Page 1 of 53

ARKANSAS

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 53

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................38

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................40

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................41

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................41

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................42

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................47

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................48
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 53

Disclaimer

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.”
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 53

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 

2019 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019). The format of this report is consistent with the reporting guidelines 

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

follows:

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

local agencies to improve safety on local roads. 

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

improvement study is under development. 

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

standards on NHS routes. 

• A new round of Cable Median Barrier installation has been approved to continue to reduce and 

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates and other high speed highways. 

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

a standard item on all ARDOT projects involving signal work. 

• Two rural roundabout projects are anticipated to be let in September 2019. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Online data query tools and dashboards are being developed for possible public use. 

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

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

stages of obtaining buy in by the administration. 

• ARDOT has a pilot program with Abley to examine the possibilities of using this product for analyzing 

horizontal curves. 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 53

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

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

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

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

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

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

edition of HSIP Manual published in January, 2010.

COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION

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

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

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

Analyze Data

High risk locations identified through the problem identification process as well as requests from A R DOT 

officials, A R DOT Divisions and District Offices, public officials, and other interested parties provide a basis for 

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

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

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

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

whichever is more relevant. This network screening tool 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 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 53

o Environmental factors 

• Crash pattern analysis 

• Collision diagram for intersection analysis 

Identify Potential Countermeasures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

systemic study could be the skew angle of intersections, median types, and presence of signal Backplates. A 

systemic study can also target a specific type of crash across the roadway system; for example, system-wide 

improvements such as installation of rumble strips, median cable barriers, curve delineators, etc., may be 

recommended to address roadway departure crashes. 

Assess Site Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• confirm the previous analysis and proposed countermeasures based on ;

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

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

Assess Countermeasure Effectiveness (Economic Appraisal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

process. 

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

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

sources including but not limited to the CMF-Clearinghouse website, HSM, research studies, and in-house past 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 53

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

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

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

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

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

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

screened and ranked for prioritization.

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

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

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

Division staff and the Technology Transfer Program. The ARDOT continues to coordinate with the Arkansas 

State Police through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee and has implemented eCrash and the 

Advance program that allows law enforcement agencies and other State and local agencies to have better 

access to crash data on all public roads, and run analytics and produce reports on numerous aspects of the 

crash data. 

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

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

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

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

road in the LRS.

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

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

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

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

Roadway Inventory Data for each of these points in the future.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assist them in developing good safety projects. Currently, two classes offered by the Center for Training 

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

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

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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

back accordingly. If there are significant amount of changes i.e. more than 2 million dollars, that usually 

requires the Chief Engineer's approval. Traffic Safety also works on the development of specification for the 

new countermeasures to make sure their installation is correct. This requires input from the other 

aforementioned Divisions including the Construction Division as necessary.

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

Division, the Districts, the System Information and Research Division and the Environmental Division are 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 53

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equipment and training to local law enforcement agencies for eCrash.

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

elaborate. 

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

Manual (HSM) on case by case basis. TSS now has four engineers working on different safety programs. Prior 

to May 2011, TSS did not have an engineer. TSS has marketed the SHSP (approved by FHWA in July 2017) 

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

research for calibration of the HSM Safety Performance Functions for the state of Arkansas has been 

completed, although the lack of quality data yielded unreliable results. Additionally, TSS is continuing other 

efforts to improve data analysis processes and tools. ARDOT continued to be a member State in the 

Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. An HSIP Evaluation Peer Review meeting 

was held during the 2018 Federal Fiscal Year. ARDOT is in the process of updating the HSIP Process 

document based on the information learned from this effort and the new HSIP guidelines. In 2017 Arkansas 

updated the Strategic Highway Safety Plan for the State. This process was done in coordination with a steering 

committee which encompassed many stakeholders from the four E's with representatives from many 

government agencies as well as private industries. Action plans were developed by sub-committees for each 

emphasis area. These action plans will be tracked in an ongoing fashion throughout the life of the plan.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 53

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Updated HSIP process document comments have been addressed. Final review currently underway.

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-Pavement Marking Improvements

• Other-Crash Data

• Other-Roundabouts

• Other-Guardrail

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:7/1/2017

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 Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 53

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? 

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Low-Cost Spot Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/25/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Systemic safety improvements

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 crashes, 

wet pavement crashes, severe crashes, 

wrong-way crashes) 

Traffic Horizontal curvature 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 53

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

program? 

No

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:2

Cost Effectiveness:1

Program: Median Barrier

Date of Program Methodology:6/1/2019

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Median width Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Other-Systemic approach

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

program? 

No
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 53

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:4

Cost Effectiveness:2

Other-Systemic-risk based:1

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2014

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Traffic Horizontal curvature Other-Minimum of 1 foot shoulder 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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? 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 53

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Cost Effectiveness:2

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

approach is also considered:1

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:6/6/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Based on HRRR safety program.

• Other-Roadway departure crashes. 

What is the funding approach for this program? 

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? 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 53

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

funds

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• Other-Addressing roadway departure crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

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? 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 53

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:1/1/2016

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.

• Other-systematic approach to upgrade to 6” markings 

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-Roadway departure crashes. 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

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
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 53

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:1/1/2013

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-treating spots for wet pavement crashes

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

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 

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? 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 53

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Safety analysis by TS in Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:4

Incremental B/C:2

Cost Effectiveness:2

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

based on a certain threshold:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:12/9/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

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

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

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 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 53

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding:1

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Pavement Marking Improvements

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Other-Systematic approach to upgrade to 6" markings.

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 Lane miles Other-State system 

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-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 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 53

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 

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 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 53

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

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

Program: Other-Roundabouts

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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 

Traffic 

Volume 

Population 

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-Cost effectiveness and availability of funds.

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

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:3
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 53

Cost Effectiveness:2

Program: Other-Guardrail

Date of Program Methodology:1/1/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

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-Certain funds will be set aside for guardrail upgrades.

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

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

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

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

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 42

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• Cable Median Barriers

• High friction surface treatment

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 53

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

• Traffic Control Device Rehabilitation

• Upgrade Guard Rails

• Wrong way driving treatments

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

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

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

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

conduct economic appraisal and develop project scopes.

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

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

the various aspects of safety problems throughout the state.

Multidisciplinary Roadway Safety Design Reviews are being performed as part of the project development 

process.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

ARDOT is looking into the modern ITS techs as AV/CV technology is advancing forward. Our State HSIP does 

not include any CV technologies as of now; although, the more well-known ITS techs such as variable 

message signs, speed display monitors, etc. are still being utilized. Automated Work Zone Information (AWIS) 

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

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

Yes

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

As part of the HSIP process in Arkansas, the steps in 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.

Updated HSIP process document comments have been addressed. Final review currently underway.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 53

Project Implementation 

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State 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) $52,229,000 $28,048,985 53.7%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $7,270,416 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)

$34,886,000 $38,966,002 111.7%

State and Local Funds $11,073,614 $12,675,452 114.47%

Totals $98,188,614 $86,960,855 88.57%

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 development 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?

$1,247,766

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
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 53

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

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

$0

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

the future. 

•

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

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

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

process) for corridor safety projects; 

• Implementing numerous low cost countermeasures.

• Streamlining the process of "Change Order" approval.

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.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

•

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

local agencies to improve safety on local roads.

• Second round of statewide HFST projects is nearly complete.

• UTBWC from second non-interstate wet-pavement study has been completed.

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

• Statewide guardrail project is being developed to upgrade guardrail to meet the MASH standards on 

NHS routes.

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

and other high speed routes.

• ARDOT has completed a Safety and Mobility Data business plan.

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

eCrash, the electronic crash reporting system used by ASP. 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 53

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

Pavement 

Friction Data 

Collection

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

7500 Miles $112500 $125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Annual 

System-wide

Data Improve Data 

Sharing 

Across 

Agencies

MIRE Data 

Collection 

(2017-2019)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

600 Miles $344408 $382675 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Principal ArterialOther0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Pilot Study Data Improve Crash 

Data collection 

tools to make 

the data more 

timely and 

accurate to aid 

in problem 

area 

identification. 

Hwy. 

65/Hwy. 35 

Inters. 

Realignment 

(Safety 

Impvts.)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew 

angle

1 Intersections $771320 $857022 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Hwy. 

65/Hwy. 35 

Inters. 

Realignment 

(Safety 

Impvts.)

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometrics - 

modify skew 

angle

1 Intersections $4903558 $4903558 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther6,400 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

PangburnFourmile Hill 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

10 Miles $567639 $630710 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 5,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Joy-Searcy 

(Safety 

Impvts.) 

(Hwy. 36) 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

9 Miles $556037 $556037 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Major Collector 5,400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Hwy. 25 - 

White Co. 

Line (Safety 

Impvts.) (Sel. 

Secs.)

Roadway Pavement 

surface - 

miscellaneous

10 Miles $2555415 $2839350 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Bryant Rd.-

Hwy. 298 

West (Widen. 

& Realign.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

9 Miles $57000 $57000 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 53

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

Bryant Rd.-

Hwy. 298 

West (Widen.

& Realign.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

(S)

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add two-way leftturn lane

9 Miles $1342443 $1612671 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther7,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Garland Co. 

Line - Benton 

(Safety 

Impvts)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

5 Curves $77786 $86430 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

8 Curves $2328124 $2328124 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway

departures

I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

8 Curves $110132 $110132 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 164)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

I-40 - 

Solgohachia 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) (S)

Alignment Horizontal curve 

realignment

8 Curves $6890071 $7655633 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 6,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 

12/Hwy. 43 

Inters. Safety 

Impvts.

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $135000 $150000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Hwy. 

158/Hwy. 

163 Inters. 

Safety 

Impvts.

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $225000 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 3,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Hwy. 118/W. 

Service 

Rd./I-40 EB 

Ramps 

Signal & 

Inters. 

Impvts. 

(West 

Memphis)

Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $735750 $845200 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Multiple/Varies 8,900 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Hwy. 

49/Hwy. 79 

Inters. Safety 

Impvts.

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $172800 $192000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther2,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Mitigate 

Consequences 

of intersection 

crashes

Baptist 

Hospital - 

Univeristy 

Noninfrastructure 

Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 Queue 

Protection

$131436 $146040 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate97,500 60 State 

Highway 

Agency

Queue 

Protection

Work Zones Reduce end of 

queue crashes
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 53

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

Ave. 

(Widening)

Vandenberg 

Blvd. - Hwy. 

5 (Widening)

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 Queue 

Protection

$133092 $147880 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

51,500 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Queue 

Protection

Work Zones Reduce end of 

queue crashes

Vandenberg 

Blvd. - Hwy. 

5 (Widening)

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 Queue 

Protection

$526330 $526330 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Urban Principal ArterialOther Freeways & 

Expressways

51,500 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Queue 

Protection

Work Zones Reduce end of 

queue crashes

Hwy. 10 - 

Hwy. 7 

(Widen. & 

Realign.) 

(Sel. Secs.) 

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

16 Miles $54000 $121000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 4,900 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 105 - 

Hwy. 213 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10 Miles $9482 $10536 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,200 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 138 - 

Hwy. 278 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4 Miles $1443774 $1604193 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 158 - 

Hwy. 119

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4 Miles $136191 $151323 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 18 - 

Hwy. 77 

(Leachville) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

3 Miles $1745829 $1939811 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 3,400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 227 - 

Hwy. 7 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

6 Miles $1031034 $1145592 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 62 - 

Missouri 

State Line 

(Hwy. 139)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

5 Miles $73097 $81218.35 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 940 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 67B - 

Hwy. 36 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

4 Miles $305146 $339052 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 6,800 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 79 - 

Hwy. 130 

(Stuttgart) 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

2 Miles $642282 $713646 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 8,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwys. 149 & 

308B (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

7 Miles $1740114 $1933461 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,500 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 53

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

Madison Co. 

Line - South 

(S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

13 Miles $402736 $447484 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 1,700 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Missouri 

state Line - 

Hwy. 18B (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

12 Miles $4680768 $5200851 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

North of 

Lawrence 

Co. Line - 

Hwy. 62 (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

8 Miles $280502 $311669 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,400 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Pulaski Co. 

Line - Pine 

Bluff (Sel. 

Secs.) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

19 Miles $2439404 $2710449 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 21,000 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Salt Creek 

Rd. - I-30 

(Benton) (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

1 Miles $35830 $39812 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 14,000 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Shirley - 

Stone Co. 

Line (S)

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

6 Miles $853290 $948101 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,100 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

District 6 

APHN 

Raised 

Pavement 

Markers 

(2019) (S)

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

2282 Miles $702269 $780299 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Districts 1 & 

10 APHN 

Raised 

Pavement 

Markers 

(2019) (S)

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

2647 Miles $846279 $940310 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Districts 2 & 

7 APHN 

Raised 

Pavement 

Markers (S)

Roadway 

delineation

Raised pavement 

markers

2229 Miles $342483 $380537 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures

Hwy. 108-

Hwy. 67 (I30) 

Roadside Barrier - cable 5 Miles $57613 $57613 Penalty 

Funds (23 

U.S.C. 154)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate32,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mitigate 

consequences 

of roadway 

departures

Shearerville - 

West (Pvmt. 

Impvts.)

Roadside Barrier - cable 1.5 Miles $63014 $70016 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate39,000 70 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Mitigate 

consequences 

of roadway 

departures
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 53

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 

Federal-Aid 

Striping 

Program 

(2017)

Roadway 

delineation

Longitudinal 

pavement 

markings - 

remarking

9398 Miles $2265070 $2516744 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varies Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systematic Roadway 

Departure

Prevent 

roadway 

departures
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 53

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 571 551 560 498 470 550 561 493 518

Serious Injuries 3,331 3,239 3,226 3,070 3,154 2,888 3,032 2,816 2,670

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.704 1.672 1.671 1.487 1.381 1.576 1.569 1.355 1.410

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

9.942 9.829 9.624 9.154 9.270 8.276 8.480 7.739 7.268

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

40 49 54 52 44 47 52 45 80

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

98 100 93 97 97 65 102 144 211

Number of nonmotorized fatalities and 

serious inj

138 149 147 148 141 112 154 189 291
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 53

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 53

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 53

2018 crash data is still incomplete and 2018 numbers are estimates. The 2017 FARS ARF Number of 493 was 

used although the NSC number is 525. Historically the NSC number ends up being matching closer to the final 

FARS number.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious 

inj

Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious inj 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 53

Describe fatality data source. 

Other

If Other Please describe

National Safety Council, FARS, and FARSARF

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

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

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

correct numbers. However we noted that the NSC numbers were off by approximately 30 fatalities for 2017. 

This was later adjusted. 

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

ownership. 

Year 2017

Functional 

Classification

Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

24.8 110.4 0.63 2.82

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

2.6 10 0.71 3.07

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

63.2 198.8 1.72 7.58

Rural Minor Arterial 64 294.8 2.35 10.88

Rural Minor Collector 7.8 45.2 3.52 13.85

Rural Major Collector 85.6 417.8 2.78 13.82

Rural Local Road or 

Street

18 134.8 2.43 8.44

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

27.4 173.2 0.53 3.4

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

7.4 42 16.73 3.91

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

51.8 267 1.41 7.29
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 53

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 Minor Arterial 37.4 237.8 1.34 8.65

Urban Minor Collector 0.4 3.6 0.77 8.08

Urban Major Collector 16.6 92.2 2.14 11.75

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8.8 57.4 1.51 9.12
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 53

Year 2016

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

441.8 2,537.8 1.72 10.02

County Highway 

Agency

53.2 212.4 1.65 6.59

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

43.6 256.2 0.78 5.87

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

Indian Tribe Nation

2018 Crash data is incomplete and is not available for data analysis.

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 79,251 crashes in 2017. During this process 

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

recently granted 1.4 million dollars to 37 local agencies to get them on the eCrash system. There are now 209 

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.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 53

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 will take effect in the summer of 2020.

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

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

monitor this trend.

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

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

local agencies to improve safety on local roads. 

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

improvement study is under development. 

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

standards on NHS routes. 

• A new round of Cable Median Barrier installation has been approved to continue to reduce and 

eliminate KA crashes on Interstates and other high speed highways. 

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

a standard item on all ARDOT projects involving signal work. 

• Two rural roundabout projects are anticipated to be let in September 2019. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Online data query tools and dashboards are being developed for other agencies and possible public 

use. 

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

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

stages of obtaining buy in by the administration. 

• ARDOT has a pilot program with Abley to examine the possibilities of using this product to develop the 

horizontal curve program. 

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:541.2

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

See attached PDF for description.

Number of Serious Injuries:3201.4

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

See attached PDF for description.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 53

Fatality Rate:1.595

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

See attached PDF for description.

Serious Injury Rate:9.441

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

See attached PDF for description.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:300.3

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

See attached PDF for description.

See attached Target Setting -Safety document page 8 for description of how the targets support the SHSP.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

• The recent state legalization of medical marijuana.

• The increase in speed limit on freeways/expressways.

• Update to the definition of Suspected Serious Injury.

• Continued increase in vehicle miles traveled.

In addition to the above external factors, crash reporting is another major consideration. The number of 

crashes being captured in the database has been increasing due to eCrash implementation, which impacts 

serious injury crash data.

Traffic Safety is working hard to improve safety with other safety stakeholders. Some notable accomplishments 

are as follows:

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

local agencies to improve safety on local roads. 

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

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

• Two rural roundabout projects are anticipated to be let in September 2019 which will be partially 

maintained by local agencies. 

• Several safety analysis tools are being examined for possible use at ARDOT along with possible use by 

local agencies. 

• Online data query tools and dashboards are being developed for other agencies and possible public 

use. 

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

by safety stakeholders. 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 53

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

data to enhance EMS and Crash Data. 

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

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 2018 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. 

2018 Crash data is not yet available; therefore a table which shows estimated performance assessment 

utilizing preliminary data is attached. Also see page 8 on the attached Target Setting- Safety 2020 document.

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 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

61 65 73 65 62 63 77

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

210 164 160 266 174 217 266

2018 ARDOT crash data is incomplete, as well as 2018 FARS data.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 53

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. This process has been reviewed by FHWA and is under ARDOT administration approval.

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

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

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

evaluated several projects implemented in the past that helped us expand those countermeasures at the 

statewide level. Some of them are discussed below. One of the sub-programs of High Risk Rural Road 

(HRRR) Program was evaluated on an annual basis and it was found effective. However, after the 

implementation of this project we found out that the crashes would migrate. In order to address this issue, 

logical termini points are considered instead of data driven termini points. Another major statewide safety 

improvement program has been the installation of cable median barrier to address roadway departure crashes, 

which has been very effective and still it is continued. HFST has also been installed on several ramps/curves 

across the state which has proved to be very effective on preventing wet-pavement crashes. We have been 

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

is complete. A third round of HFST is under development. Shoulder Rumble Strips/Stripes have been installed 

on hundreds of miles statewide and have proved to be effective in preventing roadway departure crashes 

especially on curves located in rural areas. Similarly Centerline Rumble Stripes have been installed in passing 

lane segments and currently ARDOT is in the process of studying their need in the center turn lanes on rural 

roads where head on and sideswipe opposite crashes are the prevailing type of safety problem. The mumble 

stripe design is being evaluated for low noise and its safety effectiveness compared to rumble stripes. If the 

evaluation is positive it will be implemented statewide. The new HSIP Process being developed will develop a 

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

by FHWA and is now under ARDOT Administration review.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

• Organizational change

• Policy change

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

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

throughout the State by following the HSIP guidelines.
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 53

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.

Describe significant program changes that have occurred since the last reporting 

period. 

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

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

taken toward systemic programs which address the crash risks rather than reactive approach. A more data 

driven process is utilized to program and scope safety projects, especially where KA crash statistics are of 

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

funds, in which local agencies can apply for the funds to be used on local safety improvement projects on a 

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

stand on their own merit. We have improved efficiency by developing tools to facilitate the ease of conducting 

safety analysis Department wide. These tools have allowed other Divisions to do their analysis for non-HSIP 

projects without having to wait on the Traffic Safety Section to conduct queries and analysis for them. 

Additionally, ARDOT is looking into different safety analyst tools such as AASHTOWARE Safety Analyst, 

usRAP, Numetric, and AgileAssets Safety Analyst to further enhance safety analyses. Furthermore we are 

working with FHWA to look into customized safety analyst tool as being developed for Connecticut DOT by 

VHB. We are also in the beginning stages of examining Roadway Data Improvement Program supported by 

FHWA.

Additionally, due to unforeseen problems which created a huge backlog at Arkansas State Police, we have 

started entering crash reports into our copy of the crash database in order to expedite the availability of yearly 

crash data. Thus far, 2018 crash data is still unavailable at this time.

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 0 0 0 0

Intersections

Older Drivers

Motorcyclists

Work Zones

Pedestrians/Bicycles
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 53

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)

Young Drivers

Impaired/Drowsy Drivers

Aggressive Drivers

Large Commercial 

Vehicles
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 53

2018 crash data is incomplete and still being entered into the database.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting 

period?

Yes

Please provide the following summary information for each countermeasure effectiveness 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 53

evaluation. 

CounterMeasures: Cable Median Barrier 

Description: 

This project installed Cable Median Barrier 

along 7.5 miles of Interstate 430 in Little 

Rock and North Little Rock to reduce fatal 

and suspected serious injury crossover 

crashes. 

Target Crash Type: Cross median 

Number of Installations: 

Number of Installations: 

Miles Treated: 7.5 

Years Before: 5 

Years After: 5 

Methodology: Simple before/after 

Results: 

In the 5-year before period, there were six 

fatal or suspected serious injury median 

crossover crashes. In the 5-year after 

period, there were zero fatal or suspected 

serious injury median crossover crashes. 

While the number of total crashes did 

increase in the after period, the target 

crashes (fatal and suspected injury 

median crossover crashes) were 

eliminated. 

File Name: Hyperlink
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 53

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

0
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 53

Compliance Assessment

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

 07/26/2017

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2017 To: 2022

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

 2022

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

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

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

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

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 53

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

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

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100 100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 30

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 20

AADT Year (80) 100 20

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

100 100

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

100 100

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 53

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

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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100 100

Interchange Type 

(182)

100 100

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 100.00 75.00 55.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.22 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

• ARDOT purchased Transcend Spatial Solutions Intersection Manager software Fall of 2017. This software utilizes the all public road LRS or ARNOLD to generate intersections. It provides the unique identifier, identifies the 

crossing routes, calculates the approach segments/angle, and allows for us to enter the junction geometry and traffic control present. We 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. 

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. 
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 53

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

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

• Transcend Spatial Solutions Intersection Manager 

• LiDAR: In July of 2018 ARDOT approved a project for a consultant to collect and one corridor of the state highway system. The LAS files and asset information were delivered in May 2019. We’ll be looking at the corridor collection 

to see how LiDAR can assist us with additional MIRE elements. 

• ESRI – ArcMap/ArcGIS Online/ArcGIS Collector 

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2021
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 53

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

AHTD HSIP-Process-2011-07.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Estimated Performance Assesment..pdf

Target Setting - Safety (2020) 06 28 2019 Copy.pdf

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Arkansas Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 53 of 53

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.