Page 1 of 55

ARKANSAS 

2022 ANNUAL REPORT 

Disclaimer: This report is the property of the State Department of Transportation (State DOT). The State DOT 

completes the report by entering applicable information into the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) online reporting tool. Once the State DOT completes the report pertaining to its 

State, it coordinates with its respective FHWA Division Office to ensure the report meets all legislative and regulatory 

requirements. FHWA’s Headquarters Office of Safety then downloads the State’s finalized report and posts it to the 

website (https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/reporting) as required by law (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)(A)). 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 55

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................23

Funds Programmed .........................................................................................................................23

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................26

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................31

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................31

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

Applicability of Special Rules ...........................................................................................................42

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................44

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................44

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................45

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................49

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................50

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................54

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................55
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 55

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. 407 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.” 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 55

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 

2022 (July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022). The format of this report is consistent with the reporting guidelines 

issued by the Federal Highway Administration in 2016. Some notable accomplishments are as follows: 

HSIP Programs and Planning 

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

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

local agencies to improve safety on local roads using HSIP funds. 

• The AR SHSP was updated in 2022. Included was a SHSP Marketing and Communications Plan. 

• ARDOT is now included in a pooled fund study for continuous pavement friction data led by Virginia 

Tech Transportation Institute. 

• On-Call consultants are planned to be utilized in the coming year for safety studies and project 

development. Master agreements for four on-call consultants were executed. The first safety project 

that we plan to utilize consultants on is an unsignalized intersection study program. This unsignalized 

intersection study program was developed in an effort to improve many intersections on the rural 

Arkansas Primary Highway Network with low-cost safety countermeasures. 

• ARDOT is working with a consultant to examine the possibilities of using their data for analyzing 

horizontal curves roadway elements. The purpose of collecting this data is to develop a low-cost 

Horizontal Curve Study and incorporate the collected data. 

• Several safety analysis tools are being examined for possible use at ARDOT. This spurred participation 

in the FHWA Roadway Safety Management System technical assistance program. A request for 

proposal was created and we are currently in the process of selecting a vendor. 

• ARDOT has approved and created a job number for future educational and media campaigns to help 

bring awareness to the public of safety related topics. For an example ARDOT recently released two 

safety campaigns regarding work zone safety and centerline rumble strips. 

• ARDOT is planning on moving forward with the Roadway Data Improvement Program, a FHWA 

technical assistance program. This will assess ARDOT's roadway data and make recommendations for 

improvements. Online data query tools and dashboards have been developed for public use; one 

specific tool that has already been developed is the Arkansas Crash Analytics Tool (ACAT) which is a 

GIS online dashboard available to the public. 

Safety Projects 

• Another statewide wet pavement and pavement friction improvement study is under development that 

will utilize Continuous Pavement Friction Measurement. 

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

standards on NHS routes. 

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

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates. 

• A pedestrian and bike study has begun to address non-motorist safety, this resulted in a need for 

research, and it has been funded. 

• A wrong way study is ongoing and has migrated to a statewide systemic study. 

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

• ARDOT uses the pavement preservation program to accomplish shoulder widening and rumble strip 

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

• A statewide rural 2-lane centerline rumble strip first project is under construction and the remaining jobs 

are being let to contract.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 55

Introduction

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving 

a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 23 CFR 

924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to advance HSIP implementation 

and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the HSIP Reporting Guidance dated 

December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, progress in implementing highway safety 

improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the 

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration. 

COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION

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

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

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

Analyze Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LRS and will eventually include intersections on all public roads. 

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

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

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

data and diagnosing the safety problems 

• Crash type 

• Contributing crash factors 

o Roadway factors 

o Human factors 

o Vehicle factors 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 55

o Environmental factors 

• Crash pattern analysis 

• Collision diagram for intersection analysis 

Identify Potential Countermeasures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

departure crashes.

Assess Site Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assess Countermeasure Effectiveness (Economic Appraisal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

process.

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 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

injury severities with hospital ICD codes.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

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

Project Planning, GIS/Mapping, and Public Transportation.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

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

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

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

screened and ranked for prioritization. 

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

ARDOT addresses safety concerns on local roads and provides technical assistance and training programs on 

safety issues to local governments through its efforts by System Information and Research Division staff and 

the Arkansas Local Technology Assistance Program (ARLTAP). The ARDOT continues to coordinate with the 

Arkansas State Police through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) and has implemented 

eCrash and the Advance program that allows law enforcement agencies and other State and local agencies to 

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

aspects of the crash data.

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

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

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

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

in the LRS.

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

carriageways and will carry the roadway attributes as well as the log mile and lat/long for the point location. 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

structure to submit to ARDOT Administration for review and approval.

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning.

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

The core HSIP planning takes place by Traffic Safety staff in planning; however, extensive coordination with 

the other groups identified occurs during the study process

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Coordination with internal partners, occurs on different levels. ARDOT Design, Planning, Maintenance, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation of the low cost safety measures.

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

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

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

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

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

Roadway Design further looks into it. If there is any need of change in the scope, Traffic Safety is informed 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 55

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

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

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

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

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

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

necessary.

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

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

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

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

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

Describe coordination with external partners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equipment and training to local law enforcement agencies for eCrash.

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

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

elaborate. 

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

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

Arkansas recently updated the 2022 Strategic Highway Safety Plan for the State. This was the first time 

ARDOT hired a consultant to update the SHSP. Another consultant will coordinate with TSS staff to effectively 

complete large scale studies. SHSP updates were done in coordination with a steering committee that 

encompassed many stakeholders from the four E's with representatives from various government agencies as 

well as private industries. Action plans were developed by sub-committees for each emphasis area. These 

action plans will be tracked in an ongoing fashion throughout the life of the plan. Additionally, TSS has 

marketed the SHSP (approved by FHWA in July 2022) with a focus on the safe system approach and TZD 

through the Arkansas Highways Magazine, idrivearkansas.com and tzdarkansas.org. ARDOT continues to be 

a member State in the Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. A vendor selection of 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 55

a Road Safety Management System is completed and waiting for commission approval. ARDOT is also 

updating the HSIP Process document based on the information learned from this effort and the latest HSIP 

guidelines.

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes?

Yes

Last year the HSIP Process was undergoing an update that was being reviewed at the Chief Engineer level 

when submitting the report. It was anticipated that the new Process would go into effect by early this year. 

However, it is still undergoing the final stages of review. No proposed changes are currently in effect; however, 

templates and framework have already been developed to allow for a seamless transition once approval is 

received. Additionally, once a vendor has been selected for the roadway safety management software and the 

product has been implemented the HSIP will need to be updated again. 

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

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

performance based on countermeasures in various projects.

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

• Intersection

• Low-Cost Spot Improvements

• Median Barrier

• Roadway Departure

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Shoulder Improvement

• Skid Hazard

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-Crash Data

• Other-Guardrail

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

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

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

pre-dates NCHRP 350 standards.

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

through coordination with our Maintenance Division.

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

of developing these programs to address pedestrian and roadway departure crashes occurring in Arkansas.

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 55

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Intersection related 

crashes

• Volume • Functional classification

• Other-Rural/Urban

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Based on study and approval by Adminstration

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/25/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 55

• Other-Systemic safety improvements

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Based on the suggested 

treatments (roadway departure, 

wet pavement, and wrong-way 

crashes)

• Traffic • Horizontal curvature

• Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Cost Effectiveness:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 55

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Cross-Median Crashes 

• Traffic • Median width

• Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Systemic approach

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011.

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:4

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Systemic-risk based:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 55

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes

• Traffic

• Horizontal curvature

• Other-Minimum of 1 foot 

shoulder

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The process is consistent with the ARDOT HSIP process adopted in 2011

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness:2

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

approach is also considered:1

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:6/6/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Based on HRRR safety program.

• Other-Roadway departure crashes. 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 55

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Traffic

• Volume • Functional classification

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Includes only signing improvements on high risk rural highways using state maintenance 

funds

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Addressing roadway departure crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 55

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Lane miles

• Horizontal curvature

• Roadside features

• Other-Clearzone and shoulder 

widths

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Each segment is analyzed for low cost countermeasures and improvements as well as 

realignment or turn lanes at select locations

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

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

departure crashes

• Other-Roadway departure crashes.

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 55

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes.

• Traffic

• Volume

• Other-State System

• Other-Shoulder width

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

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

Program: Skid Hazard

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-treating spots for wet pavement crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 55

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

• All crashes

• Fatal and serious injury crashes 

only

• Other-Wet pavement crashes

• Traffic

• Horizontal curvature

• Other-Skid resistance 

consideration

• Other-Intersection

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

• Other-Systemic approach 

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Safety analysis by TS in Planning

• Other-The process is consistent with the AHTD HSIP process adopted in 2011 

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:4

Incremental B/C:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

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

based on a certain threshold:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:12/9/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Treating wrong-way crashes and the Act 641 of the 87th Arkansas General Assembly 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 55

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Crash Data

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Meeting federal regulations and better data quality

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 55

• All crashes

• Other-All types of data 

exposure considered for 

improvements

• Other-MIRE roadway data 

elements are the priority for 

improvements

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

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

eCrash.

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

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

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

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

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

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

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

Program: Other-Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2020

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 55

• Other-Roadway departure 

crashes • Traffic • Functional classification

• Other-NHS Routes

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Systemic Approach

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

program?

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

• Other-Will be implemented as part of HSIP Process

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Other-Standard of guardrail:2

Other-On NHS:1

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 97

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers 

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

• Rumble Strips 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis 

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

• Engineering Study 

• SHSP/Local road safety plan 

• Stakeholder input 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 55

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

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

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

the project development process in lieu of road safety assessments.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

HSIP funds. ARDOT is further looking into changing the scope of advanced wrong way detection that is part of 

an in-house research project and include strategic exits between Little Rock and West Memphis under the ITS 

project (Job 012410).

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

elaborate.

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

should be changes from using the crash rate method to the Critical Index crash rate method. 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 55

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

State Fiscal Year

The State Fiscal Years begins July 1st and ends June 30th. 

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $32,630,000 $28,147,228 86.26%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $3,070,000 $1,068,462 34.8%

Totals $35,700,000 $29,215,690 81.84%

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

safety projects? 

0%

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

0%

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

for local safety projects. 

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

$0

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

$900,000
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 55

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?

$19,445,163

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

the future.

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

• Lack of resources and employees needed to accomplish the safety tasks and studies. We lost 2 data 

analysts and 1 engineer.

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

from other tasks.

• Issues with the crash data being reported and collected. 

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

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

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

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

challenges are listed below.

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

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

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

process) for all safety projects. 

• Implementing numerous low-cost countermeasures. 

• Develop/Obtain Safety Management System tool through RFP selection. 

• Streamlining the process of "Change Order" approval. 

• Hired some on-call consultants and are in the process of implementing studies more efficiently. 

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

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

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

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

countermeasures are currently being researched.

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

standards on NHS routes.

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

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

eCrash, the electronic crash reporting system used by ASP.

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

• A bike/pedestrian problem statement was created and ranked as the top planning and fourth overall 

problem statement for research with the ARDOT Transportation Research Committee.

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

rumble strip projects.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 55

• All statewide centerline rumble stripes projects that were implemented are under construction or ready 

for construction.

• On-call consultants assisting with a rural unsignalized intersection project.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 55

General Listing of Projects 

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

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Statewide 

CLRS 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

703 Miles $5013169 $5013169 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

CMB 

Impvts.(Sel. 

Secs.) 

(2022) (S)

Roadside Barrier – cable 19.3 Miles $4911097 $5456775 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 1, 5 

& 10 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Stripe 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

513 Miles $4370000 $4370000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 3 & 

7 Centerline 

Rumble 

Stripe 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

555 Miles $3406171 $3406171 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 2 & 

6 Centerline 

Rumble 

Stripe 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

446 Miles $3241046 $3241046 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 4, 8 

& 9 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Stripe 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

312 Miles $2645000 $2645000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Statewide 

CMB 

Impvts.(Sel. 

Secs.) 

(2022) (S)

Roadside Barrier – cable 19.3 Miles $2188009 $2431121 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Guy - Heber 

Springs 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

8.12 Miles $2137822 $2137822 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Statewide 

CMB 

Impvts.(Sel. 

Secs.) 

(2022) (S)

Roadside Barrier – cable 19.3 Miles $1266900 $1407666 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 7 - 

Deerpark Rd. 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

6.53 Miles $1019698 $1132997 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Traffic Safety 

Planning 

Activities 

(HSIP) (S)

Miscellaneous Transportation 

safety planning

Planning $900000 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Planning Data All SHSP 

strategies

I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

5.29 Miles $752290 $835879 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Guy - Heber 

Springs 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

8.12 Miles $738685 $820761 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Guy - Heber 

Springs 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

8.12 Miles $717308 $797009 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 70 - 

Oakgrove 

Rd. (Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

2.9 Miles $350136 $389040 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Major Collector 4,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Districts 3 & 

7 Centerline 

Rumble 

Stripe 

Impvts. (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

center

555 Miles $196115 $196115 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

I-40 Cable 

Median 

Barrier 

Impvts. (S)

Roadside Barrier – cable 20.06 Miles $193307 $214786 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 7 - 

Deerpark Rd. 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

6.53 Miles $180430 $200478 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Hwy. 49 - 

Hwy. 91 

(Jonesboro) 

(S)

Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

4.87 Miles $178748 $198609 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate17,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Alma - Hwy. 

164 (S)

Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

29.61 Miles $66122 $73469 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialInterstate0 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

W. Cherry St. 

RR Signals 

(Blytheville) 

(S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $65557 $65557 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Hwy. 10 - 

Hwy. 100 

(System 

Preservation 

& ITS 

Impvts.) (S)

Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

2.36 Miles $64778 $71976 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate77,000 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Lonoke Co. 

Line - Hwy. 

67B (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Rumble strips – 

edge or shoulder

11.07 Miles $63650 $70722 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

E. Ash St. 

RR Signals 

Upgrade & 

Surf. 

(Brinkley) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $50276 $50276 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Hwy. 148 - 

So. of Hwy. 

61 (S)

Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

4.28 Miles $33458 $37176 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate24,000 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Work Zones Work Zones 

Queue 

Protection

Guy - Heber 

Springs 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

8.12 Miles $24734 $27483 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 112 - I49 (Hwy. 

412)

Roadside Barrier – cable 4.57 Miles $21585 $23984 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 7 - 

Deerpark Rd. 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

6.53 Miles $18628 $18628 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

W. Fulton St. 

RR Signals 

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $17934 $17935 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

(Ashdown) 

(S)

Highway 

Agency

crossing 

crashes

Oak Bluff Rd. 

- Hwy. 122 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

8.7 Miles $16299 $18110 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Guy - Heber 

Springs 

(Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

8.12 Miles $11925 $11925 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Mississippi 

Ave. - 

Perryville Rd. 

(Hwy. 

10)(L.R.)

Intersection 

geometry

Add/modify 

auxiliary lanes

0.7 Miles $9067 $176205 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther32,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

E. Ash St. 

RR Signals 

Upgrade & 

Surf. 

(Brinkley) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $8000 $8000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Hinton Rd. 

RR Signals 

(Wilton) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $6952 $6952 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Riverview Dr. 

RR Sig. 

Upgrade & 

Surf. (S. of 

Mammoth 

Spring) (S)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $5986 $5986 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

S. Church St. 

RR Signals 

Upgrade 

(Atkins)

Railroad grade 

crossings

Active grade 

crossing equipment 

installation/upgrade

1 Intersections $4443 $4443 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Railroad 

Crossing

Prevent 

railroad 

crossing 

crashes

Hwy. 79 - 

Hwy. 130 

(Stuttgart) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

2.1 Miles $1975 $2194 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 3,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 16 - 

Boone Co. 

Line (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Roadway Pavement surface 

– high friction 

surface

25.33 Miles $1621 $1801 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 2,600 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 55

PROJECT 

NAME

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Hwy. 5 - 

Perry Co. 

Line (Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

17.47 Miles $1525 $1694 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Izard Co. 

Line - Hwy. 

62

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

18 Miles $833 $926 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes

Hwy. 227 - 

Hwy. 7 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder – 

paved or other 

(includes add 

shoulder)

5.91 Miles $250 $277 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departure 

crashes
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 55

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatalities 498 470 550 561 525 516 511 653 695

Serious Injuries 3,066 3,154 2,888 3,032 2,816 2,272 2,389 2,582 2,721

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.487 1.381 1.576 1.569 1.443 1.407 1.377 1.925 1.813

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.154 9.270 8.276 8.480 7.739 6.195 6.440 7.612 7.096

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

52 44 47 52 53 65 60 90 87

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

97 97 65 102 136 140 153 194 193

Number of nonmotorized fatalities and 

serious inj

149 141 112 154 189 205 213 284 280
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 55

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 55

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 55

Value for fatalities and fatality rate is based on the actual FARS fatality numbers for 2017, 2018, 2019, FARS 

ARF number for 2020 and NSC number for 2021. 

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

injuries for 2017-2021 is the actual number using the ARDOT crash data. The number of non-motorized 

fatalities for 2021 is derived from the ARDOT crash data and may be different when FARS is completed for 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

inj

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious inj 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 55

2021. The AVMT for 2017-2020 comes from the FHWA VM-2 table. The 2021 AVMT comes from the ARDOT 

HPMS submittal. 

Describe fatality data source. 

Other

If Other Please describe

National Safety Council, FARS, and FARSARF

Value for fatalities and fatality rate is based on the actual FARS fatality numbers for 2017, 2018, 2019, FARS 

ARF number for 2020 and NSC number for 2021. 

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

injuries for 2017-2021 is the actual number using the ARDOT crash data. The number of non-motorized 

fatalities for 2021 is derived from the ARDOT crash data and may be different when FARS is completed for 

2021. The AVMT for 2017-2020 comes from the FHWA VM-2 table. The 2021 AVMT comes from the ARDOT 

HPMS submittal. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2021

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

33.6 98 0.8 2.32

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

3 9.2 0.99 2.92

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

85.4 249.2 2.32 6.79

Rural Minor Arterial 75.2 269 2.7 9.62

Rural Minor Collector 17.8 77.6 2.67 11.93

Rural Major Collector 91.2 379.8 2.62 10.92

Rural Local Road or 

Street

35.4 176 1.57 7.93

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

43.8 139.2 0.78 2.48

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

11.2 34.6 1.16 3.53
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 55

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

61.2 322.8 1.7 8.99

Urban Minor Arterial 64.4 372 1.45 8.35

Urban Minor Collector 1.8 6.8 2.47 10.09

Urban Major Collector 32.4 181.2 1.8 10.03

Urban Local Road or 

Street

27.8 198.6 1.59 11.06
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 55

Year 2021

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

442.6 1,794.6 1.64 6.67

County Highway 

Agency

63.2 246.4 1.67 6.52

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

58.2 437.4 0.93 7.02

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

Provide additional discussion related to general highway safety trends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

skewed because of the factors previously mentioned. 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 55

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

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

legislature and took effect in the summer of 2020. We have also seen an increase in Non-Motorist KA crashes. 

We are not sure if this increase is due to actual crashes increasing or if it is because of more data being 

collected on these type crashes. There has also been an increase driving behavior such as distracted driving 

and speeding. We are continuing to monitor this trend.

Traffic Safety is working hard to improve safety statewide. Some notable accomplishments and future plans 

are as follows:

• Safety Projects 

o Another statewide wet pavement and pavement friction improvement study is under 

development that will utilize Continuous Pavement Friction Measurement.

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

MASH standards on NHS routes.

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

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates.

o A pedestrian and bike study has begun to address non-motorist safety, this resulted in a need 

for research, and it has been funded.

o A wrong way study is ongoing and has migrated to a statewide systemic study. 

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

o ARDOT uses the pavement preservation program to accomplish shoulder widening and rumble 

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

effective.

o A statewide rural 2-lane centerline rumble strip first project is under construction and the 

remaining jobs are being let to contract.

• Future developments being planned

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

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

help the local agencies to improve safety on local roads using HSIP funds.

o The AR SHSP was updated in 2022. Included was a SHSP Marketing and Communications 

Plan.

o ARDOT is now included in a pooled fund study for continuous pavement friction data led by 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute.

o On-Call consultants are planned to be utilized in the coming year for safety studies and project 

development. Master agreements for four on-call consultants were executed. The first safety 

project that we plan to utilize consultants on is an unsignalized intersection study. 

o ARDOT is working with a consultant to examine the possibilities of using their data for analyzing 

horizontal curves roadway elements. The purpose of collecting this data is to develop a low-cost 

Horizontal Curve Study and incorporate the collected data.

o Several safety analysis tools are being examined for possible use at ARDOT. This spurred 

participation in the FHWA Roadway Safety Management System technical assistance program. 

A request for proposal was created and we are currently in the process of selecting a vendor. 

o ARDOT has approved and created a job number for future educational and media campaigns to 

help bring awareness to the public of safety related topics. For an example ARDOT recently 

released two safety campaigns regarding work zone safety and centerline rumble strips. 

o ARDOT is planning on moving forward with the Roadway Data Improvement Plan, a FHWA 

technical assistance program. This will assess ARDOT's roadway data and make 

recommendations for improvements. Online data query tools and dashboards have been 

developed for public use; one specific tool that has already been developed is the Arkansas 

Crash Analytics Tool (ACAT) which is a GIS online dashboard available to the public.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 55

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2023 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:704.9

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

Reason for established target include the external factors listed below: 

Negative impacts

1. Speed limit increase

2. Increase in drug usage (Opioids and Medical Marijuana) 

3. Distracted driving 

4. Less enforcement due to officer shortages 

5. Increase in average vehicle speed due to lower traffic volume 

6. Increase in reporting and accuracy of accident reporting because some small local agencies are still 

doing paper reports. 

Positive impacts:

1. Increase in highway safety improvements

2. Gas price increase could influence changes in VMT 

3. There are safer vehicles on the road with enhanced safety features 

4. Motorcycle training 

5. Feds provide funds for MPOs to have resources to do their own targets.

6. Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) and mini-STEP programs targeted enforcement grants 

overtime 

The positive impacts are directly related to the SHSP goals. By increasing highway safety improvements, 

Arkansas intends to lower the fatality rate. The established target reflects these impacts.

Number of Serious Injuries:2790.1

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

Reason for established target include the external factors listed below: 

Negative impacts

1. More training is needed for officers reporting on eCrash and eCite due to change in definitions for crash 

reporting. 

2. Percent increase in VMT

Positive impacts

1. Bill signed into law to make street racing a felony
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 55

In 2020, one of the major increases in fatal and suspected serious injury crashes was speeding and aggressive 

driving. There was also a large increase in speeding citations from 2019 to 2020. This bill supports the SHSP 

goals by potentially reducing the amount of speeding vehicles on Arkansas roadways since there will be 

increased penalties. The established target reflects this impact.

Fatality Rate:1.895

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

Reason for established target include the external factors listed below: 

Negative impacts

1. Speed limit increase

2. Increase in drug usage (Opioids and Medical Marijuana) 

3. Distracted driving 

4. Less enforcement due to officer shortages 

5. Increase in average vehicle speed due to lower traffic volume 

Positive impacts:

1. Increase in highway safety improvements

2. Gas price increase could influence changes in VMT 

3. There are safer vehicles on the road with enhanced safety features 

The positive impacts are directly related to the SHSP goals. By increasing highway safety improvements, 

Arkansas intends to lower the fatality rate. The established target reflects these impacts.

Serious Injury Rate:7.815

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

Reason for established target include the external factors listed below: 

Negative impacts

1. More training is needed for officers reporting on eCrash and eCite due to change in definitions for crash 

reporting. 

2. In 2020 there was decrease due to lower traffic volumes 

3. Percent increase in VMT

Positive impacts

1. Bill signed into law to make street racing a felony

In 2020, one of the major increases in fatal and suspected serious injury crashes was speeding and aggressive 

driving. There was also a large increase in speeding citations from 2019 to 2020. This bill supports the SHSP 

goals by potentially reducing the amount of speeding vehicles on Arkansas roadways since there will be 

increased penalties. The established target reflects this impact.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:274.4
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 55

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

Reason for established target include the external factors listed below: 

Negative impacts 

1. Increase in reporting agencies and better reporting has increased contributed to the increase in nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries. 

Positive impacts

1. Arkansas issued a new non-emergency number for Arkansas State Police *ASP to help with safety 

concerns that may arise on the road to quickly address issues before turning into something more 

serious.

With the addition of a new non-emergency number for ASP, anyone can call the ASP with concerns regarding 

the safety of all road users. These calls could include information about pedestrians that appear intoxicated, 

vehicles that are inoperable on the roadway where a pedestrian is attempting to fix the disabled vehicle, etc. 

This supports the SHSP by focusing on issues that put pedestrians at a higher risk of an accident. The 

established target reflects this impact.

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

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

was finalized in 2017.

Description of Methodology

The target-setting method, like previous years, is generally described below:

1. Calculate moving averages for the last five years. A moving average “smooths” the variation from year to 

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

available (2013-2017, 2014-2018, 2015-2019, 2016-2020 and 2017-2021).

2. Calculate the average of these five data points.

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

best indicator of future performance given numerous external factors outside of ARDOT's control. For instance, 

to account for the 28.4% increase in the number of agencies turning in crash reports from 2015 to 2021, which 

contributed to an increase in total crash reports from 67,607 in 2015 to 82,301 in 2021, an adjustment factor 

may be considered to account for the uncertainty of what the final numbers will be, rather than attempting to 

predict exact numbers.

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

targets.

Please see attached Safety Performance Targets Document for more details.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 55

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 in the 

performance targets section (#34) of this report.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2021 Safety Performance Targets (based 

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

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TARGETS ACTUALS

Number of Fatalities 536.3 580.0

Number of Serious Injuries 3103.8 2556.0

Fatality Rate 1.560 1.593

Serious Injury Rate 9.043 7.016

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

220.3 234.2

Data is based on the latest fatality and serious injury data. It does not appear that ARDOT will be able to meet 

its 2021 safety performance targets for Number of Fatalities, Fatality Rate and Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injury. There was sudden increase in fatal crashes in 2020 and 2021 during the pandemic. This 

increase in fatalities is due mainly to higher speeds, less law enforcement, and increased reporting due to the 

increased use of eCrash.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

63 72 83 80 74 86 92
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 55

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

244 233 257 263 212 221 224

FARS data is not finalized currently for 2021.
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 55

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries 

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

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

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

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

could also be used as a performance measurement. 

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

the State's program level evaluations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been installed on several ramps/curves/intersections across the state which has proved to be effective on 

preventing wet-pavement crashes. We have been receiving positive feedback from the public and additional 

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

pavement friction improvements is about to complete. Shoulder Rumble Strips/Stripes have been installed on 

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

curves located in rural areas. Similarly, Centerline Rumble Stripes (CLRS) have been installed in passing lane 

segments and another round of CLRS on 2-lane rural routes is under construction. Currently, ARDOT is in the 

process of studying the mumble stripe design for low noise and its safety effectiveness compared to rumble 

stripes. If the evaluation is positive, it will be implemented statewide where noise will be an issue. ARDOT will 

continue to evaluate these projects as data and resources become available. The new HSIP Process being 

developed will develop a method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of sub-programs. However, an 

evaluation of the entire HSIP and sub-programs still needs to be developed. The process has been reviewed 

by FHWA and is under ARDOT Administration review. Additionally, ARDOT selected a vendor for a Roadway 

Safety Management System that should help with countermeasure selections and program level evaluations. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations 

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process 

• More systemic programs 

• Organizational change 

• Policy change 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 55

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

still getting many of these programs off the ground.

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

conditions throughout the State by following the HSIP guidelines. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Year 2021

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Roadway Departure Head on 391.2 1,607 1.08 4.43

Intersections Intersections 86.8 647.8 0.24 1.78

Older Drivers All 133.6 419.2 0.37 1.15

Motorcycles Speed-related 70.8 300.4 0.19 0.82

Work Zones Other (define) 15.8 54.4 0.04 0.15

Young Drivers All 65.4 450.8 0.18 1.24

Pedestrians/Bicycles Vehicle/pedestrian 70 149.6 0.19 0.41

Aggressive Speed-related 136.4 471.2 0.38 1.3

CMV All 84.8 188.4 0.23 0.52

Impaired All 125.2 276.4 0.34 0.76
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 55

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 55

Work zones targeted crash type is other- work zone related crashes. 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019 2016-2020 2017-2021
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 55

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure 

effectiveness evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Mumble Strips 

Description: 

Study Included Shoulder and Centerline 

Rumbles and Mumbles for a before/after 

comparison. 

Target Crash Type: All 

Number of Installations: 32 

Number of Installations: 32 

Miles Treated: 

Years Before: 2 

Years After: 2 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

The 2 years prior to the project's various 

installation dates showed a total of 138 

crashes, with 24 being KA crashes. In the 

2 years after the substantial completion 

date for each location, 192 crashes have 

occurred, and 13 of these crashes were 

KA. Although there was an increase in 

total crashes, fatal and suspected serious 

injury crashes had a reduction of 46 

percent. These mumble strips/stripes 

were implemented in multiple jobs across 

the state. 

File Name: ANLYS- 2Year Rumble Mumble (with CLMS analysis).xlsx
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 55

Project Effectiveness

Provide the following information for previously implemented projects that the State evaluated this reporting period. 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 55

Compliance Assessment

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

 06/14/2022

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2022 To: 2027

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

 2027

The 2022 SHSP was approved on June 14th of 2022 by the Commission and Director. 

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 55

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 

[55]

100 100

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 30

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

100 74

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

100 74

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 20

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 20

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

100 30
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 55

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 

[181]

100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192) [182]

100 100

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 94.44 94.44 100.00 73.50 100.00 93.64 100.00 92.22 100.00 100.00

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

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

SEGMENTS 

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

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

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

also be utilized. 

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

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

INTERSECTIONS 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 55

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

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

to input junction geometry and traffic control are underway. We have 26% left to go to have all public road intersection data completed. After that, we will be in full data maintenance mode as routes are updated.

INTERCHANGES

• ARDOT is developing an Interchange/Complex Intersection dataset that will serve as a parent/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 – currently have a draft ArcGIS Enterprise tool in place to draw polygons

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

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

• Transcend Spatial Solutions Intersection Manager 

• ESRI - ArcMap/ArcGIS Online/ArcGIS Field Maps/ArcGIS Enterprise 
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 54 of 55

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Target Setting - Safety (2023) Signed.pdf

Evaluation:

ANLYS- 2Year Rumble Mumble (with CLMS analysis).xlsx

Compliance Assessment:
2022 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 55 of 55

Glossary

5 year rolling average: means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data 

(e.g. annual fatality rate).

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

collaborative process.

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

that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous 

road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.

HMVMT: means hundred million vehicle miles traveled.

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

dated February 13, 2013.

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

monitor changes in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and 

objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a system.

Systemic safety improvement: means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high 

risk roadway features that are correlated with specific severe crash types.

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

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

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