Page 1 of 68

ARKANSAS

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 2 of 68

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Program Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Administration...................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 28

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 31

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 36

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 36

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 51

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 54

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 56

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 56

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 61

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 62
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 3 of 68

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for 

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 4 of 68

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 

2018 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018). 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:

Local road safety program is being developed for the Highway Commission’s approval. It will help the local 

agencies to improve safety on local roads.

HFST first round completed and second round statewide project of HFST is being implemented.

Wrong-way crash low-cost countermeasures have been implemented statewide.

Statewide guardrail project is being developed to upgrade substandard guardrails 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. 

Statewide shoulder rumble strip/stripes were installed or being installed on 5,000 plus miles of the State 

Highway System.

Statewide 6" wide enhanced pavement were installed or being installed on 4,200 plus miles of the State 

Highway System.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 5 of 68

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.

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 A R DOT 

officials, A R DOT 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 will be enhanced after the completion of ARNOLD 

LRS to 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 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 68

o Human factors 

o Vehicle factors 

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, median types, and presence of signal Backplates. 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 the previous analysis and proposed countermeasures based on ;

• 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 pared 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. 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 68

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. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning 

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

ARDOT is centralized and the central office is divided into several divisions. The HSIP staff who are mainly in 

the section of Traffic Safety is located in the Transportation Planning and Policy Division.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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.

To address safety concerns on local roads, the ARDOT 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 ARDOT continues to coordinate with the Arkansas 

State Police through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee and has implemented eCrash and the 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 68

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 locating on the federal aid system that was previously being done. A ll public roads are now 

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

road in the LRS.

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

carriage ways 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 also 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, two classes offered by the Center for Training 

Transportation Professionals (CTTP) will assist LPAs in project development: Safety Countermeasures for 

Local Roadways and Guide for Traffic Signs, Marking, and Signals.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Coordination with internal partners, along with the Highway Safety Office (HSO) and the eight Metropolitan 

Organizations (MPOs) across the State, occurs on different levels. Design, planning, maintenance, operations, 

MPOs, and the HSO are all on the SHSP Steering committee. Coordination has also taken place when 

addressing 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. Traffic Safety performs the preliminary 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 68 

scope of safety improvements on segment 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 and Districts.

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.

For major safety projects, 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.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Government Agency 

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

Coordination with internal partners, along with the external partners such as Highway Safety Office (HSO) and 

the eight Metropolitan Organizations (MPOs) across the State, occurs on different levels. Design, planning, 

maintenance, operations, MPOs, and the HSO are all on the SHSP Steering committee. Coordination has also 

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

departure safety, 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 that has recently begun to provide the necessary 

equipment and training to local law enforcement agencies for eCrash.

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

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 68

Yes

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 continued to use the Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM) on case by case basis. TSS now has 4 Engineers working on different safety programs. Prior to 

May 2011, TSS did not have an Engineer. 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. The 

research for calibration of the HSM Safety Performance Functions for the state of Arkansas is under progress 

along with continued improvements to data analysis processes and tools used by the TSS. ARDOT continued 

to be a member State in the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. A HSIP 

Evaluation Peer Review meeting was held during the 2018 Federal Fiscal Year. ARDOT is in the process of 

updating the HSIP Process document based on the Information learned from this effort and the new HSIP 

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

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

representatives from many 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.

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Median Barrier

Intersection

Rural State Highways

Skid Hazard

Roadway Departure

Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Shoulder Improvement

Segments

Wrong Way Driving 

Other-Pavement Marking Improvements

Other-Crash Data

Other-Roundabouts 

Other-Guardrail

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

Page 11 of 68

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 7/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 68

Cost Effectiveness : 2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/25/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-Systemic safety improvements

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Based on the suggested 

treatments (roadway departure 

crashes, wet pavement crashes, 

severe crashes, wrong-way crashes) 

Traffic Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Based on the study and analysis memo from TS in Planning Division 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 68

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: 7/7/2011 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Median width 

Functional classification 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 68

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 approach based on median width, ADT, etc. : 1 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2014 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature 

Other-Minimum of 1 foot shoulder 

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

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?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 15 of 68

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-Based on HRRR safety program.

Other-Roadway departure crashes. 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Crash rate

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 of 68

No

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

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-Addressing roadway departure crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Lane miles 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

Other-Clearzone and shoulder 

widths 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 68

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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

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

HSIP fund on segments is mainly used to address the systemic improvements of cable median barriers, 

rumble strip/stripe, and install/improve pavement marking/delineations. Systemic approaches to addressing 

roadway departure crashes are a continuous process. ARDOT continues implementing cable median barrier 

projects, rumble strip/stripe projects, and enhanced pavement marking projects through a systemic process. 

With guidance from the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, a systemic approach to install high 

friction surface treatment and shoulder widening/improvement is also underway. For segmental projects, 

ARDOT 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. Segments are sometimes 

originally identified using Roadway Departure Crashes.

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 of 68

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? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Other-Roadway departure crashes. 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Other-Preventative maintenance 

Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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 : 3
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 of 68

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

Program: Skid Hazard 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2013 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-treating spots for wet pavement crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Other-Wet pavement crashes 

Horizontal curvature 

Other-Skid resistance consideration 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 of 68

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? [Check all that apply]

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

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-All wrong-way crashes Traffic Functional classification 

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

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?

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 of 68

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-Pavement Marking 

Improvements 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Other-systemic approach toward enhancement of pavement markings

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 

Other-APHN Routes excluding 

Interstates, Freeways, and 

Expressways 

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

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?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 of 68

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

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 : 2 

Other-Systematic approach was used to select rural APHN routes other than Interstates, Freeways and 

Expressways : 1

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

A Systematic approach on the State Highway System was adopted to upgrade all center and edgeline striping 

to 6”.

Program: Other-Crash Data 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

Other-Meeting federal regulations and better data quality 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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? [Check all that apply]

Other-Provided funding for local agencies to purchase computer equipment to implement eCrash. 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 of 68

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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.

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-Roundabouts 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

Functional classification 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 68

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

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?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Cost effectiveness and availability of 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

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 3 

Cost Effectiveness : 2

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

This is a rural road program.

Program: Other-Guardrail 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/1/2017 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 25 of 68

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Other-Roadway deprture crashes Traffic Functional classification 

Other-NHS Routes 

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

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?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Certain funds will be set aside for guardrail upgrades.

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).

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

ARDOT is in the process of changing standard details/specs. of guardrails to meet the MASH standards. Jobs 

will be programmed immediately upon completion of standards modification.

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 26 

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

apply.

Cable Median Barriers
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 26 of 68

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

High friction surface treatment 

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

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

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

The common theme is to conduct engineering studies according to the HSM's safety management process. In 

these studies tools such as spreadsheets, HSM, Clearinghouse, and sometimes, software such as IHSDM are 

used to analyze the crash and road inventory data to diagnose the problems, recommend countermeasures, 

conduct economic appraisal and develop project scopes.

These projects are always aligned with the strategies defined in the SHSP. Developing the State SHSP is 

through a process of screening crash data and coordination with the safety stakeholders that provide input on 

the various aspects of safety problems throughout the state.

Multidiscipline Roadway Safety Audits are being performed as part of the project development process.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

ARDOT is looking into the modern ITS techs as AV/CV technology is advancing forward. 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. Automated Work Zone Information (AWIS) 

is being used for queue detection but not using HSIP funds.

Does the State use the Highway Safety Manual to support HSIP efforts?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 68

Yes

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

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

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 gets completed, it is evaluated for its safety effectiveness.

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

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

Projects are evaluated for low cost countermeasures first, therefore high cost countermeasures have been 

postponed for those projects. 

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

Yes

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

A revised draft HSIP process document has been submitted and is under FHWA review for comment.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 68

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

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

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $32,425,000 $46,139,816 142.3%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $11,455,000 $12,351,749 107.83%

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)

$57,360,000 $55,106,796 96.07%

State and Local Funds $19,388,000 $8,266,019 42.63%

Totals $120,628,000 $121,864,380 101.02%

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

Some of the values presented in this table are programmed in ARDOT STIP for SFY 2019. The reason 

obligated funds are more than the programmed funds is that some older safety jobs were programmed in the 

past an obligated in this year's fiscal year. Also, several jobs have been awarded for more than they were 

programmed.

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% 

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

How much funding is programmed to non-infrastructure safety projects?
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 68

2% 

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

2% 

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

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

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

•

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

implementation of horizontal curves, signs, pavement markers, etc.;

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

process) for corridor safety projects; 

• Implementing numerous low cost countermeasures.

• Streamlining the process of "Change Order" approval.

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

Yes

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 is being developed for the Highway 

https://eauth1.fhwa.dot.gov/UPACSjct/hsipp/Content/Images/save%20icon.gifCommission’s approval. It 

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

• HFST second round of statewide project is under construction based on the wet-pavement study.

• UTBWC is also under construction at several locations based on the wet-pavement study.

• Wrong-way crash low-cost countermeasures are being implemented statewide.

• Statewide guardrail project is being developed to upgrade them 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.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 30 of 68

• Statewide shoulder rumble strip/stripes were installed on 5,000 plus miles of the State Highway System 

by the end of calendar year 2017.

• Statewide 6" wide enhanced pavement markings were installed on over 4200 miles of the State 

Highway System by the end of calendar year 2017.

• ARDOT is currently in the process of developing a Safety and Mobility Data business plan with the 

services of a consultant.

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

eCrash. 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 31 of 68

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

012297 Districts 

1,5,9 & 10 

Pavement Friction 

Impvts. (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

13 Locations $ 122,530.00 $ 134,783.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 9,999 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

050279 PangburnFourmile Hill 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.33 Miles $ 124,200.00 $ 136,620.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

080494 I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

6.83 Miles $ 196,146.00 $ 215,760.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

BB1003 Hwy. 181-

Hwy. 158 (I-55) 

Cable Median 

Barrier

Roadside Barrier - cable 7.812 Miles $ 3,928.00 $ 4,320.80 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

22,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mitigating 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure.

012295 Districts 4 

& 9 Pavement 

Friction Impvts. 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

34 Locations $5,160,171.00 $5,160,621.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 9,999 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

061561 Hwy.5-

Perry Co. Line 

(Safety Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

17.47 Miles $8,077,500.00 $ 8,077,950.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

061442 Garland 

Co. Line - Benton 

(Safety Impvts)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

0.91 Miles $ 9,000.00 $ 9,900.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100950 Hwy. 

158/Hwy. 163 

Inters. Safety 

Impvts.

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Locations $ 18,000.00 $ 19,800.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

090517 Izard Co. 

Line - Hwy. 62 

(Safety Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

18.24 Miles $ 22,500.00 $ 24,750.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

CA0907 Hwy. 112 

- I-49 (Hwy. 412)

Roadside Barrier - cable 4.59 Miles $ 50,744.00 $ 55,818.40 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mitigating 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure.

020595 Hwy. 

65/Hwy. 35 Inters. 

Realignment 

(Safety Impvts.)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

.80 Miles $ 348,713.00 $ 383,584.30 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

061438 Bryant 

Rd.-Hwy. 298 

West (Widen. & 

Realign.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

1.24 Miles $ 422,449.00 $464,693.90 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

9,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Prevent angle 

crashes.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 32 of 68

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

061439 Hwy. 7 - 

Hwy. 128 (Safety 

Impvts.)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

1.4 Miles $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Prevent angle 

crashes.

080494 I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

6.83 Miles $2,438,256.00 $2,682,081.60 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

012208 Traffic 

Safety Planning 

Activities (HSIP) 

(S)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Safety Planning 

Activities

$ 1,350,000.00 $1,350,000.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Non-Infrastructure 0 0 Non-Infrastructure Non-Infrastructure 

Safety Planning 

Activities

Non-Infrastructure 

Safety Planning 

Activities

NA

012220 Local 

Agency eCrash 

Equipment 

Upgrade

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

0 Local Agency 

eCrash Equipment 

Upgrade

$ 1,260,000.00 $ 1,386,000.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Local Agency 

eCrash Equipment 

Upgrade

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

NA Data Implement 

electronic crash 

database system 

for all safety 

partners.

012274 Hwy. 167 

- Big Creek (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

28.6 Miles $ 2,263,139.00 $ 2,263,139.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

012288 Low-Cost 

Safety Impvts. 

(Dist. 5,6,8, & 9)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

25 Locations $ 250,859.00 $ 275,944.90 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 9,999 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

012273 Railroad 

Safety Program

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0 Railroad Safety 

Program

$ 180,000.00 $ 198,000.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Railroad Safety 

Program

0 0 State Highway 

Agency

Railroad Safety 

Program

Railroad Railroad Safety 

Program

012296 Districts 2, 

6, 7 & 8 Pavement 

Friction Impvts. 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

23 Locations $ 2,964,508.00 $ 2,964,508.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple 9,999 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

012297 Districts 

1,5,9 & 10 

Pavement Friction 

Impvts. (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- high friction 

surface

13 Locations $ 2,200,000.00 $ 2,200,000.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Multiple 9,999 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020595 Hwy. 

65/Hwy. 35 Inters. 

Realignment 

(Safety Impvts.)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew angle

.80 Miles $ 2,229,481.00 $ 2,229,481.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

020621 Hwy. 138 

- Hwy. 278 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4.27 Miles $ 481,258.00 $ 529,383.80 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020622 Halley - 

Hwy. 4 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4.92 Miles $ 546,362.00 $ 600,998.20 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

150 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020627 Louisiana 

State Line - 

Eudora (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8.07 Miles $ 757,553.00 $ 833,308.30 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020643 Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2.086 Miles $ 214,094.00 $ 214,094.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

5,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020645 Lonoke 

Co. Line - South 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4.45 Miles $ 337,035.00 $ 370,738.50 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 68

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

020646 Leola - 

Sheridan (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

15.05 Miles $ 1,493,029.00 $ 1,642,331.90 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020659 Hwy. 270 

- Hwy. 365 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4.66 Miles $ 310,339.00 $ 341,372.90 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

1,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

020660 Pulaski 

Co. Line - Pine 

Bluff (Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

19.27 Miles $ 755,559.00 $ 831,114.90 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

3,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

030503 Hwys. 71 

& 371 (Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

4 Locations $ 3,451,930.00 $ 3,451,930.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple Fuc. 

Class

9,999 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

050280 JoySearcy (Safety 

Impvts.) (Hwy. 36) 

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

8.75 Miles $ 324,370.00 $ 356,807.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

050316 Hwy. 25 - 

White Co. Line 

(Safety Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

10.02 Miles $ 851,805.00 $ 936,985.50 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

22,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

050362 Hwy. 36 - 

Bald Knob (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

7.45 Miles $ 356,956.00 $ 392,651.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

6,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

050369 Izard Co. 

Line - Hwy. 62

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

9.896 Miles $ 15,755.00 $ 15,755.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

061438 Bryant 

Rd.-Hwy. 298 

West (Widen. & 

Realign.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

8.33 Miles $ 19,000.00 $ 20,900.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

9,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Prevent angle 

crashes.

061523 Hwy. 227 

- Hwy. 7 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

5.91 Miles $ 343,678.00 $ 378,045.80 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

061560 Mountain 

Pine - North of 

Hwy. 192 (Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

3.24 Miles $ 322,823.00 $ 355,105.30 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

061561 Hwy.5-

Perry Co. Line 

(Safety Impvts.) 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Roadway Roadway 

widening - travel 

lanes

17.47 Miles $ 1,717,703.00 $ 1,717,703.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

070271 I-30 - 

Nevada Co. Line 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

13.31 Miles $ 972,436.00 $ 1,069,679.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

080552 Shirley - 

Stone Co. Line (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

5.90 Miles $ 267,586.00 $ 294,344.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

080557 Hwy. 105 

- Hwy. 213 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.17 Miles $ 620,275.00 $ 682,302.50 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

090422 Flippin - 

North (Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2.28 Miles $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,700 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 34 of 68

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

intersection 

crashes.

090445 Hwy. 

12/Hwy. 43 Inters. 

Safety Impvts.

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Locations $ 22,500.00 $ 24,750.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

090487 Hwy. 16 - 

Boone Co. Line 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

25.33 Miles $ 1,271,250.00 $ 1,398,375.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

1,300 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane Departure Prevent roadway 

departures.

090498 Pindall - 

Marshall (Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

.6 Miles $ 90,000.00 $ 99,000.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,500 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

090508 Hwy. 72 

North - Co. Rd. 34 

(Add'l Lns.) (B.V. 

Bypass)

Roadside Barrier - cable 8.745 Miles $ 979,601.00 $ 1,077,561.10 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

2,800 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mitigating 

consequences of 

roadway 

departure.

090509 Hwys. 12, 

16, 62 & 127 

Safety Impvts. 

(Sel. Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

22.02 Miles $ 2,434,410.00 $ 2,434,410.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Multiple 9,999 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100885 Hwys. 149 

& 308B (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

5.52 Miles $ 580,038.00 $ 638,041.80 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

680 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100892 Missouri 

state Line - Hwy. 

18B (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

11.94 Miles $ 1,560,256.00 $ 1,716,281.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100900 Hwys. 69 

& 358 (Paragould) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8.47 Miles $ 175,522.00 $ 193,074.20 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100902 Randolph 

Co. Line - South of 

Hwy. 63 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

1.97 Miles $ 111,892.00 $ 123,081.20 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100905 North of 

Lawrence Co. Line 

- Hwy. 62 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8.12 Miles $ 140,999.00 $ 140,999.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100910 Hwy. 69S 

East & West 

(Trumann) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2 Miles $ 66,674.00 $ 73,341.40 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

4,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100911 Sharp Co. 

Line - Hwy. 117 

(Strawberry)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2.07 Miles $ 169,396.00 $ 186,335.60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100912 Hwy. 18 - 

Hwy. 77 

(Leachville) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

3.36 Miles $ 562,967.00 $ 619,263.70 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

3,000 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100926 Toluca - 

Hwy. 148 

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

.15 Miles $ 74,651.00 $ 82,116.10 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,400 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 35 of 68

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

100927 Hwy. 67 - 

West 

(Pocahontas) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

3.64 Miles $ 245,878.00 $ 270,465.80 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,100 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100929 Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

3.5 Miles $ 4,805.00 $ 5,285.50 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,600 55 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

100948 Hwy. 312 

(Mississippi Co.) 

(Sel. Secs.)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

5.58 Miles $ 89,661.00 $ 98,627.10 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

4,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent roadway 

departures.

110653 Hwy 

118/W Service 

Rd/I-40 EB Ramps 

Signal & Inters. 

Impvts. (West 

Memphis)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Locations $ 13,500.00 $ 13,500.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

7,800 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

110672 Hwy. 

49/Hwy. 79 Inters. 

Safety Impvts.

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Locations $ 57,600.00 $ 63,360.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

2,200 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences of 

intersection 

crashes.

BB0612 Ark. River 

Bridge - I-40 

Non-infrastructure Enforcement 1 Locations $ 29,492.00 $ 32,441.20 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

43,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Prevent work zone 

crashes.

CA0605 

Vandenberg Blvd. 

- Hwy. 5 

(Widening)

Non-infrastructure Enforcement 1 Locations $ 142,110.00 $ 142,110.00 Penalty Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other Freeways 

and Expressways

52,000 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Prevent work zone 

crashes.

040749 I-40 Slide 

Repair (Ozark)

Non-infrastructure Enforcement 1 Locations $ 22,500.00 $24,750.00 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

22,000 70 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Prevent work zone 

crashes.

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

Page 36 of 68

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 596 571 551 560 498 470 550 560 493

Serious Injuries 3,693 3,331 3,239 3,226 3,070 3,154 2,888 3,032 2,822

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.800 1.704 1.672 1.671 1.487 1.381 1.576 1.524 1.356

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

11.139 9.942 9.829 9.624 9.154 9.270 8.276 8.480 7.763

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

44 40 49 54 52 44 46 54 53

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

79 98 100 93 97 97 66 100 136

Number of non-motorized 

fatalities and serious inj

123 138 149 147 148 141 112 154 189
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 37 of 68

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 38 of 68

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 39 of 68

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

Fatality Values are based on the actual fatality numbers for 2009-2014 and the preliminary NSC numbers for 

2016 and 2017 as FARS data has been historically wrong due to numbers being reported before the entries 

are completed in final FARS.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

inj

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious inj 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 40 of 68

All serious injury numbers are based on State Crash Data.

AVMT for 2016 and 2017 is derived from State Data as FARS has not reported these numbers yet.

Describe fatality data source.

Other

If Other Please describe

National Safety Council

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

In Arkansas Annual Report File (ARF) FARS numbers are reported before all fatalities are processed. This 

makes using ARF FARS numbers incorrect. FARS will usually go back and adjust prior years numbers to 

match what is reported to National Safety Council (NSC). We have found that NSC numbers are historically the 

correct numbers. Older years are set to match FARS.

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

24.8 110.4 0.63 2.82

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

2.6 10 0.71 3.07

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

63.2 198.8 1.72 7.58

Rural Minor Arterial 64 294.8 2.35 10.88

Rural Minor Collector 7.8 45.2 3.52 13.85

Rural Major Collector 85.6 417.8 2.78 13.82

Rural Local Road or Street 18 134.8 2.43 8.44

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

27.4 173.2 0.53 3.4

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

7.4 42 16.73 3.91

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

51.8 267 1.41 7.29

Urban Minor Arterial 37.4 237.8 1.34 8.65

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 3.6 0.77 8.08
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 68 

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 Major Collector 16.6 92.2 2.14 11.75

Urban Local Road or Street 8.8 57.4 1.51 9.12
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 68

Year 2016

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 441.8 2,537.8 1.72 10.02

County Highway Agency 53.2 212.4 1.65 6.59

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

43.6 256.2 0.78 5.87

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
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 43 of 68

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 44 of 68

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 45 of 68

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 46 of 68

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 47 of 68

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 48 of 68

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway

Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 68

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 50 of 68

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

The tool would not allow entering a new year (2017). The numbers are below.

2017 Num of 

Fatalities

Num of Serious 

Inj. Fatality Rate Serious Injury Rate DVMT

State Highway Agency 452 2228 1.685194709 8.306667724 7348456

County Highway Agency 41 211 1.158742288 5.963283484 9694025

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency 50 375 0.8342568 6.256926 16420160

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

Yes

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 getting entered into the crash data base. The Arkansas crash 

database showed 60,947 crashes in 2014 and it has increased to 79,251 crashes in 2017. During this process 

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

recently granted 1.4 million dollars to 31 local agencies to get them on 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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 68

Other factors include: Also, the AVMT in Arkansas has been on a steady increase of around 3% per year since 

2015. Arkansas has recently legalized medical marijuana and is considering a speed limit increase on certain 

highways.

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 543.0 

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

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

NHTSA, all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the targets 

was developed. This methodology is similar to the previous year’s methodology. The 

first step in the methodology was to calculate the moving average for the last five 

years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to year, which accounts 

for variation of the data. Next, an average of each value was calculated.The 

preliminary fatality number in FARS shows 545 for 2016, which is used for the 2012-

2016 moving average calculation. The FARS data typically get adjusted prior to being 

finalized. As a result, the National Safety Council (NSC) data for 2016 is reviewed to 

determine the level of adjustment to account for potential corrections made to the 

FARS data later in the year. The NSC fatality number shows 560 for 2016. Once the 

average of the moving averages was calculated for each performance measure, 

external factors were considered to determine if and how they would impact safety 

performance. These external factors include the following: • The recent state 

legalization of medical marijuana. • The possible increase in speed limit on 

freeways/expressways. This target supports the SHSP goals of reducing Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries Statewide. 

Number of Serious Injuries 3637.0 

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

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

NHTSA, all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the targets 

was developed. This methodology is similar to the previous year’s methodology. The 

first step in the methodology was to calculate the moving average for the last five 

years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to year, which accounts 

for variation of the data. The actual data numbers shown in Attachment A. Next, an 

average of each value was calculated. Once the average of the moving averages was 

calculated for each performance measure, external factors were considered to 

determine if and how they would impact safety performance. These external factors 

include the following: • The recent state legalization of medical marijuana. • The 

possible increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways. • Update to the definition of 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 52 of 68

Suspected Serious Injury in 2017. • Continued increase in vehicle miles traveled. 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 serious injury crash data. 

This target supports the SHSP goals of reducing Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

Statewide. 

Fatality Rate 1.615 

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

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

NHTSA, all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the targets 

was developed. This methodology is similar to the previous year’s methodology. The 

first step in the methodology was to calculate the moving average for the last five 

years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to year, which accounts 

for variation of the data. Next, an average of each value was calculated.The 

preliminary fatality number in FARS shows 545 for 2016, which is used for the 2012-

2016 moving average calculation. The FARS data typically get adjusted prior to being 

finalized. As a result, the National Safety Council (NSC) data for 2016 is reviewed to 

determine the level of adjustment to account for potential corrections made to the 

FARS data later in the year. The NSC fatality number shows 560 for 2016. Once the 

average of the moving averages was calculated for each performance measure, 

external factors were considered to determine if and how they would impact safety 

performance. These external factors include the following: • The recent state 

legalization of medical marijuana. • The possible increase in speed limit on 

freeways/expressways. This target supports the SHSP goals of reducing Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries Statewide. 

Serious Injury Rate 10.824 

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

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

NHTSA, all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the targets 

was developed. This methodology is similar to the previous year’s methodology. The 

first step in the methodology was to calculate the moving average for the last five 

years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to year, which accounts 

for variation of the data. The actual data numbers shown in Attachment A. Next, an 

average of each value was calculated. Once the average of the moving averages was 

calculated for each performance measure, external factors were considered to 

determine if and how they would impact safety performance. These external factors 

include the following: • The recent state legalization of medical marijuana. • The 

possible increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways. • Update to the definition of 

Suspected Serious Injury in 2017. • Continued increase in vehicle miles traveled. 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 serious injury crash data. This target supports 

the SHSP goals of reducing Fatalities and Serious Injuries Statewide. 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 53 of 68

Total Number of Non-Motorized

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 170.0 

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

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

NHTSA, all MPOs, and other stakeholders, a methodology to determine the targets 

was developed. This methodology is similar to the previous year’s methodology. The 

first step in the methodology was to calculate the moving average for the last five 

years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to year, which accounts 

for variation of the data. The actual data numbers shown in Attachment A. Next, an 

average of each value was calculated. Once the average of the moving averages was 

calculated for each performance measure, external factors were considered to 

determine if and how they would impact safety performance. These external factors 

include the following: • The recent state legalization of medical marijuana. • The 

possible increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways. • Update to the definition of 

Suspected Serious Injury in 2017. • Continued increase in vehicle miles traveled. 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 serious injury crash data. This target supports 

the SHSP goals of reducing Fatalities and Serious Injuries Statewide. 

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

See previous question regarding external factors which greatly affect our target setting efforts.

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 possible increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways.

• Update to the definition of Suspected Serious Injury.

• Continued increase in vehicle miles traveled.

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 

serious injury crash data.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Page 54 of 68

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

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

61 65 73 65 62 63 77

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

210 164 160 266 174 217 266

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 55 of 68

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

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

HSIP. This process is under FHWA review for comments at this time.

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. Some 

of them have been constructed but the crash data is not available for the evaluation. However, we had 

evaluated several projects implemented in the past that helped us expand those 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 very effective on preventing wet-pavement crashes. We have been 

receiving very positive feedback from the public and the second round of installation of these countermeasures 

is underway. Shoulder Rumble Stripe/Stripes have been installed on hundreds of miles statewide and have 

proved to be effective in preventing roadway departure crashes especially on curves located in rural areas. 

Similarly Centerline Rumble Stripes have been installed in the passing lane segments and currently ARDOT is 

in the process of studying their need in the center turn lanes on rural roads where head on and sideswipe 

opposite crashes are the prevailing type of safety problem. The new HSIP Process being developed will 

develop a method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of programs and sub-programs. The process is 

currently under FHWA review for comments.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

More systemic programs

Policy change 

Organizational change

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

Increased focus on local road safety

HSIP Obligations 

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

Page 56 of 68

The amount of HSIP funds obligated each year and the number of projects programmed waiting in a queue to 

be funded for the coming years indicates that we are planning well for improving the safety conditions 

throughout the State by following the HSIP guidelines.

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.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

Yes

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

ARDOT has inclined toward focusing on and addressing safety concerns at locations with more KA crashes. In 

addition to a focus on locations with higher historical KA crashes, a more proactive approach is also being 

taken toward systemic programs which address the crash risks rather than reactive approach. A more datadriven process is utilized to program and scope safety projects, especially where KA crash statistics are of 

concern. 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. ARDOT is moving towards B/C analysis that mostly requires individual countermeasures to 

stand on their own merit. We have improved efficiency by adding a software developer to create tools used by 

the Department to facilitate the ease of conducting safety analysis Department wide. These tools have allowed 

other Divisions to do their analysis for non-HSIP projects without having to wait on the Traffic Safety Section to 

conduct queries and analysis for them. Additionally, ARDOT is looking into different safety analyst tools such 

as AASHTOWARE Safety Analyst, usRAP, Numetric, and AgileAssets Safety Analyst to further enhance safety 

analyses.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2017 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 57 of 68

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Roadway Departure Run-offroad292.2 1,460.8 0.85 4.58 0 0 0

Intersections Angle 69 611.4 0.2 1.94 0 0 0

Older Drivers All 28.4 94 0.08 0.26 0 0 0

Motorcyclists All 30.4 153.4 0.09 0.43 0 0 0

Work Zones Crashes 

due to Work 

Zones

10.4 79 0.03 0.25 0 0 0

Pedestrians/Bicycles Bike/Ped 19.8 39.2 0.06 0.11 0 0 0

Young Drivers All 9.6 87.8 0.03 0.25 0 0 0

Impaired/Drowsy Drivers All 45.8 155.2 0.13 0.44 0 0 0

Aggressive Drivers All 34.4 253 4.65 12.6 0 0 0

Large Commercial Vehicles All 30.8 76.8 0.09 0.22 0 0 0
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 58 of 68

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 59 of 68

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

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

Yes

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 60 of 68

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Roundabout Installation 

Description: We installed three roundabouts at 

intersections to reduce KA crashes. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 3 

Number of Installations: 3 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 3 

Years After: 3 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

All total crashes were reduced at all 

three locations. However, KA crashes 

did increase at one location due to it 

having none before and a nonmotorist crash occurring in the 

roundabout. See attachments 

File Name: Hyperlink

CounterMeasures: Skidabrader 

Description: 

Applied Skidabrader to a section of 

urban Interstate with a high number of 

wet pavement crashes. 

Target Crash Type: Wet road 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 0.62 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 5 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: Wet pavement crashes were reduced 

from 61% to 33%. (see attachment) 

File Name: Hyperlink
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 61 of 68

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0

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

ARDOT is in the process of developing an automated Project Evaluation tool. Although this tool is not completed it is expected to be so in a few weeks. Attached is a copy of the report this tool will produce with a few evaluations real life 

that were run for testing purposes. This tool is expected to greatly enhance and streamline our project evaluation, countermeasure evaluation and program level evaluation efforts.

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

No
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 62 of 68

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 

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

The 2017 SHSP was approved in July of 2017. We plan to start the process of updating the 2022 SHSP in the spring of 2020 and finalize it by July 2022.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 63 of 68

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 62 62 62

AADT Year (80) 100 62

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 20

AADT Year (80) 100 20

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

50 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 64 of 68

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 100

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

94.44 90.22 75.00 55.00 86.36 63.64 95.78 95.78 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

Describe actions the State will take moving forward to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

MIRE Fundamental Data Elements To Be Collected:

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 

• ARDOT purchased Transcend Spatial Solutions 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 expect to make out final initial run by early 2019 and start maintaining it as the system 

changes. We will be able to identify retired and new intersections through the software as well. 

• ARDOT geographically located all of the state system signals this past summer so that we can identify signalized intersections. TP&P and Maintenance are working together to identify if there is a ped signal on each of these or 

not as part of the traffic control attribute. 

INTERCHANGES 

• ARDOT is developing an Interchange/Complex Intersection dataset that will serve as a parent/child relationship 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. 
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 65 of 68

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

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

• Transcend Spatial Solutions Intersection Manager 

• LiDAR: In July of 2018 ARDOT approved a project for a consultant to collect and process an estimated 2,000 miles of LiDAR data on the state highway system. We’ll be looking at a corridor collection to see how LiDAR can assist 

us with additional MIRE elements 

• ESRI – ArcMap/ArcGIS Online/ArcGIS Collector 

See Attachment MIRE FDE Collection From TRSP Appendix B

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form 2 (A) Suspected Serious Injury is on the 

printed form and on the entry screen.

Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual 002 A Suspected Serious Injury Yes See comment #1 below. Not enough 

characters allowed.

No Inclusions: Severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or 

when taken from the scene, unable to 

leave the scene without assistance, and 

others. Exclusions: Momentary 

unconsciousness, and others.

No

Crash Database 2 (A) Suspected serious injury Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A

Crash Database Data Dictionary 002 A Suspected Serious Injury Yes See comment #2 below. Not enough 

characters allowed.

Yes See comment #2 below Yes

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

Comments:

#1-Incapacitating Injury

Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of performing before the injury 

occurred.https://eauth1.fhwa.dot.gov/UPACSjct/hsipp/Content/Images/save%20icon.gif 

Inclusions: 

Severe lacerations, broken or distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, abdominal injuries, unconsciousness at or when taken from the scene, unable to leave the scene without assistance, and others. 

Exclusions : Momentary unconsciousness, and others.

#2-Incapacitating Injury - A suspected serious injury is any injury other than fatal which results in one or more of the following: 

• Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood 

• Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg) 

• Crush injuries • Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations 

• Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body) 

• Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene 

• Paralysis
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 66 of 68

Arkansas is in a transition period from a paper based report system to eCrash. Many agencies have not yet changed to eCrash but the above compliance assessment is based solely on eCrash as the old paper based system is being phased out. 

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

ARDOT is working with the Arkansas State Police to ensure that the updates needed are completed by April 15th, 2019.

Did the State conduct an HSIP program assessment during the reporting period?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2021 

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

Page 67 of 68

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Hwy 65, 9B, Hwy266, 1, Roundabout.xlsx

Hwy 65, 9B, Winfield St. Roundabout.xlsx

Hwy 365, 11, Hwy 100, 1, Roundabout.xlsx

Skid Abrader.xlsx

HSIP Project Evals.xlsx

Compliance Assessment:

Mire FDE Collection form the TRSP Appendix B.docx
2018 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 68 of 68

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

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

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

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

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

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

Systematic refers to an approach where an agency deploys countermeasures at all locations across a 

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

means, in accordance with provisions of 23 U.S.C. 126, a State may transfer from an 

apportionment under section 104(b) not to exceed 50 percent of the amount apportioned 

for the fiscal year to any other apportionment of the State under that section.