

through the Arkansas Highways Magazine, idrivearkansas.com and tzdarkansas.org.

Also HSM Safety Performance Functions’ research is under progress along with continued improvements to data 

analysis processes and tools used by the TSS. AHTD continued to be a member State in the Evaluation of Low-Cost 

Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. AHTD is coordinating with the FHWA Division Office to conduct a HSIP 

Peer Review during the 2016 Federal Fiscal Year. Information learned from this effort will be used to update the 

HSIP Process document.

Program Methodology

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

Median Barrier Intersection Safe Corridor

Horizontal Curve Bicycle Safety Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard Crash Data Red Light Running Prevention

Roadway Departure Low-Cost Spot Improvements Sign Replacement And 

Improvement

Local Safety Pedestrian Safety Right Angle Crash

Left Turn Crash

Other: 

Shoulder Improvement Segments

 

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology: 7/7/2011

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

6 

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other-Systemic approach

crash types

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

Yes
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

7 

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Based on systemic approach 

considering median width, ADT, 

etc.

 

Program: Intersection
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

8 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/1/2015

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Rural vs Urban Other-ROW and utilities 

consideration 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

9 

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Cost Effectiveness 2

analyzed multiple locations 

statewide that were identified 

through various sources.

1
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

10

 

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Wet pavement crashes Other-Skid resistance 

consideration 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

11

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

12

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Wet pavement crashes were 

considered statewide and further 

analyzed to select the locations 

based on a certain threshold.

 

Program: Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury 

crashes only

Population Functional classification

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other-Converting from TRACS 

to E-Crash with the add-on 

software of ADVANCE for 

querying data.

Other-All types of data 

exposure considered for 

improvements

Other 

Other-MIRE roadway data 

elements are the priority for 

improvements.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

13

Crash frequency

Expected c rash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific 

Other 

crash types

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

Yes

No

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

14

Other 

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

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

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

and local agencies to have timely access to the crash data.

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

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

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

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

Various state agencies are 

prioritizing and funding needed 

improvements through the TRCC.

 

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Minimum of 1 foot 

shoulder

15

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other 

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

16

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C

Available funding 2

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 

The process was systemic 

based approach but due to 

available funding the systematic 

approach was also considered.

1

 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

17

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013

 

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway

All crashes Traffic Median width

Fatal crashes only Volume Horizontal curvature

Fatal and serious injury Population Functional classification

crashes only

Other Lane miles Roadside features

Other Other-Clearzones and 

shoulder widths.

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

Crash frequency

Expected crash frequency with EB adjustment

Equivalent property damage only (EPDO Crash frequency)

EPDO crash frequency with EB adjustment

Relative severity index

Crash rate

Critical rate

Level of service of safety (LOSS)

Excess expected crash frequency using SPFs

Excess expected crash frequency with the EB adjustment

Excess expected crash frequency using method of moments

Probability of specific crash types
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

18

Excess proportions of specific crash types

Other-Statewide average crash rates

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

Yes

No

How are highway safety improvement projects advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process

selection committee

Other 

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).

Relative Weight in Scoring

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C 1

Available funding

Incremental B/C

Ranking based on net benefit

Other 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

19

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

42

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

improvements?

Cable Median Barriers Rumble Strips

Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or 

Delineation 

Upgrade Guard Rails Clear Zone Improvements

Safety Edge

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

Install/Improve Lighting

Other 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

Engineering Study

Road Safety Assessment

Other: 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

20

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

last reporting period.

Highway Safety Manual

Road Safety audits

Systemic Approach

Other: 

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

would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

markings, horizontal curves and rumble strips is also underway. For segmental projects, AHTD continues 

to use B/C analysis to target low and medium cost improvements to hot spots while also applying the 

other low cost improvements for the entire length of the project. 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

21

Progress in Implementing Projects

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.

Calendar Year

State Fiscal Year

Federal Fiscal Year

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

Funding Category Programmed* Obligated

HSIP (Section 148) 36272300 14 % 20275856 26 %

HRRRP (SAFETEA-LU) 9197200 3 % 0 0 %

HRRR Special Rule 0 0 % 0 0 %

Penalty Transfer -

Section 154

10194950 4 % 10907331 14 %

Penalty Transfer 

Section 164

– 10194950 4 % 10370311 13 %

Incentive Grants - 

Section 163

0 0 % 0 0 %

Incentive Grants 

(Section 406)

0 0 % 0 0 %

Other 

Funds 

Federal-aid 

(i.e. STP, NHPP)

165763100 62 % 26466251 34 %

State and Local Funds 34769500 13 % 8869436 12 %
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

22

Totals 266392000 100% 76889185 100%

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

0 %

How much funding is obligated to local safety projects?

0 %

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

$1,500,000.00

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

$1,350,000.00

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

period?

$0.00
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

23

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

period? 

$26,546,544.00

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

overcome this in the future. 

Developing processes and policies to systematically deploy the use of HSIP funds for the implementation 

of minor shoulder widening, horizontal curves, signs, etc. Better streamlining of the HSIP project 

development process (into the normal project development process) for corridor safety projects; 

implementing numerous low cost countermeasures.

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

progress on which you would like to elaborate.

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

eliminate KA crashes on interstates and other high speed routes. Statewide shoulder rumble 

strip/stripes are to be installed on 4,000 plus miles of the State Highway System by the end of next State 

Fiscal Year of 2016. Statewide HFST are to be installed at 40 plus locations of the State Highway System 

by the end of this calendar year. 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

24

General Listing of Projects

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

Project Improvemen

t Category 

Outpu

t 

HSIP 

Cost

Total 

Cost

Funding 

Categor

y 

Functional

Classification 

AADT Spee

d 

Roadway 

Ownership

Relationship to SHSP

Emphasis 

Area

Strategy

012195 Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

37.28 

Miles 

853867 939254 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

4100 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

01220

8

Noninfrastructur

e Noninfrastructur

e - other

0 

Miles 

135000

0 

150000

0 

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

management 

system

0 0 Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t system

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t system

Creating 

more 

effective 

processes 

and safety 

managemen

t system

01222

9

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

1300 

Miles 

396444

4 

396444

4 

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Various 

locations and 

Functional 

Classification

s 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

shoulder 

rumble 

strips.

01223 Roadway 21 352476 352476 Penalty Various 0 0 State Roadway Low cost 

 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

25

8 Pavement 

surface - 

high friction 

surface

Miles 8 8 Transfer 

- Section 

154

Locations 

and various 

Functional 

Classification

s 

Highway 

Agency

Departure safety 

measures 

particularly 

curves, high 

friction 

pavements.

01223

9

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - 

high friction 

surface

3.7 

Miles 

394236

2 

394236

2 

Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Various 

Locations 

and Various 

Functional 

Classification

s 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Low cost 

safety 

measure 

particularly 

curves. High 

friction 

surface 

treatment.

04064

6

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

4.12 

Miles 

51509 56660 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

2150

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

05028

0

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way leftturn lane

8.75 

Miles 

48191 48191 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural Major 

Collector 

3400

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 

Install turn 

lanes 

05031 Intersection 

geometry 

6.51 185601 185601 Penalty 

Transfer 

Rural Minor 5000 55 State 

Highway 

Intersection Install turn 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

26

3 Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way leftturn lane

Miles - Section 

154

Arterial Agency s lanes

06119

4

Roadway 

Roadway 

widening - 

add lane(s) 

along 

segment

0.7 

Miles 

199958

4 

199958

4 

HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

3300

0 

35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure

Install 

continuous, 

two way left 

turn lanes as 

appropriate.

06120

6

Roadway 

Rumble 

strips - edge 

or shoulder

2 

Miles 

6014 6615 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

7500 50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Install 

rumble 

strips.

06142

8

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - 

high friction 

surface

17.99 

Miles 

98952 108847 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Low cost 

safety 

measures 

particularly 

curves, high 

friction 

pavements

06143

1

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

4.31 

Miles 

74796 74796 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

1200

0 

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

27

Expressways

06143

8

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way leftturn lane

6.3 

Miles 

165113 165113 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

8300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 

Install turn 

lanes 

06143

9

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

two-way leftturn lane

6.53 

Miles 

218811 218811 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8600 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 

Install turn 

lanes 

06144

0

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

17.34 

Miles 

123367 123367 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

minor 

shoulder 

widening 

07039

6

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

5.59 

Miles 

29052 31957 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other 

Freeways 

and 

Expressways

3700 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

28

08030

9

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

2.52 19021 20923 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

3700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

minor 

shoulder 

widening 

08049

4

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

6.83 

Miles 

55000 55000 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment

08049

5

Intersection 

geometry 

Auxiliary 

lanes - add 

left-turn lane

6.83 

Miles 

157948 157948 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5300 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Intersection

s 

Install left 

turn lanes

09022

1

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

0.63 

Miles 

10697 11767 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

minor 

shoulder 

widening 

09037

9

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

15.15 

Miles 

158012 158012 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1000

0 

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

29

164 barriers.

09040

6

Railroad 

grade 

crossings 

Grade 

separation

0.47 

Miles 

27999 30799 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1050

0 

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Reducing 

vehicle-train 

crashes

Improve 

safety at 

existing atgrade 

railroad 

crossings by 

grade 

separation 

method.

09042

3

Shoulder 

treatments 

Widen 

shoulder - 

paved or 

other

15.63 

Miles 

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Provide 

minor 

shoulder 

widening 

09042

4

Alignment 

Horizontal 

curve 

realignment

10.16 

Miles 

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Curve 

realignment

09042

9

Roadway 

Pavement 

surface - 

high friction 

surface

3.4 

Miles 

20000 20000 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Various 

Locations 

and 

Functional 

Classification

s 

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Low cost 

safety 

measure 

particularly 

curves. High 

friction 

surface 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

30

treatment.

10081

9

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

19.89 

Miles 

11429 11429 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

New 

Location

0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

BB010

7

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

12.9 

Miles 

161473

0 

161473

0 

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

2900

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

BB020

1

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

6.11 

Miles 

132692

0 

132692

0 

Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

1900

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

BB030

3

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

2.02 

Miles 

75896 75896 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

2300

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

BB040

7

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

7.46 

Miles 

45398 49938 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

4700

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

31

barriers.

BB060

2

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

2.9 

Miles 

300803 300803 Penalty 

Transfer 

– 

Section 

164

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

3000

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

BB080

3

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

13.1 

Miles 

46127 46127 Penalty 

Transfer 

- Section 

154

Rural 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

2100

0 

70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

CA090

7

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

4.49 

Miles 

9363 10299 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Other

1700

0 

60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.

06132

8

Roadside 

Barrier - 

cable

7.31 

Miles 

12342 13576 HSIP 

(Section 

148)

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

6400

0 

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Roadway 

Departure

Continue 

installation 

of cable 

median 

barriers.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

32

Progress in Achieving Safety Performance Targets

Overview of General Safety Trends

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

Performance Measures* 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of fatalities 632.2 615.6 592.8 574.8 552.2

Number of serious injuries 3151.2 3205.6 3361.2 3392 3310.8

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.97 1.89 1.81 1.74 1.66

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.76 9.78 10.21 10.25 9.93

*Performance measure data is presented using a five-year rolling average.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

33
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

34
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

35

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

Year - 2013

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

Classification

RURAL PRINCIPAL 27 192 0.32 2.24

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

RURAL PRINCIPAL 7 24 0.46 1.58

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

RURAL PRINCIPAL 66 368 0.92 5.1

ARTERIAL - OTHER

RURAL MINOR 56 345 1.31 8.14

ARTERIAL

RURAL MINOR 1 7 1.87 13.14

COLLECTOR

RURAL MAJOR 68 450 2.05 13.56

COLLECTOR

RURAL LOCAL ROAD OR 0 0 0 0

STREET

URBAN PRINCIPAL 28 238 0.33 2.78
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

36

ARTERIAL - INTERSTATE

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER 

FREEWAYS AND 

EXPRESSWAYS

2 48 0.13 3.17

URBAN PRINCIPAL 

ARTERIAL - OTHER

46 400 0.64 5.55

URBAN MINOR 

ARTERIAL

40 259 0.94 6.11

URBAN MINOR 

COLLECTOR

0 0 0 0

URBAN MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

23 102 0.69 3.07

URBAN LOCAL ROAD 

OR STREET

0 0 0 0
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

37
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

38
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

39
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

40
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

41

Year - 2013

Roadway Ownership Number of 

fatalities

Number of serious 

injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 415 2576 1.64 10.18

COUNTY HIGHWAY AGENCY 63.5 227 2.03 7.26

TOWN OR TOWNSHIP HIGHWAY AGENCY 0 0 0 0

CITY OF MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 51 343 0.96 6.47

STATE PARK, FOREST, OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL PARK, FOREST OR RESERVATION AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER STATE AGENCY 0 0 0 0

OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 0 0 0

PRIVATE (OTHER THAN RAILROAD) 0 0 0 0

RAILROAD 0 0 0 0

STATE TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

LOCAL TOLL AUTHORITY 0 0 0 0

OTHER PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY (E.G. AIRPORT, 

SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY)

0 0 0 0
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

42
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

43
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

44
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

45
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

46

Describe any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which you would like to elaborate. 

The definition for reporting incapacitating injuries (which we use for reporting serious injuries) was 

updated in 2007 by Arkansas State Police. The trend for incapacitating injuries has followed fatalities 

except for the jump in 2008 and 2009. We think this can be partly explained by the updated definition 

used by law enforcement officers from 2007. The fatality data from the ASP shows a continued drop in 

2013 and 2014.

• 2009 – 596

• 2010 – 571

• 2011 – 551

• 2012 – 560

• 2013 – 483 (499 per the AHTD crash database)

• 2014 – 466 

Source NHTSA FARS

Application of Special Rules

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

age of 65. 

Older Driver

Performance Measures

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fatality rate (per 

capita)

0.284 0.372 0.466 0.474 0.468

Serious injury rate 

(per capita)

0.882 1.174 1.514 1.594 1.662

Fatality and serious 

injury rate (per capita)

1.164 1.544 1.976 2.064 2.112

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

2013= (333/153)+(321/150)+(316/146)+(274/144)+(321/143)/5=2.13 or 2.1

2011= (316/146)+(274/144)+(321/143)+(267/142)+(238/140)/5=1.98 or 2.0
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

47

Does the older driver special rule apply to your state? 

Yes

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

the State SHSP.

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

include: 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

48

<br />Improved roadway visibility features;

<br />Implementation of the FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers;

<br />Education of older drivers on the safety risks resulting from reduced driving task performance;

<br />Education of older drivers on alternative transportation modes;

<br />Increase frequency of vision assessments for older drivers; and

<br />Promote the use of restricted drivers’ licenses for older drivers. 

</p><p>SHSP steering committee will review these strategies in the near future and determine if any 

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

subcommittee. </p><br />
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

49

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements (Program 

Evaluation)

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

Safety Improvement Program? 

None

Benefit/cost

Policy change

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

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

Shift Focus to Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Include Local Roads in Highway Safety Improvement Program

Organizational Changes

None

Other: Other-Continued focus to fatalities and serious injuries by initiated using economic appraisals.

Other: Other-¿More systemic programs included in HSIP

Briefly describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting period. 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

50

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

cable median barriers and commencement of a system-wide implementation of shoulder rumble 

strips/stripes to address fatal and serious injuries.
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

51

SHSP Emphasis Areas

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

Year - 2013

HSIP-related SHSP 

Emphasis Areas

Target 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate 

(per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 

Roadway Departure 368 2023.4 1.1 6.42 0 0 0

Intersections 98 962.6 0.29 3.06 0 0 0

Work Zones 15.8 114.4 0.05 0.36 0 0 0
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

52
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

53
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

54
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

55
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

56

Groups of similar project types

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

HSIP Subprogram TypesTarget 

Crash Type

Number of 

fatalities

Number of 

serious injuries

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT) 

Serious injury rate 

(per HMVMT)

Other1 Other2 Other3 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

57
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

58
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

59
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

60
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

61

Systemic Treatments

Present the overall effectiveness of systemic treatments.

Year - 2013

Systemic Target Number of Number of Fatality rate (per Serious injury rate Other- Other- Otherimprovement Crash Type fatalities serious injuries HMVMT) (per HMVMT) 1 2 3 

Cable Median 7.6 12.4 0.08 0.13 0 0 0

Barriers 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

62
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

63
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

64
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

65
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

66

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

which you would like to elaborate. 

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

in fatal and serious injury crashes. Rumble strip analysis recently presented to the Highway Commission 

helped justify additional system-wide rumble strips projects, which are in the construction phase.

The following 2016 Targets were submitted in the 2016 Highway Safety Plan by the Arkansas State 

Police Highway Safety Office and were developed in coordination between ASP and AHTD. Target setting 

process is based on 5-year rolling average. Those targets are listed as follows: Total fatalities: 495 Total 

serious injuries: 3,271 Fatality rate (per 100 MVMT): 1.46 Serious injury rate (per 100 MVMT): 10.36

 
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

67

Project Evaluation

Provide project evaluation data for completed projects (optional). 

Location Functional 

Class

Improvement 

Category

Improvement 

Type

BefFatalBefSerious 

Injury

Bef-All 

Injuries

BefPDOBefTotalAftFatalAftSerious 

Injury

Aft-All 

Injuries

AftPDOAftTotalEvaluation 

Results 

(Benefit/ 

Cost 

Ratio)

Interstate 

55, Section 

11, Log 

Mile 8.75 

to Log Mile 

12.62

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 2 7 40 28 77 0 2 19 73 94 7.15

Interstate 

55. 

Section 

11, Log 

Mile 

12.75 to 

Log mile 

23.43

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial - 

Interstate

Roadside Barrier - cable 1 7 37 57 102 0 7 22 81 110 2.33
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

68

Optional Attachments

Sections Files Attached

Progress in Implementing Projects: General 

Listing of Projects

HSIP 2015_General Listing of Projects Table.docx
2015 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

69

Glossary

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

annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process. 

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

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

or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities. 

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

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

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

February 13, 2013. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.