Page 1 of 35

ALASKA 

2020 ANNUAL REPORT 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 35

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 .......................................................................................................................7

Project Implementation .........................................................................................................................9

Funds Programmed ...........................................................................................................................9

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................11

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................17

General Highway Safety Trends ......................................................................................................17

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................23

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................25

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................26

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................26

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................26

Project Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................29

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................30

Optional Attachments ..........................................................................................................................34

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................35
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 35

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

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

schedules, lists, or other data. 

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

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

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

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

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

surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning 

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

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

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

not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for 

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

such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 35

Executive Summary

Under the Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Alaska Department of Transportation & 

Public Facilities (DOT&PF) identifies high risk intersections and roads, scopes and prioritizes corrective 

projects, funds the most cost-effective projects, and evaluates actual project and program effectiveness. HSIP 

dollars are distributed to the most effective projects from a single statewide fund. The purpose of the Alaska 

HSIP is to “maximize lives saved and major injuries eliminated per dollar spent.” We currently measure our 

post-construction program benefit-cost ratio at approximately 7:1, a successful ratio achieved through a 

program that blends spot and systemic projects throughout the State in urban as well as rural locations. 

Regional Traffic and Safety personnel identify, scope, estimate, and rank candidate projects according to 

benefit-cost ratio (ranked projects) and potential for crash reduction (non-ranked projects). HQ Traffic & Safety 

reviews proposed new projects, works with the regions to clarify project description and scope, and submits 

recommended projects to DOT&PF's Chief Engineer for approval. Following approval of new HSIP projects, 

HQ Traffic and Safety selects the most effective projects and proposes a statewide HSIP funding plan for the 

coming federal fiscal year for approval by the Chief Engineer and the Director of Program Development. 

The HSIP funding plan typically includes a blend of on-going projects and new projects. Regions design and 

construct funded projects and generate before-after studies when three years of post-improvement crash data 

becomes available. HQ Traffic & Safety manages funding for the statewide HSIP, annually updates the HSIP 

Handbook, maintains program effectiveness data, and produces the annual HSIP report. 

Important Note on Performance Measures calculated by Online Reporting Tool: Alaska does not yet have 

serious injury data for 2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 35

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment. 

Program Structure

Program Administration 

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

The general structure of Alaska's HSIP is described in Sec. 1.3 of the Alaska HSIP Handbook: 

Regional Traffic and Safety Engineers in Alaska’s three regions (Northern, Central and Southcoast) screen 

crash data and consider other information to identify projects. Projects can be either ranked or non-ranked. 

Ranked projects are implemented at locations with high crash history and are ranked by analyzing the benefit 

cost of specific safety-related improvements using estimated accident reduction factors and improvement 

costs. Non-ranked projects are implemented at locations with potential for severe crashes identified in SHSP 

strategies and may be spot or system-wide improvements. System wide, or systemic, improvement projects 

are implemented to reduce potential for fatal and serious injuries by mitigating road conditions or 

characteristics associated with specific crash types. Non-infrastructure projects are limited to those types 

specifically included in Appendix A (p. A-11) of this handbook, a reprinting of 23 U.S.C. Section 148 (a)(4)(B). 

Alaska’s three regional traffic & safety sections submit proposed projects to the State Traffic and Safety 

Engineer for review. HQ Traffic & Safety reviews the proposed new projects, works with regions to clarify 

project descriptions and scope, and submits recommended projects to the Chief Engineer for advancement as 

safety projects. Following Chief Engineer approval of new HSIP projects, the State Traffic and Safety Engineer 

proposes a list of new and on-going projects for funding and coordinates with HQ Project Development to 

prepare a funding plan for the coming federal fiscal year. 

State Traffic and Safety personnel manage the federal funds for approved projects. Regional Traffic and Safety 

personnel work with preconstruction and construction personnel to ensure projects remain consistent with their 

HSIP scope throughout design and construction. The regions conduct follow-up studies to determine the 

effectiveness of completed projects. HQ Traffic & Safety summarizes the overall effectiveness of the statewide 

program in the annual HSIP Report. 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Engineering

HSIP program manager is located with the DOT&PF Statewide Design and Engineering Services division 

(Chief Engineer's office). DOT&PF regional HSIP practitioners are located within the regional preconstruction 

divisions. 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 35

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

 Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process 

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

Safety projects on all public roads in Alaska are eligible to compete for HSIP funding. The same process is 

used to prioritize projects on both state and non-state (including local and tribal) roads. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

 Design 

 Districts/Regions 

 Governors Highway Safety Office 

 Maintenance 

 Operations 

 Planning 

 Traffic Engineering/Safety 

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Design: Regional Traffic and Safety personnel identify, scope, estimate, and rank candidate projects according 

to benefit-cost ratio (ranked projects) and potential for crash reduction (non-ranked projects). 

HQ Traffic & Safety reviews proposed new projects, works with the regions to clarify project description and 

scope, and submits recommended projects to the DOT&PF Chief Engineer for funding approval. 

Planning: Funding plan developed in coordination with the Office of Program Development. 

Maintenance and Operations: M&O staff consulted to determine alternative project nominations where safety 

problems may exist despite the lack of historic crash data. 

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

safety. 

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) 

 Tribal Agency 

SHSP is the forum through which external partners participate in the HSIP planning process. 

Describe coordination with external partners. 

Other than through SHSP implementation, there are no formal mechanisms in the program for coordination 

with local agencies. However, Regional Traffic & Safety Engineers continuously work with external partners to 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 35

identify and develop HSIP project nominations. Their input is valued and considered in the development and 

delivery of HSIP projects. 

Coordination with FHWA is described under the most recent Stewardship and Oversight Agreement. 

Program Methodology 

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes 

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

 HSIP (no subprograms) 

Program: HSIP (no subprograms)

Date of Program Methodology:3/27/2020

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 

 All crashes  Volume

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

 Crash frequency

 Crash rate

 Critical rate

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

program?

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

 Competitive application process
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 35

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:90

Available funding:10

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 18

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic 

improvements? 

 Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

 High friction surface treatment 

 Horizontal curve signs 

 Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation 

 Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

 Upgrade Guard Rails 

HFST was previously installed as an experimental treatment systemically at several urban intersections. The 

treatment did not perform well at those urban locations. The aggregate was ripped out over a few winter 

seasons by studded tires used by many drivers in Alaska. Without the aggregate, the remaining surface had 

less friction than typical pavement. HSIP funds are being used to return the urban intersections to typical 

pavement sections. 

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

 Crash data analysis 

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

 Engineering Study 

 Road Safety Assessment 

 SHSP/Local road safety plan 

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

Not at this time. 

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

No

Not at this time. HSIP funding was used to develop Alaska specific calibration factors for some SPFs in the 

HSM. DOT&PF had envisioned the calibration factors for use at planning level for HSIP nominations, but the 

calibration factors were much higher than expected and may not result in reliable predicted outcomes.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 35

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed 

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $42,461,951 $30,074,551 70.83%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$900,000 $900,000 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$8,381,705 $13,949,366 166.43%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$8,381,705 $12,951,484 154.52%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $63,000 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $5,420,244 $3,579,459 66.04%

Totals $65,545,605 $61,517,860 93.86%

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

safety projects? 

$1,216,786

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

$964,440

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

$1,858,000

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

$1,237,004

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%
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 35

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

$16,102,295

Last year, CMAQ & NHPP funds were transferred in. Department needs for surface transportation and NHPP 

were greater, so we chose to advance construct our HSIP projects to allow us to obligate a larger NHPP and 

STP program. This year, $16,102,295 was transferred to the STBG Flexible Program.

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

the future.

Alaska DOT&PF believe the flexibility lost under the FAST Act by removing eligibility for non-infrastructure 

projects is an impediment not only to obligation of HSIP funds but to the purpose of the HSIP program listed in 

23 USC 148(b)(2) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 35

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

Fairbanks Area 

Signal Upgrades 

(combines 

10NR01, 13NN05, 

14NR01, 14NR02)

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

57 Intersections $507819 $507819 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Steese 

Expressway/Chena 

Hot Springs Road 

Ramp Termini 

Roundabouts

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

2 Intersections $5235985 $5235985 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther8,155 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Fairbanks Ramp 

Sight Distance 

Improvements

Alignment Horizontal and 

vertical alignment

3 Locations $125247.6 $139164 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

NR Guardrail 

Inventory and 

Upgrades

Roadside Barrier - other 970 Miles $3537003 $3537003 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

Fairbanks Area 

Concrete Barrier 

Upgrade (HSIP)

Roadside Barrier - concrete 35 Miles $811984.5 $902205 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

Old Steese @ Fox 

Shoulder Widening

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2 Miles $240000 $240000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major Collector 1,446 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

NR Systemic 

Signal Upgrades

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

8 Intersections $187200 $208000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 Multiple / 

Varies

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 35

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

Sterling Highway & 

Main Street 

(Homer) 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $546465.744 $607184.16 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther11,405 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Parks Hwy Safety 

Corridor Median 

and Cont. Lighting

Access 

management

Grassed median 

- extend existing

6 Miles $11164754.48 $11164754.48 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

head-on 

crashes

George Parks 

Highway Systemic 

Passing Lanes 

Project

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

80.2 Miles $919385.51 $919385.51 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

passing 

crashes

Bethel Ridgecrest 

Drive School Zone 

Upgrades

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1 Miles $127980 $142200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,982 20 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Identify and 

implement 

appropriate 

engineering 

strategies to 

address 

high-crash 

locations 

involving 

pedestrians

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 109.4

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $2781442.8 $3090492 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 111.3

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $7154835.3 $7949817 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 104.7

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $2348844.3 $2609827 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 35

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

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 113.6

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $1704626.1 $1894029 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 109.6

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $2852556.3 $3169507 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 110.5

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $975183.057 $1083536.73 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Seward Highway 

Rockfall Mitigation, 

MP 113.9

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Locations $1687082.4 $1874536 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther9,283 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Glenn Hwy Median 

Barrier, MP 30-34

Roadside Barrier - other 3.5 Miles $3524221.989 $3915802.21 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther27,750 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

head-on 

crashes

Tudor Rd at C St 

and Dimond Blvd at 

C St - Right Turn 

Channelization

Intersection 

geometry

Splitter island - 

install on one or 

more approaches

2 Intersections $360000 $400000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 35

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

Minnesota Dr 

Weaving Lane

Interchange 

design

Acceleration / 

deceleration / 

merge lane

1 Miles $908.88 $908.88 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther48,285 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadways Improve 

roadway 

safety 

through 

HSIP 

qualified 

activities and 

projects

Old Glenn Hwy and 

Knick Goose Bay 

Rd: Wider Lane 

Lines

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

23.5 Miles $900000 $1000000 HRRR 

Special Rule 

(23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

Bogard Rd at 

Engstrom Rd / 

Green Forest Dr 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

2 Intersections $270000 $300000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Vine Rd at 

Hollywood Rd 

Intersection 

Improvement

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $400500 $445000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

HSIP: Arctic Blvd 

RR Signal 

Relocation

Railroad grade 

crossings

Upgrade railroad 

crossing signal

1 Locations $58500 $65000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,490 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Gambell St Utility 

Pole Removal & 

Increased Lighting

Roadside Removal of 

roadside objects 

(trees, poles, 

etc.)

1 Miles $1000000 $1000000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther15,512 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

Gambell & Ingra 

Streets Overhead 

Signal Indications

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

10 Signal heads $658800 $732000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

HSIP: HFST 

Removal in Select 

Locations

Roadway Pavement 

surface - 

miscellaneous

5 Locations $680177.367 $755752.63 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 35

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

address 

intersection 

crashes

A Street Midtown 

Couplet - Overhead 

Signal Indication 

Upgrades

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

additional signal 

heads

2 Intersections $705600 $784000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

Sterling Highway 

Shoulder Widening 

- Soldotna to Clam 

Gulch

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

20.3 Miles $3262439.286 $3624932.54 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther4,677 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Implement 

infrastructure 

to address 

SVROR and 

head-on 

crashes

Akakeek Street and 

Ridgecrest Drive 

(in Bethel) 

Intersection 

Improvements

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew 

angle

1 Intersections $28440 $31600 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major Collector 5,169 30 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

SIT Halibut Point 

Road and Peterson 

Avenue 

Intersection Safety 

Improvements

Lighting Intersection 

lighting

1 Intersections $303800 $303800 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address 

intersection 

crashes

YAK School Zone 

Crossing 

Improvements 

HSIP

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1 Locations $340789.4 $340789.4 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Collector 1,013 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Implement 

appropriate 

engineering 

strategies to 

address 

high-crash 

locations 

involving 

older drivers 

and 

pedestrians

SR Regionwide 

Horizontal 

Alignment Signing 

Compliance

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

36 Curves $359525.29 $359525.29 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadways Implement 

infrastructure 

projects to 

address runoff-road 

crashes

FFY 20-21 

Statewide HSIP 

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 N/A $789303.6 $877004 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 N/A noninfrastructureRoadways N/A
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 35

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

Safety 

Management

NOR REG 

SMS/HSIP 

FFY2018-2020

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 N/A $324000 $360000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 N/A noninfrastructureRoadways N/A
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 35

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends 

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

years. 

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatalities 72 59 51 73 65 84 79 80 67

Serious Injuries 404 359 340 316 337 392 343 0 0

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.568 1.235 1.052 1.503 1.288 1.602 1.431 1.458 1.138

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.796 7.512 7.013 6.507 6.680 7.475 6.216 0.000 0.000

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

11 10 7 17 12 13 17 15 8

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

19 11 45 37 56 55 38 0 0
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 35

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 35

Important Note on Performance Measures calculated by Online Reporting Tool: Alaska does not yet have 

serious injury data for 2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020. 

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2019

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

 (per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

13 31.8 1.52 3.72

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

5.6 10.2 1.85 3.21

Rural Minor Arterial 3.8 6.4 3.06 5.16

Rural Minor Collector 5.8 11.6 3.46 7.5

Rural Major Collector 6.2 18 2.06 5.96

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 35

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 Local Road or 

Street

4.2 9.2 0.82 2

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

9 19.8 1.19 2.62

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

12.6 43.8 1.34 4.62

Urban Minor Arterial 6.6 22.6 1.24 4.18

Urban Minor Collector 1.4 4.2 1.19 3.45

Urban Major Collector 1.4 14.4 0.57 5.96

Urban Local Road or 

Street

1.6 8.4 0.4 2

Other 0.2 9 0 0

Missing Function 

Class

0.2 5.8 0 0
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 35

Year 2019

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

60.6 155.2 0.6 0

County Highway 

Agency

7.6 30.6 0.36 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

0.4 0 0 0

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

5 12 0.4 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0.2 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0.4 0 5.27 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0 0.2 0 0

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0 0.2 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0 0 0 0

Other/Unknown 0.4 7 0.16 0

Federal 0.2 0 0 0

Important Note on Performance Measures calculated by Online Reporting Tool: Alaska does not yet have 

serious injury data for 2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020. 

Traffic volumes categorized by ownership only available since 2018.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 35

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2021 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:75.0

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based on trend analysis, the 

influence of external factors, and the consideration of select scenarios. This target is representative of an 

optimistic view of annual fatality numbers leveling off, possibly decreasing in light of COVID-19 factors, even 

considering the external upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. 

Alaska's SHSP was updated in 2018 and continues to reflect the State's vision of Toward Zero Deaths. 

Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will 

assist Alaska in consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision.

Number of Serious Injuries:330.0

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based on trend analysis, the 

influence of external factors, and the consideration of select scenarios. This target is representative of an 

optimistic view of annual serious injury numbers continuing to decline even considering the external upward 

pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. Alaska's SHSP was updated in 

2018 and continues to reflect the State's vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will 

keep the TZD vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in consideration of 

program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision.

Fatality Rate:1.400

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based on trend analysis, the 

influence of external factors, and the consideration of select scenarios. This target is representative of an 

optimistic view of annual fatality numbers leveling off even considering the external upward pressures for this 

performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. It is possible, however, that traffic volumes will 

decrease more than expected, resulting in a higher fatality rate than expected. Alaska's SHSP was updated in 

2018 and continues to reflect the State's vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will 

keep the TZD vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska in consideration of 

program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision.

Serious Injury Rate:6.000

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based on trend analysis, the 

influence of external factors, and the consideration of select scenarios. This target is representative of an 

optimistic view of annual serious injury numbers continuing to decline even considering the external upward 

pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely scenarios. It is possible, however, that traffic 

volumes will decrease more than expected, resulting in a higher serious injury rate than expected. Alaska's 

SHSP was updated in 2018 and continues to reflect the State's vision of Toward Zero Deaths. Reporting on 

this target annually will keep the TZD vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts and will assist Alaska 

in consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 35

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:60.0

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

Alaska followed the process described in FHWA-SA-16-101 to establish targets based on trend analysis, the 

influence of external factors, and the consideration of select scenarios. This target is representative of an 

upward trend combined with external upward pressures for this performance measure in light of the most likely 

scenarios. Alaska's SHSP was updated in 2018 and continues to reflect the State's vision of Toward Zero 

Deaths. Reporting on this target annually will keep the TZD vision firmly planted in Alaska's traffic safety efforts 

and will assist Alaska in consideration of program improvements to reinforce the SHSP TZD vision. 

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

safety performance targets. 

Both the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) Executive Director and Anchorage 

Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Coordinator were included in meetings during the 

development of initial target recommendations that were delivered to DOT&PF management for review and 

edits. 

The Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) was involved in establishing targets throughout the entire process. 

An AHSO data analyst attended every meeting and was instrumental in the analysis of data trends and 

external factors. The Governor's highway safety representative was a signatory to the memo signed by the 

Governor establishing the State's targets. 

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2019 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 75.0 75.0

Number of Serious Injuries 350.0

Fatality Rate 1.500 1.383

Serious Injury Rate 7.000

Non-Motorized Fatalities and 

Serious Injuries

55.0 13.0

DOT&PF’s primary effort in the upcoming year must be to improve and stabilize our data reporting and 

analysis infrastructure and eliminate the data entry backlog. Alaska does not yet have serious injury data for 

2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020. 

Fatalities: The 5 yr average meets the target. 

Fatality Rate: The 5 yr average is lower than the target. 

Serious Injuries: Serious injury data is not available for 2018 and 2019. See explanation above. 

Serious Injury Rate: Serious injury data is not available for 2018 and 2019. See explanation above. 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 35

Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries: Serious injury data is not available for 2018 and 2019. See 

explanation above.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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

years of age and older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

5 3 11 11 9 10 15

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

18 18 22 26 7 0 0

DOT&PF’s primary effort in the upcoming year must be to improve and stabilize our data reporting and 

analysis infrastructure and eliminate the data entry backlog. Alaska does not yet have serious injury data for 

2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 35

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness 

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

 Benefit/Cost Ratio 

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

The overall benefit / cost ratio of Alaska's HSIP program is 7.2:1 over the last 5 years of completed projects 

with at least 3 years of post construction crash data available. The B/C ratio includes seven projects which may 

be considered outliers due to their high B/C ratios and excluding them would result in a 5 yr program B/C of 

2.4:1. 

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

 HSIP Obligations 

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements 

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2019

SHSP Emphasis 

Area

Targeted 

Crash 

Type

Number 

of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number 

of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

 (per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury 

Rate

 (per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 28.6 21.6 0.53 0.41 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 28.4 53.6 0.52 1.05 0 0 0

Intersections 13.8 79.4 0.26 1.51 0 0 0

Pedestrians 12 20.2 0.22 0.38 0 0 0

Bicyclists 0.8 9.8 0.01 0.19 0 0 0

Older Drivers 8.4 7.8 0.15 0.15 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 8.2 22.4 0.15 0.43 0 0 0

Work Zones 1.2 4.4 0.02 0.08 0 0 0

Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 35

Important Note on Performance Measures calculated by Online Reporting Tool: Alaska does not yet have 

serious injury data for 2018 - 2019. Our goal is to catch up on 2018 - 2019 crash data entry by March 2020.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018 2015-2019
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 35

Project Effectiveness

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

Alaska did not have any completed projects that had 3 years post-construction crash data on which to evaluate performance. The process DOT&PF uses to evaluate all HSIP projects is outlined in Alaska's HSIP Handbook.
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 35

Compliance Assessment

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

 01/21/2019

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2018 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

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

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12) [12]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 

[8]

100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9) [9]

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21) [21]

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20) [20]

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 

[24]

100 100 100 75

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10) [10]

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11) [11]

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13) [13]

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18) [18]

Functional Class 

(19) [19]

100 100 100 100 100 100
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 35

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Median Type (54) 

[55]

60 60

Access Control (22) 

[23]

100 100

One/Two Way 

Operations (91) [93]

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31) [32]

100 100 100 80

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79) [81]

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4) [4]

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120) [110]

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122) [112]

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123) [113]

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126) 

[116]

30 30

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131) 

[131]

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79) [81]

100 100

AADT Year (80) [82] 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139) [129]

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178) [168]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

100 100
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 35

ROAD TYPE *MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

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

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197) [187]

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201) [191]

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 

[177]

100 100

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195) [185]

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199) [189]

Interchange Type 

(182) [172]

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): 92.22 92.22 28.75 28.75 63.64 63.64 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00

*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. 

The response below is unchanged from the 2019 annual report. While there was not substantial progress this year toward completing MIRE FDEs, the plan is still valid and we expect to meet the 2026 compliance date. To help lay the 

groundwork for positive progress, GIS staff is meeting weekly with the HPMS staff to start to address the overlapping requirements between HPMS and MIRE. 

Alaska DOT&PF's Statewide Design and Engineering Services (D&ES) division continues to use R&H to maintain the state's road centerline/linear reference system network as well as the related roadway features and attributes required 

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

D&ES is in the process of developing a plan to meet the MIRE FDE requirements and deadline by reviewing each FDE and grouping them into the following categories: 

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

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

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

 Elements which the department needs clarification to fully understand and develop a solution. 
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 35

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

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

 Seek clarification from FHWA on some of the FDEs 

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

 Designate data owners and data stewards 

 Verify data sources and secure funding (if needed) 

 Develop a strategy to prioritize element deployment 

 Deploy the initial subset of prioritized elements (likely to be those that already exist or could be derived from the current geodatabase)
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 35

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

L_8-31-20 HSIP Ann Report Cover.pdf

HSIP Hdbk 19th Ed FINAL_200327.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2020 Alaska Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 35

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.