The Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program manual

              THE ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MANUAL
Arizona Department of Transportation
Highway Enhancements for Safety (HES) Section
Traffic Engineering Group
March 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM............................ 3
1.1 HSIP Legislation.............................................................................3
1.1.1 Current HSIP Legislation and Regulations ...................................3
1.1.2 Components of the HSIP............................................................4
1.1.3 HSIP Reporting Requirements ....................................................5
1.1.4 Related Legislation ....................................................................5
1.2 Funding...........................................................................................6
1.2.1 Federal Apportionment ..............................................................6
1.2.2 Federal Share............................................................................7
1.3 Eligible Projects – Highway Safety Improvement Program............7
2. ARIZONA HSIP...................................................................... 10
2.1 Funding........................................................................................ 10
2.1.1 Application of Federal Safety Funds ..........................................10
2.1.2 Flexible Funding ......................................................................11
2.2 HSIP Program Overview ............................................................. 11
2.2.1 HSIP – State Managed (State Highway System) ........................12
2.2.2 HSIP – Regionally Managed (Local Government Roadways) .......12
2.2.3 Road Safety Assessment Program ............................................12
2.2.4 High Risk Rural Road Program .................................................12
2.2.5 Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program................................12
3. STATE MANAGED HSIP PROGRAM .......................................... 13
3.1 Planning....................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 Data Collection........................................................................14
Crash Data .................................................................................. 14
Roadway and Traffic Data........................................................... 14
Maintenance Data ....................................................................... 15
Feature Inventory ........................................................................ 15
Special Requests ........................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Data Analysis and Problem Identification ..................................16
3.1.3 Safety Evaluation Candidacy and Prioritization...........................17
3.1.4 Safety Evaluation ....................................................................18
Roadway Features ...................................................................... 18
Traffic Characteristics.................................................................. 19
Crash History............................................................................... 19
Improvement Alternatives............................................................ 20
Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) Analysis................................................ 20
Incremental Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) Analysis............................ 21
Net Present Value ....................................................................... 22
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................ 22
3.1.5 FHWA Approval .......................................................................22
3.2 Implementation............................................................................ 22
3.2.1 Development of State Projects .................................................22
Scoping ....................................................................................... 22
Design and Pre-Construction ...................................................... 23
Construction ................................................................................ 23
Operation and Maintenance ........................................................ 24
3.3 Evaluation.................................................................................... 24
Annual Program Review Report .................................................. 24
Semi-Annual Review................................................................... 24
Before-and-After Studies............................................................. 24
4. REGIONALLY MANAGED HSIP PROGRAM................................. 26
4.1 Planning....................................................................................... 26
MPO/COG Prioritization and Selection of Safety Projects........... 26
Submittal of Safety Projects to ADOT ......................................... 26
Funding ....................................................................................... 26
Systematic Projects..................................................................... 27
4.2 Implementation............................................................................ 28
4.3 Evaluation.................................................................................... 28
5. HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM...................................... 29
6. ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM .................................. 30
7. THE FUTURE OF ARIZONA’S HSIP........................................... 32
APPENDIX A – ABBREVIATIONS
APPENDIX B - SPECIAL REQUEST FORM
APPENDIX C - SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FORMAT GUIDELINES
APPENDIX D - BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
APPENDIX E - CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
Arizona HSIP Manual 3 March 2010
1. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The specific purpose of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is to achieve
a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. This is to
be accomplished through the development and implementation of the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides
a comprehensive framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads. SHSP is intended to identify the State's key safety needs and guide HSIP
investment decisions.
1.1 HSIP Legislation
The first major efforts at the federal level include the 1966 Highway Safety Act (23
United States Code (U.S.C.) 402) and Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Title II of Public Law
No. 93-87). While safety has long been a consideration in transportation project
development, the role and significance of safety in transportation policy has evolved
over time.
1.1.1 Current HSIP Legislation and Regulations
The current legislation, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act
– A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), established the HSIP as a core Federal-aid
program under 23 U.S.C. 148. SAFETEA-LU nearly doubled the funds for infrastructure
safety, allowed increased flexibility in program funding (10% Flex), and required a
focus on results.
The HSIP Core Program (23 USC 148) requires each state to develop and implement an
SHSP, provide an annual Transparency Report describing not less than five percent of
the state’s roadway locations exhibiting the most sever safety needs, develop and
implement a State HSIP which includes Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (23
U.S.C. 130) and High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) .
Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 924, effective January 2009, reflects
changes to the State HSIP that resulted from SAFETEA-LU as well as changes in the
overall program from the originally published 23 CRF 924. A new HSIP manual has been
published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in January 2010 and is
available online at <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/>.
The Arizona Department of Transportation is responsible for administering the HSIP in
Arizona. The purpose of the Arizona HSIP manual is to provide basic guidance to all
public agencies including the State, city, county and tribal government and will be
updated as federal requirements or State procedures change.
Arizona HSIP Manual 4 March 2010
1.1.2 Components of the HSIP
The Core HSIP requires the development and implementation of an SHSP, State HSIP,
High Risk Rural Road Program, and Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program which
are detailed below:
Strategic Highway Safety Plans
The SHSP is required to be data-driven and developed in collaboration with a broad
range of stakeholders. It is a multi-disciplinary plan addressing the 4Es of Safety –
engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services (EMS). It is
performance-based with the adoption of strategic and performance goals which are
coordinated with other state safety programs.
Arizona DOT is ultimately responsible for the SHSP and the State HSIP projects and
programs should be aligned with the emphasis areas of the SHSP. In Arizona, the SHSP
was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Governor’s Traffic Safety
Advisory Council consisting of the necessary stakeholders. The Arizona SHSP is
available at ADOT HES website: <http://azdot.gov/highways/traffic/9620.asp>.
State Highway Safety Improvement Program
The State HSIP should be consistent with the SHSP emphasis areas and strategies.
Requirements for an HSIP are defined in 23 CFR 924. The State HSIP may be flexible
to meet the needs of the State but must include the following components:
• Planning – Collect and maintain data, identify hazardous locations and
elements, conduct engineering studies, and establish priorities
• Implementation – Schedule and implement projects
• Evaluation – Determine the effectiveness of safety improvements
Findings resulting from the Evaluation process shall be incorporated as basic source
data in the Planning process.
High Risk Rural Road Program
The High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) provides set aside funds for construction
and operational improvements on high risk rural roads. High Risk Rural Roads are
defined as any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a
rural local road:
A. on which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the
statewide average for those functional classes of roadway; or
B. that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an
accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide
average for those functional classes of roadway.
Arizona HSIP Manual 5 March 2010
Implementation of the HRRRP requires comprehensive roadway and crash data for all
public roads. For States that do not currently have the capability of locating crashes on
all public roadways, the State may adopt interim practices that utilize the best available
data resources until a comprehensive statewide roadway and crash data system is
implemented1.
Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program
The Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP) reduces the number of
fatalities and injuries at public railway-highway grade crossings through the elimination
of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of protective devices at crossings. Each state
is required to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all railway-highway grade
crossings to identify those crossings which may require separation, relocation, or
protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose.
At a minimum, the crossings identified through the program will have standard signing
and striping following guidance from the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD).
1.1.3 HSIP Reporting Requirements
State DOTs are required to submit reports to the FHWA on several elements of the
HSIP. Reporting requirements include:
• Annual assessments of the progress and effectiveness of HSIP and HRRRP;
• Progress on implementing the RHGCP; and
• A Transparency Report (Five Percent Report) which includes a description of
not less than five percent of locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs,
an assessment of potential remedies for these locations, estimated costs
associated with remedies, and impediments to implementation other than cost.
Reporting guidance for the HSIP, RHGCP and the 5% reports are provided on the FHWA
Office of Safety web site <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/>.
1.1.4 Related Legislation
Title 23, Part 409 of the United States Code (23 USC 409) establishes a policy for the
discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys. This policy
protects the information obtained, compiled, and maintained for the use of the HSIP.
Protected information includes reports, surveys, schedules, lists, queries, or any data
1 FHWA Memorandum, High Risk Rural Roads Program Guidance Requirements under 23 U.S.C. §148
(a)(1)&(f), May 16, 2006
Arizona HSIP Manual 6 March 2010
compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or the planning of
safety enhancements as outlined in 23 CFR 924. Data used to develop any highway
safety 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 an occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed by such data.
1.2 Funding
SAFETEA-LU provides funding to the HSIP as a core federal-aid program, no longer a
set-aside from STP funds. There is also a flexibility provision whereas a state may use
up to 10 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the state under the HSIP for a
fiscal year to carry out safety projects under any other section of Title 23, United States
Code, as provided in the state’s SHSP if the state certifies that:
A. The state has met its needs relating to railway-highway crossings; and
B. The state has met its infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety
improvement projects
1.2.1 Federal Apportionment
Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (Section 130)
Before apportioning HSIP funds, $220M is set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossing
Program under 23 USC 130. Apportioned funds are to be distributed based on the
following factors (1) 50% based on the formula factors for the Surface Transportation
Program in 23 USC 104(b)(3)(A) and (2) 50% based on the number of public railway-highway
crossings. Of the Section 130 funds apportioned, a state must spend a
minimum of 50 percent of its apportionment for the installation of protective devices at
railway-highway crossings. The remaining funds may be spent for other types of
improvements as defined in Section 130. SAFETEA-LU also contains a provision to use
up to 2 percent of the Section 130 funds apportioned to a state for compilation and
analysis of data for the required annual report to the secretary on the progress being
made to implement the railway-highway crossings program.
HSIP Funds
After the Section 130 Funds are apportioned, the remainder is apportioned to States
based on the following factors:
• 33  % based on the ratio of lane miles of Federal-aid highways in each State to
total lane miles of Federal-aid highways in all States.
• 33  % based on the ratio of vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-aid
highways in each State to total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-aid
highways in all States.
Arizona HSIP Manual 7 March 2010
• 33  % based on the ratio of the number of fatalities on the Federal-aid system
in each State to the number of fatalities on the Federal-aid system in all States.
Each State's apportionment of HSIP funds is also subject to a set-aside for construction
and operational safety improvements on High Risk Rural Roads.
HSIP Flexibility Provision
The HSIP also contains a provision that, to further the implementation of a state SHSP,
a state may use up to 10 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the state
under Section 104(b) (5) for a fiscal year to carry out safety projects under any other
section as provided in the state SHSP, if the state certifies to the secretary that:
• The state has met needs in the state relating to railway-highway crossings; and
• The state has met the state's infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety
improvement projects.
1.2.2 Federal Share
The Federal Share of HSIP projects on Interstate highways is applied by the sliding
scale rate for Arizona of 94.34% of the total project cost, with the remaining 5.66%
funded by the project Sponsor. The Federal Share on non-Interstate roadways is
94.3%, with the remaining 5.7% funded by the Sponsor.
As stated in Section 1.3, in accordance with 23 USC 120(c), projects such as
roundabouts, traffic control signalization, safety rest areas, pavement markings, or
installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier
end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems for emergency
vehicles or transit vehicles at signalized intersections may be funded at up to a 100
percent Federal share, except not more than 10 percent of the sums apportioned under
23 U.S.C. 104 for any fiscal year shall be used at this Federal share rate.
The Federal Share of railway-highway grade crossing projects may amount up to 100
percent for projects for signing, pavement, pavement markings, active warning devices,
and crossing closures, subject to the 10 percent limitation for funds apportioned under
23 USC 104 in a fiscal year.
1.3 Eligible Projects – Highway Safety Improvement Program
Under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(3), a variety of highway safety improvement projects are
eligible for funding through the HSIP. In order for an eligible improvement to be funded
with HSIP funds, States shall first consider whether the activity maximizes opportunities
to advance safety. States shall fund safety projects or activities that are most likely to
reduce the number of, or potential for, fatalities and serious injuries.
Improvements to virtually any type of public surface transportation facility, including
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, may be approved for the use of HSIP funding, provided
Arizona HSIP Manual 8 March 2010
that the project is consistent with the State SHSP that corrects or improves a road
location or feature, or addresses a highway safety concern. Federal safety funding is
also available for the upgrade of existing substandard roadway features to conform to
national standards or guidelines; such as those outlined in the MUTCD, by the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE), by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and others, that have been adopted because they
have been shown to measurably improve safety.
Per 23 CFR 924.3, safety enhancement project might include one or more of the
following representative examples of eligible project activities:
(1) An intersection safety improvement.
(2) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an
unsafe condition).
(3) Installation of rumble strips or other warning devices, if the rumble strips or other
warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians
and persons with disabilities.
(4) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high
frequency of crashes.
(5) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or for the safety of persons with
disabilities.
(6) Construction of any project for the elimination of potential safety concern at a
railway-highway crossing that is eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C. 130, including the
separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings.
(7) Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of
highway-rail grade crossing protective devices.
(8) The conduct of an effective traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway
crossing.
(9) Construction of a traffic calming feature.
(10) Elimination of a roadside obstacle or elements that may pose a road safety
concern.
(11) Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings.
(12) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized
intersections.
(13) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash
potential.
(14) Transportation safety planning.
(15) Improvement in the collection and analysis of safety data.
(16) Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment,
operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including law enforcement
assistance) relating to work zone safety.
Arizona HSIP Manual 9 March 2010
(17) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work
zones and traffic lanes for the safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators.
(18) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce
crashes involving vehicles and wildlife.
(19) Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent yellow/green signs) at
pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.
(21) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
(22) Conducting road safety audits.
In accordance with 23 USC 120(c), projects such as roundabouts, traffic control
signalization, safety rest areas, pavement markings, or installation of traffic signs, traffic
lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, breakaway utility
poles, or priority control systems for emergency vehicles or transit vehicles at signalized
intersections may be funded at up to a 100 percent Federal share, except not more
than 10 percent of the sums apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104 for any fiscal year shall
be used at this Federal share rate. Eligibility of funding for traffic control devices is
subject to a State and/or local jurisdiction’s substantial conformance with National
MUTCD or FHWA approved State MUTCD. Activities ancillary to projects including any of
the above safety enhancements such as design, right-of-way purchase, utility
relocation, construction, and before- and after-studies are also eligible for Federal
safety funding.
Arizona HSIP Manual 10 March 2010
2. ARIZONA HSIP
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is the State agency responsible for
the adoption and administration of the HSIP in Arizona. ADOT’s Highway
Enhancements for Safety (HES) Section is responsible for the development,
implementation, and maintenance of Arizona’s HSIP.
2.1 Funding
Arizona receives an annual apportionment of HSIP funds and Railway-Highway Grade
Crossing Funds.
2.1.1 Application of Federal Safety Funds
For HSIP, ADOT has chosen to set aside 20 percent of the apportionment to the local
and tribal government HSIP, 70 percent to the State highways and 10 percent flexible
funds for non-infrastructure safety programs identified in the SHSP. Figure 1 shows the
HSIP funding allocations. There are also funds set aside for the High Risk Rural Road
Program and Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program. In addition, there is a Road
Safety Assessment (RSA) program funded through HSIP, including managing the RSA
program, conducting RSAs and implementing recommendations on all public roads.
Other Federal-aid funds are eligible to support and leverage the safety program.
Improvements to safety features that are routinely provided as part of a broader
Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project.
States should address the full scope of their safety needs and opportunities on all
roadway categories by using other funding sources such as Interstate Maintenance
(IM), Surface Transportation Program (STP), National Highway System (NHS), and
Equity Bonus (EB) funds in addition to HSIP funds.
Approved safety enhancements may be consolidated or added-on to existing nearby,
abutting, or overlapping projects. In this situation, although the supplementary safety
enhancements would be constructed along with the rest of the project, which would
normally be combined and bid under a single construction contract, they can be
developed independently. HSIP funds would be applied to the safety enhancements at
the appropriate participation rate.
The maximum dollar amount of HSIP funds that can be applied to a State Highway
HSIP project is $10 million per project, but this number can be increased by request to,
and approval by, FHWA.
Arizona HSIP Manual 11 March 2010
HSIP Funding
70%
Statewide Roadway
State Managed
20%
Local Roadway
Regionally
Managed
HSIP Funding Allocation
70/20 Split with 10% Flex
10%
Flexible Funding
State Managed
17%
MAG
10%
FMPO
13%
PAG
10%
YMPO
10%
CYMPO
10%
CAAG
10%
NACOG
10%
SEAGO
10%
WACOG
Figure 1. HSIP Funding Allocations
2.1.2 Flexible Funding
Because Arizona DOT has adopted the SHSP, SAFETEA-LU allows Arizona DOT some
flexibility to use up to 10 percent of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure safety projects
when all infrastructure needs, including those for railway-highway grade crossings, have
been met for a particular year.
Arizona DOT submits a written request for approval to the FHWA Arizona Division Office
for each year that Arizona DOT certifies that the requirements have been met.
2.2 HSIP Program Overview
The summary of the HSIP programs administered and managed by ADOT are shown in
the subsequent sections. All of these programs are in alignment with SAFETEA-LU
compliant Arizona SHSP, which was developed in August 2007 with the following
emphasis areas: Restraint Use, Speeding, Young Drivers, Impaired Driving,
Roadway/Roadside (lane departure and intersections), and Data Improvement (Traffic
Records Coordinating Committee).
Arizona HSIP Manual 12 March 2010
2.2.1 HSIP – State Managed (State Highway System)
ADOT HES identifies potential locations for safety enhancements and develops safety
projects on the State Highway System. Funding allocation for these projects include
70% of HSIP funds, which also includes funding the positions of the Road Safety
Assessment Program Manager and HSIP Local Government Coordinator. The program
guidelines are detailed in Section 3.
2.2.2 HSIP – Regionally Managed (Local Government Roadways)
MPOs and COGs identify potential locations for safety enhancements projects on Non-
State Highway System, such as, county, city/town, tribal roadways. HSIP Local
Government Coordinator provides assistance to local agencies throughout the process
of identifying and developing the projects. Funding allocations for these projects
include 20% of HSIP funds. Funding not obligated in the current FY is rolled into the
State HSIP for the following FY. The program guidelines are detailed in Section 3.
2.2.3 Road Safety Assessment Program
The Road Safety Assessment (RSA) Program Manager administers and conducts RSAs
throughout Arizona. HSIP funds are utilized for the RSA Program Manager position,
travel expenses for team members, and consultant participation on RSAs. HSIP funds
may also be used to implement RSA recommendations. High Risk Rural Road Program
funds can also be obtained for implementing RSA recommendations. The program
guidelines are detailed in Section 3
2.2.4 High Risk Rural Road Program
A High Risk Rural Road is any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor
collector or a rural local road on which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating
injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway; or that
will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for
fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those
functional classes of roadway.
2.2.5 Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program
The ADOT Utility & Railroad Section administers and manages this program funded through
SAFETEA-LU allocation of approximately $2 million per year. ADOT maintains the inventory
of all public railroad crossings, which are ranked based on the Relative Hazard Exposure
Index. A diagnostic review team consisting of representatives from ADOT, the ACC, FHWA,
the Railroad and the Road Sponsor (State, City, County, or Tribe) evaluates the identified
railroad crossings through an on-site diagnostic review. A list of projects is developed
through this process. The program guidelines will be available through ADOT’s Utility &
Railroad Section.
Arizona HSIP Manual 13 March 2010
3. STATE MANAGED HSIP PROGRAM
The State Managed Highway Safety Improvement Program focuses on locating and
addressing potential safety concerns on State Highway Systems. There are three key
components in a successful HSIP – Planning, Implementation and Evaluation as shown
in Figure 2. The processes of identification, development, design, construction, and
evaluation of highway safety enhancement projects begin with Planning.
Figure 2. HSIP Components1
1Source: FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, USDOT, January 2010.
Arizona HSIP Manual 14 March 2010
3.1 Planning
ADOT’s planning process shall incorporate the following four key components: Data
collection, data analysis, safety evaluation, and program/project prioritization.
3.1.1 Data Collection
This process involves collecting and maintaining the records of crash, roadway, traffic
and vehicle data on all public roads. Input on crash and other data relevant to
identifying road safety concerns is obtained by ADOT HES Section through ADOT data
warehouses.
Crash Data
In 1973 a motor vehicle crash database known as the Accident Location
Identification and Surveillance System (ALISS) was put into use by ADOT. This
system was initially developed in response to the general requirements set forth by
the National Highway Safety Act of 1966, and a sincere desire by the state of Arizona
and local governments to take positive action against the soaring numbers of tragic
deaths and their accompanying economic losses1. This automated system compiles
all the individual crash records at the local jurisdictional level and is compatible with
Federal crash record systems.
Under Arizona law, all State agencies that prepare motor vehicle crash reports,
meeting the minimum requirement of injury or $1000 of property damage, must
send a copy of the report to the ADOT Traffic Records Section2,3. The Arizona Crash
Report Form has been updated effective January 1, 2009 to be Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) compliant. The Traffic Records Section personnel
enter each of over 108 data elements, including driver, vehicle, and roadway and
weather characteristics, from incoming reports into the ALISS database.
Roadway and Traffic Data
The ADOT Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) Geographic Information System
for Transportation (GIS-T) Section is responsible for administering an FHWA
program known as the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) in the
state of Arizona. The HPMS is America’s national database of highway
information. Each state maintains an HPMS and annually submits state
information to FHWA for inclusion in the national HPMS. Made up of over 100
1 Arizona’s Date with ALISS, An introduction to the Arizona Traffic Records System, Traffic Records
Coordinating Committee, February 1971
2 Arizona Criminal and Traffic Law Manual, 2000-2001 Ed., Chapter 3, “Traffic and Vehicle Regulation”,
Article 4, Section 28-667, 2000
3 Although ADOT encourages crash report submittal by Tribal Governments and Federal agencies (such
as National Parks and military bases) that have jurisdiction over roadways used by the public, reporting of
crashes that do not take place on State highways is discretionary to the jurisdiction.
Arizona HSIP Manual 15 March 2010
data elements, this database contains information pertaining to the physical
roadway, including road beginning and ending location, length, use, and
condition; as well as performance data such as traffic volume and vehicle
classification information.
The HPMS is derived from several databases including the State Highway Log
and the Arizona Transportation Information System (ATIS), which provides the
base centerline for the system. ATIS contains roadway location and name. The
State Highway Log provides the number of lanes, lane widths, shoulder type and
width, pavement type, etc. Traffic Data is collected and processed by the MPD
Data Group and provided to HPMS on an annual basis. ATIS is a geographic
information system (GIS) and is the Arizona Base Centerline Map. Originally,
ATIS developed out of the ALISS base map and was maintained by the ADOT
Photogrammetry and Mapping Section. As ATIS developed with changing
technology, it ultimately was made independent from the ALISS System,
although crashes currently entered on ALISS are located on roadways using ATIS
as the reference. Since ATIS is a GIS-based system, ATIS is now maintained by
the GIS-T section of MPD
ADOT HES personnel trained in the use of GIS technology have the ability to
query the HPMS database and retrieve roadway data pertinent to a safety
analysis of a location or to compare against other locations.
Maintenance Data
Maintenance data, such as labor, equipment, material resources and descriptions of
work performed, is entered and maintained in ADOT’s Performance Controlled
System (PECOS). PECOS is the Highway Maintenance Management System
developed and implemented by the ADOT Intermodal Transportation Division (ITD).
Each ADOT Engineering District monitors and records repeat maintenance items,
which can indicate the location of a potential safety concern. For example,
records indicating a single light pole is continually in need of repair due to
repeated vehicle impacts, might point to a problem with the pole location. In
this way, maintenance data can be used to identify and locate problem areas.
Feature Inventory
The ADOT Asset Management Section plans to maintain an inventory of all
features, such as signs, signal and light poles, and street furniture, related to each
segment of roadway on the State system. These data are used to find out what
features are present in an area where a large number of crashes is occurring.
Special Requests
Historically, requests have come to the HES Section via telephone calls, reports,
letters, and emails from essentially anyone with a concern about the safety of a
particular location(s) on a State highway, including the general public. This has
been, and continues to be an important source of information for the HES
Arizona HSIP Manual 16 March 2010
Section staff. A new requirement directs HES staff to document all requests in
the form of a Special Request form1. The Special Request form solicits specific
information pertinent to initial screening and prioritization of the Request.
3.1.2 Data Analysis and Problem Identification
ADOT identifies candidate locations (either segments or intersections) for spot
improvements as well as systematic improvements using one of the recommended
network screening methods and available crash and exposure data.
There are 13 recommended problem identification methods such as crash rate, relative
severity index, and critical crash rate. Details of each are provided in the FHWA HSIP
Manual.
Since it is the intent of the State managed HSIP to reduce the frequency and overall
severity of motor vehicle collisions that occur within the State, remediation efforts must
be focused primarily to address collisions resulting in serious injury or death, and their
attendant circumstances and causes.
In the analysis process, graphical and statistical relationships can be developed which are
expected to yield the following information:
• The type or manner of collision that results in the most serious injuries and death
• The driver errors that contribute to these collisions
• The number and frequency of these collisions
• The locations in which these collisions occur
• The roadway and traffic characteristics of these locations
This process ultimately allows for the extrapolation of the key causal factors of the most
harmful collisions within the State. It is the ultimate goal of the State managed HSIP
and HES Section to be able to quantify the characteristics and relationships associated
with each type of collision from the most harmful to least; i.e. property damage only.
For example, for a given collision type, head-on, the HES Section would have statistical
data indicating: The relative severity of injury; the predominating physical
characteristics of the locations; the average volume on roadways of this type; the
typical driver error leading to the collision; if correctable, what type of remediation has
been most successful in addressing the error(s); and what does it cost? The foregoing
is intended to answer the questions:
• What are the biggest contributors to injury and fatal accidents?
• Where do they tend to occur?
• Why do they tend to occur?
• What, if anything, can be done to correct them?
1 A sample of the current Special Request form is included in Appendix B.
Arizona HSIP Manual 17 March 2010
This allows ADOT HES Section personnel to analyze trends, establish expected
averages, find statistically significant anomalies, and anticipate problem areas. It also
allows for rational, unbiased prioritization of projects; that are clear and comprehensible
to all ADOT personnel.
3.1.3 Safety Evaluation Candidacy and Prioritization
Per Title 23 CFR 924, the process for establishing priorities for implementing HSIP
projects should have the following considerations:
(i) The potential reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries;
(ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources available;
(iii) The priorities in the SHSP;
(iv) The correction and prevention of hazardous conditions;
(v) Other safety data-driven criteria as appropriate in each State; and
(vi) Integration with the statewide transportation planning process and statewide
transportation improvement program, and metropolitan transportation
planning process and transportation improvement program where applicable.
Candidate projects can be developed through data analysis, Special Requests, and
Pavement Preservation projects safety evaluation.
Locations identified through data analysis:
ADOT HES will identify locations through a problem identification methodology and rank
them accordingly. Prioritization of locations to be considered for the detailed study of a
Safety Evaluation, whether the Evaluation is for a spot location or for
systemic/systematic improvements, is based almost exclusively on a ranking of
locations that have the greatest potential to improve safety, as defined by abnormally
high crash rates and crash severities, regardless of the method in which the location
was identified.
Locations identified through Special Request:
ADOT HES will evaluate Special Request locations and a project could be developed if it
has the potential to mitigate crashes.
Locations identified through Pavement Preservation projects:
ADOT HES will evaluate Pavement Preservation projects having a history of fatal or
severe-injury crashes to evaluate if they have the potential to enhance safety. All
Pavement Preservation projects are to include certain standard safety enhancements,
Arizona HSIP Manual 18 March 2010
such as: Addition of edge rumble strips; addition of signing, marking, and delineation;
and upgrade of existing safety hardware to conform to current standards1,
A balance is needed in the HSIP among spot locations (e.g. intersections, segments)
and systemic/systematic improvements to ensure that the best mix of safety solutions
are implemented. Systemic/systematic evaluations are performed based on proven
effectiveness measures (e.g. CRF, AMF) applied regionally as opposed to spot locations.
Prioritization of spot locations requires a detailed economic analysis, such as, B/C Ratio,
Net Present Value, Cost-Effectiveness, for justification of funding.
3.1.4 Safety Evaluation
Once candidacy for an evaluation has been established, an HES Section member will begin
a detailed Traffic Safety Evaluation that includes engineering studies or investigation in a
variety of areas. A detailed Safety Evaluation takes a similar approach to the collection and
correlation of data as that in the Data Collection and Data Analysis sections detailed
previously, for an in-depth location investigation. The Evaluation, which is summarized in a
Traffic Safety Evaluation Report2, consists of investigation in each of the following areas:
• Roadway Features
• Traffic Characteristics
• Crash History
• Improvement Alternatives
• Quantitative analysis to compare projects/alternatives by
o Simple ranking based on factors, such as, CRF, AMF
o Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)
o Incremental Benefit-Cost Ratio
o Cost-effectiveness
o Net Present Value
Roadway features, traffic characteristics, and crash history are all elements that require
scrutiny when establishing causal factors for areas with a high and/or severe injury crash
rate. A holistic investigation of all the components that are unique to each location yields
the most accurate assessment of the factors influencing driver behavior, which in turn
leads to the most effective improvement alternatives.
Roadway Features
The physical characteristics of the subject roadway are a composite of the roadway
section and location; roadway type and general conditions; roadway geometrics,
1 Guidelines for Scoping Pavement Preservation Projects, ADOT Roadway Engineering Group, November
2008
2 Safety Evaluation Report Format Guidelines (Appendix C)
Arizona HSIP Manual 19 March 2010
traffic control type and location, adjacent development, available stopping, passing,
and intersection sight distance, location and type of signing, striping, delineation,
grade, superelevation, and all other existing physical features of, on, and around
the roadway1. Some or all of these characteristics, where appropriate and
applicable, must be investigated and documented, presented both in the text of the
Report and graphically in a Condition Diagram, as part of every safety evaluation.
These data may come from any or all of the following: The HPMS database, the
Maintenance and/or the Feature Inventory database, as-builts that encompass the
subject area and any additional information contained in a Special Request. The
Roadway Features investigation should also include research into any previous work
done to mitigate a safety concern in the subject area, and the effect, if any, this had
on the safety of the area.
Traffic Characteristics
To understand traffic movement through the subject roadway, existing and
forecasted traffic volumes, vehicle size distribution, vehicle speed distribution,
pedestrian and bicycle activity/volumes, capacity, delay, gaps, and conflicts need
to be identified. Some of this information is measured and published yearly by
ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division (MPD) or can be found in the HPMS
database, and some may be obtained by a prior study. Additional information
may also be contained in a Special Request. However, it may be necessary to
measure any or all of these quantities, as applicable, for each safety evaluation.
Additionally, an engineering speed study, a 12-hour traffic count, and a turning
movement survey may be required for each location, as applicable, to obtain a
complete and thorough representation of existing traffic characteristics.
Crash History
Crash history is perhaps the most vital element in establishing the presence of a
potential safety concern. Collision reports for the subject area for the most
recent five-year period are obtained from the ALISS database by ADOT Traffic
Records personnel. Each collision report contains valuable information regarding
the condition of each driver and vehicle involved in the crash; an officer’s
assessment of specific driver error(s) contributing to or responsible for the crash;
weather, light, and road-surface conditions at the time of the crash; a detailed
description and usually a sketch of the location at which the crash occurred, and
many other data elements. Crash information obtained for the subject location is
summarized and presented both in the text of the Report and graphically in a
Collision Diagram. Tabulation of crash data elements by year is essential to the
Safety Evaluation and the economic analysis of safety improvements to the
subject location; and the calculation of a ten-year crash rate provides the
1 It may also be relevant to evaluate barrier warrants, adequacy of turn lane storage and transition lane
taper lengths, accessibility to disabled persons and “friendliness” of the subject roadway to pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Arizona HSIP Manual 20 March 2010
opportunity for comparison to other locations with similar physical roadway or
traffic characteristics. All of the foregoing is critical to both micro-scale spot or
location study and project development, and macro-scale State- and system-wide
Subprogram development.
Improvement Alternatives
A holistic investigation of all the components unique to each location should resolve
the data gathered into pairs or groups of similarity, indicating a pattern or patterns
in driver behavior, manner of collision, prevailing weather or road conditions, etc.;
and the possible deficiency of elements of design or function of the existing
roadway. Pairings or patterns in data usually make it possible to identify critical
causal relationships, which in turn promote the development of one or more
countermeasures to address adverse conditions that led to collisions on the subject
roadway. In this way, HES staff can generate proposed safety improvement
alternatives, incorporating multiple safety enhancements into unified strategies to
improve user safety. The Safety Evaluation report will include all the improvement
alternatives resulting from the Safety Evaluation, and define a recommended
alternative. The safety enhancements that compose the recommended alternative
may also be presented graphically in an Improvement Diagram, as appropriate.
Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) Analysis
The benefit-cost ratio analysis is an economic evaluation that is the basis for
establishing the relative need for and the feasibility of implementing recommended
safety improvements. The B/C is the ratio of expected benefits accrued (assessed in
dollars1) to the cost to construct and maintain the recommended alternative.
Using crash data obtained and tabulated previously in the Evaluation, for each crash
severity type: Fatal, Incapacitating Injury, Non-Incapacitating Injury, Possible Injury,
and Property Damage Only (PDO) and Unreported, an Annual Average is calculated.
The Annual Average (in number of accidents per year) is multiplied by the estimated
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF)2 to obtain the Total Reduction (in number of accidents
per year). Crash Reduction Factors, published by FHWA3, and by the state of
Arizona4, and any additional publications are the statistical numbers extrapolated
from before-and-after studies that evaluate the efficacy of specific countermeasures
used to mitigate potential safety concerns.
1 Although it is not possible to assign a value to human life or to the fullness of function of human
faculty, the Federal government requires a quantification of the costs associated with the loss of these.
2 Sample Crash Reduction Factors are given in Appendix D
3 FHWA-SA-96-040, “1996 Report on Highway Safety Improvement Programs”, Table 1 (Appendix D)
4 “Accident Rate Reduction Levels Which May Be Attainable from Various Safety Improvements”, February
1991, Lists 1-4 (Appendix D)
Arizona HSIP Manual 21 March 2010
The Total Reduction is multiplied by the unit cost for the crash severity to obtain the
Total Annual Benefit (in dollars). Currently used crash costs by severity are shown in
Table 1.
Crash Type Unit Cost
Fatal $ 5,800,000
Incapacitating Injury $ 400,000
Non Incapacitating Injury $ 80,000
Possible Injury $ 42,000
Property Damage Only $ 4,000
Unknown $ 4,000
Table 1. Motor Vehicle Crash Costs by Severity
The costs associated with implementation of the recommended safety improvements
are resolved into annual construction and maintenance costs, considering the
estimated project life in years, the interest factor for annual compounding, and a
capital recovery factor, and summed for a Total Annual Project Cost.
The Total Annual Benefit divided by the Total Annual Project Cost is the B/C1.
Assuming the value of the B/C for doing nothing (no addition of safety
enhancements) in the subject location is equal to one, a B/C equal to or greater than
one is an indication that it is economically favorable to implement the recommended
safety enhancements in consideration. However, it should be noted that some
system-wide improvements may have a B/C greater than one for the entire project
rather than individual segments that constitute the project (usually multi-year
projects).
Incremental Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C) Analysis
The benefit/cost ratios of the individual safety improvement projects are the starting
point for an incremental benefit/ cost analysis. When the individual projects with a
BCR greater than 1.0 are ranked in increasing order based on cost, with the smallest
cost listed first, the ratio of the difference between the first and second project’s
benefits, and respective costs would give an incremental benefit/cost ratio. If the
incremental BCR is greater than 1.0, the project with the higher cost is ranked higher
and compared with the next project on the list, meaning the magnitude of the
benefits of the higher-cost project outweighs the higher cost. The best economic
investment is the project selected in the last pairing. In instances where two projects
have the same cost, the project with the greater benefit should be selected.
1 Benefit-Cost Economic Analysis Guidelines are presented in Appendix D.
Arizona HSIP Manual 22 March 2010
Net Present Value
The net present value (NPV) method, or net present worth (NPW) method,
expresses the difference between the discounted costs and discounted benefits of a
safety improvement project. The costs and benefits are discounted by converting to
a present value using a discount rate.
A project is economically justified if the NPV is greater than zero. This method
identifies the most desirable countermeasure(s) for a specific site, and it also can be
used to evaluate multiple projects across multiple sites.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
In situations where it is not possible or practical to monetize countermeasure
benefits, a cost-effectiveness metric may be used. Cost-effectiveness is the ratio of
amount of money invested to the benefit in crash reduction. It is expressed as the
cost for crash avoided with a certain countermeasure. Thus, countermeasure with
the lowest value is ranked first.
3.1.5 FHWA Approval
Safety Evaluations concluding that improvements at the subject locations may
significantly reduce the occurrence of and/or the potential for fatalities and serious
injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads are submitted to FHWA for approval
and funding. Only those candidate projects that receive FHWA approval are developed
as safety improvement projects in the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
3.2 Implementation
The Implementation component of Arizona’s HSIP encompasses the development of
projects, identified for implementation and prioritized in Planning. The Project
Development process comprises four phases: Project Scoping; Design and Pre-
Construction Activities; Construction; and Operation and Maintenance.
3.2.1 Development of State Projects
The project development process for State safety projects is the same as for all other
Federal-Aid projects as defined in the ADOT Project Development Process Manual. The
following is a brief synopsis of the elements of project development detailed in the
Project Development Process Manual.
Scoping
In this phase, a Scoping Document or a more comprehensive Project Assessment
report is developed, and contains specific project information about existing
conditions at the subject location, defines the need for the project, identifies the
proposed activities which address this need, and establishes an initial timeline for
project completion. In this phase any conditions which will affect the proposed
timeline and construction of the project, including right-of-way constraints or the
need for purchase of additional right-of-way; environmental considerations such
Arizona HSIP Manual 23 March 2010
as the presence of any elements of historical, archeological or biological
significance or concern; geotechnical limitations; potential or actual utility
conflicts; and any other relevant considerations are addressed.
Data from the Scoping Document or the Project Assessment are the basis for
preparing the annual Five-Year Highway Construction Program, or simply the
“Five-Year Program”. The Multimodal Planning Division and the State
Transportation Board use the individual project objectives, estimated costs, and
development of timelines to establish priorities for construction of the candidate
projects.
The funding source is also identified in this phase. Funding for HES Projects on
the State Highway System is included in the Five-Year Program as a lump sum
until such time as the project is approved for HES funds and converted to a line
item project in the Program.
Design and Pre-Construction
Following acceptance into the Five-Year Program, projects advance to the Design
Phase and Pre-Construction phase. The Design phase consists of the staged
development of design and construction documents. The ADOT design process
consists of submittals at the Scoping Document or Project Assessment report
phase, and design documents in five stages, representing the 30%, 60%, 95%,
100% design completion (Stages I – IV), and Plans, Specifications & Estimate (P
S & E – Stage V). As part of Stage I design activities, it is recommended that
environmental clearances, which are required on all Federal-Aid projects, be
secured. Design of the project is by ADOT (In-House) or by an ADOT-designated
consultant. All environmental clearances and any right-of-way
acquisition must be secured prior to bid advertisement. Pre-Construction
includes the final acceptance of the construction documents, and the bid
advertisement and award of contract. Bid advertisement is in accordance with
the State law by the ADOT Contracts and Specifications Section. Award of
contract is to lowest qualified bid, at an open public meeting.
Construction
After the contract is awarded, the contractor is responsible for constructing the
project in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions set forth in the
contract. Contract administration, construction surveillance, and work inspection
is done through the appropriate ADOT Engineering District1. A consultant, either
the consultant that designed the project—if consultant-designed, or one
contracted specifically for the purpose, provides post-design services during
construction. Project acceptance concludes the construction phase and is
completed by the appropriate ADOT District Engineer or his designee.
1 Arizona is divided by region into Engineering Districts, thus the location of the project determines the
appropriate District.
Arizona HSIP Manual 24 March 2010
Operation and Maintenance
ADOT includes a 1-year period of operation and maintenance in the Project
Development Process, to ensure a high level of communication and feedback to
the design and construction staff regarding the project quality and
appropriateness of design.
3.3 Evaluation
Arizona’s HSIP includes a process for Evaluation of its Program and projects. The intent
of this process is to determine the effectiveness of the Program, its adherence to Federal
regulations, and to utilize data obtained by Evaluation in the Planning process.
Annual Program Review Report
A report is submitted annually to FHWA that evaluates ADOT’s Highway Safety
Improvement Program in total. The report includes a review of specific
systemic/systematic and spot location projects. A project listing, with a synopsis of activity
for all projects for the previous year includes information such as: Project name, estimated
cost, bid information, date when the project was closed, number of crashes before and
after construction, and final construction costs. The annual report will also include the
Railway-Highway Grade Crossing program.
Semi-Annual Review
The ADOT HES Section and FHWA conduct a semi-annual review to discuss
prioritization of projects, evaluate the processes of the HSIP, present new research in
safety/crash reduction, and others.
Before-and-After Studies
The ADOT HES staff conducts reviews, called “Before-and-After Studies”, of safety
improvement project locations, comparing various features and characteristics of the
subject location before construction and after. The results of Before-and-After Studies
are prepared for and included in the annual report to FHWA. One element of these
Studies is a comparison of crash rate and severity in the before and after conditions.
This is the most fundamental and the most important comparison to be made in the
evaluation of safety improvement projects. The “success” of a project is defined by a
drop in the severity and number of crashes.
Another element of the Study is an evaluation of the actual Benefit/Cost achieved by the
project. By comparing the actual cost of construction with the estimated cost, and the
crash frequency and severity in the “after” condition with the frequency and severity
estimated prior to construction, a direct comparison of B/CBEFORE and B/CAFTER can be
made.
From an analysis of before and after B/Cs versus before and after crash numbers and
severities, an estimation of the reduction percentages for the safety countermeasure, or
combination of countermeasures, for each project can be extrapolated. By collecting and
maintaining before-and-after crash data for every safety improvement project, more
Arizona HSIP Manual 25 March 2010
accurate reduction percentages can be derived, and from these more reliable CRFs can
be established. Reliable CRFs lead to more realistic statistics for future projects.
Information derived from the Evaluation process, such as reliable Crash Reduction
Factors, and an evaluation of the efficacy and benefits of projects are critical to the
Planning process and to the success of the HSIP in Arizona.
Arizona HSIP Manual 26 March 2010
4. REGIONALLY MANAGED HSIP PROGRAM
4.1 Planning
The Local Government HSIP Coordinator will be available to administer the projects
including providing assistance in developing and managing projects. The following
sections provide the local government planning process for developing HSIP funded
projects.
MPO/COG Prioritization and Selection of Safety Projects
• Network screen roadways to identify site with a potential for safety improvement
– Can be done using any analytic process and/or a call for safety projects
• Identifies potential countermeasures at selected locations and/or systematic
improvements – Potential countermeasures can be presented to the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) members
• Prioritize and select projects – TAC can prioritize and select the projects based
on an acceptable ranking method (verified by ADOT HES through e-mail/phone
conversation)
Submittal of Safety Projects to ADOT
• Submit prioritized list of projects with summary of safety need and proposed
countermeasures – Submit to ADOT HES (Local Government HSIP Coordinator)
• ADOT HES, ADOT MPD, and FHWA evaluate the project and proposed
countermeasures
• ADOT HES sends a letter of eligibility or a letter requesting clarifications, as
applicable, to MPO/COG
Funding
• The Local Government HSIP is set-aside for each MPO/COG in the amount of
$600,000 except MAG ($1,000,000) and PAG ($750,000)
• The funding cycle is on the State Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30)
• When the funding needs to be obligated in the current State FY, the cut-off date
for submission of the completed application with all necessary clearances to
ADOT HES for federal-aid authorization is May 1st
• MPOs and COGs may transfer funds amongst themselves with prior notification
and/or approval of ADOT MPD
• The funding not obligated under the Local Government HSIP will be moved to
the State HSIP line item in the 5-year construction program
Arizona HSIP Manual 27 March 2010
• The MPOs and COGs will be able to plan for future years and have adequate time
to develop projects that will be in the queue for future FYs
Systematic Projects
1. IMPROVE ROADWAY SEGMENT SAFETY
a. Milled in shoulder rumble strips
b. Milled in centerline rumble strips – head-on crashes
c. Milled in transverse rumble strips
d. Incorporate Safety Edge on pavement projects
e. Install roadside delineation for barriers and obstacles
f. Upgrade guardrail end treatments – installation, conversion or upgrading
to energy absorbing systems
g. Upgrade pavement markings (more durable materials)
h. Installation of raised/recessed pavement markers
i. Upgrading regulatory and warning signs rehabilitation (including
compliance with new reflectivity requirements)
j. Establish or upgrade mileposts and milepost system
2. IMPROVE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SAFETY
a. Converting from 8-inch to 12-inch signals
b. Installation of LED Signal Heads
c. Installation and/or upgrading street name signing
d. Installation of advance street name signing
3. IMPROVE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SAFETY
a. Upgrade STOP sign – larger and/or retroreflective upgrade
b. Install advance stop ahead pavement marking
4. IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
a. Install pedestrian crosswalk countdown signals
b. Install and/or upgrade pedestrian crosswalk pavement markings
c. Enhanced school crossing signals, signing and/or pavement markings
d. Provide mid-block crosswalk advance stop bars
e. Provide pedestrian refuges
Arizona HSIP Manual 28 March 2010
Such improvements typically do not involve or require lengthy or complicated
environmental review. Many would qualify for Group 1 or Condensed Group 2
Categorical Exclusions. These improvements do not normally involve additional right-of-
way and most do not involve utility coordination or adjustments.
FHWA also suggests consideration of area-wide projects that accomplish the same or
very similar improvements over wide areas and multiple jurisdictions.
Please refer to FHWA memo on Eligibility of Sign Replacement (February 27, 2008)
requiring these projects to have a documented safety benefit
<http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/policy_guide/memo022708.cfm>.
4.2 Implementation
MPOs and COGs will include the selected projects in their Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The Local Government HSIP Coordinator will assist MPOs and COGs
through the project development process. With FHWA approval, ADOT may delegate to
the Local Government the authority to self-administer projects under the certification
acceptance program. If approved, the Local Government is granted authority to design,
advertise and award, and administer construction of local projects. Responsibility for
the review and approval of the project DCR and environmental determination, provision
of the environmental clearance, and the processing of Federal funds would remain with
ADOT.
4.3 Evaluation
All HSIP funded local government projects will be evaluated using “before-and-after”
analysis method by the Coordinator.
Arizona HSIP Manual 29 March 2010
5. HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM
In Arizona, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) will kick off in FY 2011. The
program will be statewide and anticipated to be managed primarily by the Local
Government agencies.
The Planning, Implementation and Evaluation will follow the guidelines to be developed
at a later date by the Local Government HSIP Coordinator.
Arizona HSIP Manual 30 March 2010
6. ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
The Arizona Road Safety Assessment (RSA) Program activities include conducting RSAs,
providing training, marketing the program through presentations, and evaluating the
success of the program. The RSA Program Manager administers and conducts RSAs
throughout Arizona. HSIP funds are utilized for the RSA Program Manager position,
travel expenses for team members, and consultant participation on RSAs. HSIP funds
may also be used to implement RSA recommendations. High Risk Rural Road Program
funds can also be obtained for implementing RSA recommendations.
An RSA is a formal examination of user safety of an existing or planned road or
intersection by an independent, multi-disciplinary team. The characteristics of RSAs
include analysis of crash data, day and night field reviews, and identification of existing
and potential safety concerns. The RSA application form is shown in Figure 3. For
additional information, please visit <http://azdot.gov/highways/traffic/9620.asp>.
Initially, the RSA Program will allocate $500,000 HSIP funding per year for statewide
safety projects.
Arizona HSIP Manual 31 March 2010
Figure 3. Arizona RSA Application Form
Arizona HSIP Manual 32 March 2010
7. THE FUTURE OF ARIZONA’S HSIP
The main objective of the HSIP is to reduce the overall frequency and severity of
motor-vehicle collisions, as well as the potential for collisions, on public roads. All of
the foregoing describes the ADOT HES plan for locating and addressing potential safety
concerns on Arizona’s highways. However, assessing the potential for collisions is a
somewhat difficult mission since it requires preventing collisions that have not yet
occurred. How do we find locations with potential safety concern that do not yet have
an obvious and traceable collision history? How do we assess the potential safety
concern(s) in these locations without collision reports indicating the factors contributing
to the crashes? The answers are in the Evaluation and Planning components of the
HSIP.
The Evaluation component is critical to the prevention of future collisions, because of
the valuable information derived from Before-and-After Studies. These Studies provide
information on the characteristics and attendant safety concerns of locations with
histories of a high number and/or severity of collisions. Before-and-After Studies also
provide information on the type of safety countermeasures chosen to mitigate these
safety concerns, their effectiveness in reducing the number and severity of collisions,
and their relative benefit to the System. This information can then be used to refine
the Planning process, allowing HES personnel to isolate critical characteristics shown
to create a potential for collisions, and to apply safety countermeasures proven to be
the most effective in addressing this potential.
The ongoing success of Arizona’s Highway Safety Improvement Program is reliant on
this process of iteration and refinement of goals and priorities to ensure that efforts are
directed to realize the greatest overall safety benefit to Arizona’s State Highway System.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
APPENDIX A - ABBREVIATIONS
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACC Arizona Corporation Commission
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ALISS Accident Location Identification and Surveillance System
ATIS Arizona Transportation Information System
B/C Benefit-Cost Ratio
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COG Council of Government
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
DCR Design Concept Report
ECS (ADOT) Engineering Consultant Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
GIS-T Geographic Information System for Transportation
HES (ADOT) Highway Enhancements for Safety
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System
HRRRP High Risk Rural Roads Program
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
IGA Intergovernmental Agreement
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITD (ADOT) Intermodal Transportation Division
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
MPD (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PDO Property Damage Only
PECOS Performance Controlled System
PSE Plans, Specifications, & Estimate
RHGCP Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program
RSA Road Safety Assessment
SAFETEA-LU The Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users
SHS State Highway System
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
STP Surface Transportation Program
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
URL Uniform Resource Locator
URR (ADOT) Utility & Railroad Engineering Section
USC United States Code
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
APPENDIX B - SPECIAL REQUEST FORM
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
APPENDIX C - SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FORMAT
GUIDELINES
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FORMAT GUIDELINES
Safety Evaluation Reports are technical documents that present specific information,
conclusions, and recommendations for the subject location. Each report should present
only that information which is pertinent to the Evaluation subject location and should
stand alone as a complete and unique document. The Report may or may not be
sealed by a Professional Engineer (PE), depending on the Report type and content.
The following Report format is a guide intended for use by those who are responsible
for organizing and conducting engineering studies and for implementing their findings.
This guide has been established to promote uniformity and to assure that essential
study parameters are addressed. However, it is a guide only, and topics should be
included, omitted, or altered as appropriate for each Evaluation.
I. Cover Letter
a. Executive Summary
b. Recommendations
c. Signature of Endorsement
II. Title Page
III. Location and Vicinity Maps
IV. Introduction
a. Purpose of Evaluation/Problem Statement
b. Evaluation Requestor
c. Pertinent Background Information
d. Identification Method
V. Physical Roadway Features
a. Subject Location and Description
b. Roadway Features and Conditions
i. Classification
ii. Roadside Development and Access
iii. Section
iv. Geometrics
v. Signed Speed(s)
vi. Passing Zones
vii. Safety Features (e.g., rumble strips, guardrail)
viii. Sight Distance Considerations
ix. Any Other Pertinent Physical Features of the Subject Location
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FORMAT GUIDELINES
VI. Traffic Characteristics
a. ADT, AADT
b. Vehicle Classifications
c. Traffic Volumes (including turning movements, where applicable)
d. Projected Volumes
e. Pedestrian and Pedal-cycle Volumes
f. Capacity
g. Delay
h. Conflicts
i. Any Other Pertinent Characteristics of the Subject Location
VII. Speed Studies
VIII. Traffic Collision History
a. Collision Summary
b. Trends/Patterns
c. Any Other Pertinent Collision Information
IX. Improvement Alternatives
a. Presentation of Possible Countermeasures
b. Discussion of the Strengths and Drawbacks
c. Identification of Most Appropriate Alternative(s)
X. Economic Analysis of Viable Alternatives
a. Cost Analysis
b. Benefits Obtainable Analysis
c. Calculation of the Benefit-Cost Ratio
XI. Discussion and Summary
a. Evaluation of Safety at the Subject Location, Based On Findings
b. Factors Contributing to the Problem
c. Improvement Alternatives Considered, Chosen, and Rejected
d. Result of Economic Analyses
e. Conclusions
f. Recommendations
XII. Appendices
a. Condition Diagram
b. Collision Diagram
c. Economic Analyses
d. Any Other Supporting Documentation and References
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
APPENDIX D - BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
The purpose of the accident-based B/C economic analysis is to provide an economic
assessment of the extent to which a project or program may achieve its ultimate goal of
reducing the number and/or severity of accidents. The B/C analysis ultimately provides
a means of selecting the most cost-effective countermeasure(s) for any given project.
The procedure involves the economic evaluation of improvement alternatives to develop
effective improvement projects from the candidate alternatives. It is one of the most
widely used methods of screening programs and projects that are being considered for
development.
The accident-based B/C analysis should be made for those situations that are conducive
to its use. The conclusion and recommendations for candidate projects should be
based on the results of the B/C analysis.
The accident-based B/C method uses the ratio of expected benefits accrued (accident
savings, reduced user costs, etc.) to the costs incurred for a countermeasure.
Annual Benefit
The safety benefit is the anticipated reduction in the total annual number of accidents
or accident frequency per countermeasure. The total annual accident cost saving
(benefit) is obtained using FHWA’s comprehensive motor vehicle accident costs (see
page D-7) and an appropriate Crash Reduction Factor (CRF). The benefit should be
evaluated for each countermeasure.
A comprehensive source for Crash Reduction Factors is not available at this time.
Available data and engineering judgment should be used to select appropriate accident
reduction factors. (See Exhibit E for existing CRFs.)
Annual Cost
The cost of each alternative countermeasure is calculated as follows:
1. Determine the total construction cost (initial design, right-of-way,
construction, and other costs associated with the projects).
2. Determine the service life of the countermeasure from the listing on page
D-8.
3. Obtain or assume an interest rate, which is appropriate for current
economic conditions, in percent.
4. Compute the annual construction cost by multiplying the total construction
cost by the appropriate capital recovery factor, based on the interest rate
and service life of the countermeasure, from the table on page D-7, D-8.
5. Determine the annual estimated operating and maintenance cost for the
countermeasure, and subtract the existing annual operating and
maintenance cost to obtain the annual maintenance cost difference.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
6. Compute the total annual cost of the project (annual construction cost +
annual maintenance cost difference).
Benefit/Cost Analysis
The B/C is computed by dividing the annual benefit by the annual cost. The procedure
is detailed on the worksheet on page D-6.
When one alternative improvement involves several countermeasures, the following
procedure should be used to calculate the total Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for that
alternative improvement:
CRFTotal = 1 - (1 - CRF1) * (1 - CRF2) * (1 - CRF3) * (1 - CRF4) * (1 - CRF5)
Where, CRF1, CRF2, CRF3, etc. are Crash Reduction Factors for countermeasures 1, 2, 3,…n,
respectively.
Incremental Benefit/Cost Analysis (DB/DC)
The incremental B/C method may be used to determine whether extra increments of
cost (e.g., widening the curve plus roadside improvements vs. curve widening only) are
justified for a particular location or for considering improvements at two or more
locations. This method assumes that the relative merit of a project is measured by its
change in benefits and costs, compared to the next lower-cost alternative.
The steps for using the incremental B/C method are as follows:
1. Determine the benefits, costs, and the resulting B/C for each
countermeasure.
2. List countermeasures with a B/C greater than 1.0 in order of increasing
cost.
3. Calculate the incremental B/C of the second lowest-cost countermeasure
compared to the lowest-cost countermeasure. Pick the second lowest-cost
countermeasure if this ratio is positive; or else pick the lowest-cost
countermeasure.
4. Continue in order of increasing costs to calculate the incremental B/C for
each countermeasure compared to the last-picked countermeasure.
5. Stop when the incremental B/C (disregarding negative ratios) is less than
1.0.
To illustrate the use of this method, consider the costs and benefits in the following
example. Notice that options must be ordered from lowest to highest cost. Each option
may consist of a single countermeasure or a combination of countermeasures.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
Illustration of Incremental B/C Analysis
From the foregoing example, countermeasure B (lowest-cost countermeasure) is first
compared with countermeasure C, and countermeasure B is preferred to
countermeasure C (DB/DC = -12.0). Countermeasure C is then excluded from further
consideration. Countermeasure B is next compared with countermeasure A, and
countermeasure A (the higher cost countermeasure) is preferred, since DB/DC = 1.3
(greater than 1.0). In this case, spending an additional $19,750 on countermeasure A
will yield $25,600 of additional benefits. Countermeasure B is then eliminated from
further consideration. Finally, countermeasures A and D are compared, and the
additional $3,240 in cost from countermeasure D is compared with the $12,000 of
additional benefits from countermeasure D. Thus, DB/DC = 3.7 between
countermeasures D and A, and countermeasure D is the optimal solution based on
incremental benefits and costs. Notice that countermeasure D was selected with a
simple B/C of 2.2, even though countermeasures B and C had B/Cs of 10.1 and 7.5,
respectively. This solution would be subject to funding availability, political
considerations, environmental constraints, etc.
Application
The B/C method requires that dollar values be placed on all estimated costs and the
expected benefits related to the countermeasure. A countermeasure that has a B/C
greater than 1.0 is considered to be economically justified. The countermeasure with
the highest B/C is normally the recommended alternative, unless the incremental B/C
method is used.
The B/C method is recommended only when a set of costs for highway accidents
(fatalities, injuries, property damages, etc.) has been established. ADOT has adopted
FHWA’s Motor Vehicle Accident Costs.
The method may be applicable to either an individual countermeasure or one consisting
of several improvements. The B/C should be evaluated for each alternative
countermeasure. The selection of a countermeasure shall consider the highest B/C,
unless the incremental B/C method is used.
Counter- Incremental
measure
Annual
Benefit
Annual
Cost
B/C
Comparison
of Counter-measures
Benefit Cost
Incremental
B/C Ratio
(DB/DC)
B $15,200 $1,510 10.1
B and C $-2,400 $200 -12.0 (Pick B)
C $12,800 $1,710 7.5
B and A $25,600 $19,750 1.3 (Pick A)
A $40,800 $21,260 1.9
A and D $12,000 $3,240 3.7 (Pick D)
D $52,800 $24,500 2.2
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
Standard Worksheet and Tables (Pages D-6 to D-9)
Motor Vehicle Crash Costs by Severity
Crash Type Unit Cost
Fatal $ 5,800,000
Incapacitating Injury $ 400,000
Non Incapacitating Injury $ 80,000
Possible Injury $ 42,000
Property Damage Only $ 4,000
Unknown $ 4,000
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
Interest Factors For Annual Compounding Interest
(Equal Payment Series)
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR
Year 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
2 0.5608 0.5762 0.5917 0.6073 0.6230
4 0.3019 0.3155 0.3292 0.3432 0.3574
6 0.2163 0.2296 0.2432 0.2572 0.2714
8 0.1740 0.1874 0.2013 0.2156 0.2302
10 0.1490 0.1627 0.1770 0.1917 0.2069
15 0.1168 0.1315 0.1468 0.1628 0.1794
20 0.1019 0.1175 0.1339 0.1510 0.1687
25 0.0937 0.1102 0.1275 0.1455 0.1640
30 0.0888 0.1061 0.1241 0.1428 0.1619
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CODES, DESCRIPTIONS, & SERVICE LIVES USED IN EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONS
CodeDescription Service Life (Years)
INTERSECTION PROJECTS
10 Channelization, left-turn bay 10
11 Traffic Signals 10
12 Combination of 10 and 11 10
13 Sight distance improvement 10
19 Other intersection improvements, except structures 10
1A Combination of 10 and 19 10
1B Combination of 11, 13, 19, and 65 10
CROSS SECTION PROJECTS
20 Pavement widening, no lanes added 2
21 Lanes added without new median 20
22 Highway divided, new median added 20
23 Shoulder widening or improvement 20
24 Combination of 20 - 23 20
25 Skid treatment - grooving 10
26 Skid treatment - overlay 10
27 Flattening, clearing side slopes 20
29 Other cross section or combinations of 20 - 27 20
2A Combination of 20 and 26 15
STRUCTURES
30 Widening bridge or major structure 20
31 Replace bridge or major structure 30
32 New bridge or major structure (except 34 and 51) 30
33 Minor structure 20
34 Pedestrian over- or under-crossing 30
39 Other structure 20
ALIGNMENT PROJECTS
40 Horizontal alignment changes (except 52) 20
41 Vertical alignment changes 20
42 Combination of 40 and 41 20
49 Other alignments 20
RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING PROJECTS
50 Flashing lights replacing signs 10
51 Elimination by new or reconstructed grade separation 30
52 Elimination by relocation of highway or railroad 30
53 Illumination 10
54 Flashing lights replacing active devices 10
55 Automatic gates replacing signs 10
56 Automatic gates replacing active devices 10
57 Signing, marking 10
58 Crossing surface improvement 10
59 Other railroad grade crossing improvement 10
5A Any combination of 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 10
ROADSIDE APPURTENANCES
60 Traffic Signs 6
61 Breakaway sign or luminaire supports 10
62 Road edge guardrail 10
63 Median barrier 1
64 Markings, delineators 2
65 Lighting 15
66 Improved drainage structures 20
67 Fencing 10
68 Impact attenuators 10
69 Other roadside improvements 10
6A Combination of 60 - 64 10
6B Combination of 64 and 68 10
6C Combination of 60 and 62 8
6D Combination of 60 and 64 4
6E Combination of 62 and 69 10
6F Combination of 62, 66, and 69 10
6G Combination of 60 and 63 10
OTHER SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
90 Safety provisions for roadside features and appurtenances 20
99 All projects not otherwise classifiable 20
9A Combination of 11, 26, and 69 10
9B Combination of 26 and 66 15
9C Combination of 27, 30, 62, and 99 20
9D Combination of 11 and 60 8
9E Combination of 11 and 64 6
9F Combination of 23, 26, and 62 15
9G Combination of 27, 61, 62, and 64 10
9H Combination of 22, 39, and 65 20
9I Combination of 23, 61, 62, 64, 65, and 66 15
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
EVALUATION OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BY CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION 1974 –1994
Note: * indicates no significant change at the 95 percent confidence level. Adapted from The 1996 Annual Report on
Highway Safety Improvement Programs, Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-040
Percent Reduction in Accident Rates
After Improvements
Construction Classification Fatal Nonfatal
Injury
Combined
Fatal + Nonfatal
Injury
INTERSECTIONS AND TRAFFIC
CONTROL
Turning lanes & Traffic Channelization 48 26 26
Sight Distance Improvements *56 *43 *43
Traffic Signs 32 15 15
Pavement Markings & Delineators 15 5 6
Illumination 38 14 14
Upgraded Traffic Signals 40 22 22
New Traffic Signals *53 22 23
STRUCTURES
Widen or Modify Bridge 49 30 31
New Bridge 86 69 70
Replace or Improve Minor Structure 36 20 21
Upgrade Bridge Rail 75 29 33
ROADWAY
Construct Median for Traffic Separation 71 28 30
Widen or Improve Shoulder 21 12 12
Realign Roadway 63 41 42
Overlay for Skid Treatment 18 18 18
Groove Pavement for Skid Treatment 33 15 15
ROADSIDE
Relocated/Breakaway Utility Poles 32 45 44
Upgrade Guardrail 36 8 9
Upgrade Median Barrier *65 20 22
New Median Barrier 64 12 15
Impact Attenuators *38 34 34
Flatten Side Slopes *26 27 27
Remove Obstacles 60 23 25
RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
Upgrade Flashing Lights 85 35 44
New Flashing Lights 87 79 81
New Flashing Lights & Gates 92 85 86
New Gates 92 74 78
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
APPENDIX E - CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
ACCIDENT REDUCTION FACTOR CATEGORIES
1. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
1-1 Lane Addition
1-2 Lane Widening
1-3 Shoulder Widening
1-4 2-Way Left-Turn Lane
1-5 Realignment
1-6 Shoulder Grooving
1-7 Overlay
1-8 Truck Escape Ramp
1-9 Brake Check Area
2. ROADSIDE IMPROVEMENT
2-1 New Guardrail
2-2 Upgrade/Extend Guardrail
2-3 Drainage Structure Extension
2-4 Slope Flattening
2-5 Vegetation/Obstacle Removal
2-6 New/Upgrade Median Barrier
2-7 Impact Attenuators
2-8 Object Markers
2-9 Delineation
2-10 Animal Fencing
2-11 Animal Reflectors
2-12 Snow Fencing
2-13 Rockfall Containment
2-14 Illumination
3. INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES
3-1 New Signal
3-2 Geometric Changes
3-3 New Signal & Geometric Changes
3-4 Changes to Existing Signal
3-5 Changes to Existing Signal & Geometry
3-6 Left–Turn Phasing
3-7 Turn Lanes
3-8 Illumination
3-9 Sight Distance Improvement
3-10 Channelization Pavement Marking
3-11 Channelization Signing
3-12 Crossroad/Sideroad Signing
3-13 Stop Signs
3-14 Yield Signs
3-15 Signal Removal
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
ACCIDENT REDUCTION FACTOR CATEGORIES
4. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
4-1 Edgeline Markings
4-2 Raised Pavement Markers
4-3 Rumble Strips
4-4 New Curve Signing
4-5 Upgrade Curve Signing
4-6 “Icy Pavement” Signing
4-7 “Slippery When Wet” Signing
4-8 “Narrow Bridge” Signing
4-9 “Watch For Rocks” Signing
4-10 Animal Warning Signs
4-11 Interstate Signing
5. PEDESTRIANS
5-1 Sidewalks
5-2 Pedestrian Overpass
5-3 Pedestrian Signing
6. STRUCTURES
6-1 Bridge Widening
6-2 Bridge Replacement
6-3 New Bridge
6-4 Upgrade Bridge Barrier
7. RAILROAD – HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
7-1 New Flashing Lights
7-2 Upgrade Flashing Lights
7-3 New Gates Replacing Cross-Bucks
7-4 New Gates Supplementing Flashing Lights
7-5 Crossing Surface Improvement
7-6 Signing
7-7 Pavement Markings
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
1 - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
1 - 1 LANE ADDITION 30
All Crashes 2719 25 39 23 23 27
Rear-End 931 32 67 28 28 35
Sideswipe (Same) 248 30 100 36 37 28
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 80 53 100 39 70 59
Run-Off-Road 542 44 55 44 45 44
1 - 2 LANE WIDENING 6
All Crashes 491 56 58 57 57 54
Sideswipe (Same) 31 52 0 43 43 54
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 10 70 0 100 100 25
Run-Off-Road 59 49 100 35 41 54
1 - 3 SHOULDER WIDENING 16
All Crashes 600 57 48 59 58 57
Sideswipe (Same) 34 41 100 75 78 28
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 24 75 33 80 72 83
Run-Off-Road 242 60 25 57 54 65
Pedestrian 14 71 86 57 71 0
1 - 4 2-WAY LEFT TURN LANE 19
All Crashes 1254 30 40 20 20 35
Left-Turn 147 33 100 0 2 48
Rear-End 407 36 0 38 38 34
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 25 36 0 50 50 27
Run-Off-Road 134 37 100 3 0 49
Pedestrian 53 19 0 19 18 50
1 - 5 REALIGNMENT 26
All Crashes 459 48 33 56 55 42
Rear-End 71 37 0 42 42 34
Sideswipe (Same) 26 54 0 57 57 53
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 27 85 67 89 83 87
Run-Off-Road 190 66 33 71 69 62
1 - 6 SHOULDER GROOVING 18
All Crashes 1210 18 15 18 18 17
Run-Off-Road 711 27 12 27 26 26
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
1 - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
1 - 7 OVERLAY 177
All Crashes 11278 9 2 4 4 13
Rear-End 3047 19 25 18 18 20
Run-Off-Road 2500 13 16 11 10 15
Wet Pavement 1191 39 61 25 27 43
1 - 8 TRUCK ESCAPE RAMP 3
All Crashes 111 18 75 28 20 16
Rear-End 9 33 0 71 71 100
Defective Brakes 7 14 100 0 100 20
1 - 9 BRAKE CHECK AREA 2
All Crashes 42 45 100 55 58 50
Defective Brakes 1 100 0 100 100 0
2 - ROADSIDE IMPROVEMENTS
2 - 1 NEW GUARDRAIL (G/R) 43
All Crashes 409 19 47 12 15 21
Run-Off-Road 191 30 56 23 26 34
2 - 2
UPGRADE/EXTEND
GUARDRAIL
152
All Crashes 3257 15 9 13 13 16
Run-Off-Road 1600 26 10 27 25 25
2 - 3
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EXTENSION
26
All Crashes 1634 36 18 34 33 38
Run-Off-Road 1027 44 27 36 36 50
2 - 4 SLOPE FLATTENING 11
All Crashes 647 4 30 15 12 2
Run-Off-Road 252 10 30 18 19 2
2 - 5
VEGETATION/OBSTACLE
REMOVAL
16
All Crashes 92 61 0 59 58 64
Run-Off-Road 64 77 100 76 77 76
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
2 - ROADSIDE IMPROVEMENTS
2 - 6
NEW/UPGRADE MEDIAN
BARRIER
2
All Crashes 541 36 60 26 28 39
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 1 0 0 0 0 0
Run-Off-Road 116 35 50 11 13 46
2 - 7 IMPACT ATTENUATORS 15
All Crashes 61 41 100 55 50 36
Run-Off-Road 22 45 0 30 30 58
2 - 8 OBJECT MARKERS 368
All Crashes 416 16 41 17 19 14
Run-Off-Road 171 29 60 24 29 29
2 - 9 DELINEATION 106
All Crashes 663 11 8 19 18 4
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 15 67 100 25 63 71
Run-Off-Road 133 34 14 43 40 24
Nighttime 112 25 14 41 38 10
2 - 10 ANIMAL FENCING 16
All Crashes 295 12 0 17 15 9
Animal 68 66 0 91 91 61
2 - 11 ANIMAL REFLECTORS 2
All Crashes 61 10 0 6 6 11
Nighttime Animal 4 25 0 0 0 25
2 - 12 SNOW FENCING 1
All Crashes 17 71 0 83 83 64
Snowy Pavement 12 58 0 67 67 56
2 - 13 ROCKFALL CONTAINMENT 1
All Crashes 7 14 0 0 0 25
Striking Rocks 1 100 0 0 0 100
2 - 14 ILLUMINATION 2
All Crashes 154 19 0 8 8 23
Nighttime 50 30 100 35 42 23
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
3 - INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES
3 - 1 NEW SIGNAL 73
All Crashes 1024 17 14 20 20 15
Angle 443 42 60 39 40 45
3 - 2 GEOMETRIC CHANGES 25
All Crashes 75 43 0 71 71 20
Angle 23 17 0 58 58 27
Left-Turn 3 67 0 50 50 100
Improper Turn 12 100 0 100 100 100
Rear-End 15 60 0 100 100 33
Sideswipe (Same) 3 67 0 100 100 50
Run-Off-Road 18 67 0 80 80 50
3 - 3
NEW SIGNAL &
GEOMETRIC CHANGES
23
All Crashes 419 21 57 28 30 13
Angle 247 68 56 73 72 63
Sideswipe (Same) 15 53 0 100 100 42
Pedestrian 6 33 100 0 33 0
3 - 4
CHANGES TO EXISTING
SIGNAL
20
All Crashes 645 9 0 3 3 13
Angle 210 32 100 37 37 27
Left-Turn 115 3 0 44 44 26
Pedestrian 7 57 0 50 50 100
3 - 5
CHANGES TO EXISTING
SIGNAL & GEOMETRY
19
All Crashes 841 40 50 33 34 43
Angle 129 19 0 21 20 19
Left-Turn 152 18 50 24 25 11
Improper Turn 83 80 0 83 83 79
Rear-End 338 48 100 45 45 50
Sideswipe (Same) 50 48 0 18 17 52
Pedestrian 7 14 100 60 33 100
3 - 6 LEFT-TURN PHASING 13
All Crashes 623 15 33 6 6 21
Left-Turn 133 35 50 4 6 52
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
3 - INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES
3 - 7 TURN LANES 24
All Crashes 180 6 100 1 3 9
Angle 40 13 100 14 17 6
Left-Turn 33 24 100 33 38 12
Improper Turn 13 54 0 25 25 67
Rear-End 53 8 100 40 31 3
Sideswipe (Same) 17 59 0 75 75 54
3 - 8 ILLUMINATION 18
All Crashes 143 48 0 14 14 73
Nighttime 45 18 0 29 29 8
3 - 9
SIGHT DISTANCE
IMPROVEMENT
58
All Crashes 586 7 0 6 5 8
Angle 165 21 75 3 7 31
Left-Turn 115 13 0 21 21 3
Improper Turn 54 30 0 30 30 29
Rear-End 145 10 0 17 17 4
3 - 10
CHANNELIZATION
PAVEMENT MARKING
17
All Crashes 127 0 100 4 2 1
Angle 27 33 100 50 36 31
Left-Turn 32 19 0 9 9 24
Improper Turn 12 17 0 60 60 14
Sideswipe (Same) 4 25 0 0 0 33
Pedestrian 5 80 0 100 100 100
3 - 11 CHANNELIZATION SIGNING 15
All Crashes 110 14 100 2 7 27
Angle 14 14 0 50 50 63
Left-Turn 22 36 100 36 27 45
Improper Turn 4 100 0 100 100 100
Sideswipe (Same) 6 67 0 100 100 33
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
3 - INTERSECTIONS AND INTERCHANGES
3 - 12
CROSSROAD/SIDEROAD
SIGNING
63
All Crashes 82 33 100 56 59 15
Angle 21 29 100 25 50 20
Left-Turn 7 86 0 75 75 100
Improper Turn 14 64 0 86 86 43
Rear-End 26 27 0 38 38 75
3 - 13 STOP SIGNS 40
All Crashes 85 19 0 20 20 18
Angle 26 8 0 0 0 17
Left-Turn 18 22 0 14 14 27
Rear-End 25 48 0 67 67 38
3 - 14 YIELD SIGNS 6
All Crashes 35 37 0 25 25 89
Angle 7 43 0 33 33 50
3 - 15 SIGNAL REMOVAL 2
All Crashes 5 100 0 100 100 100
Rear-End 4 100 0 100 100 100
4 - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
4 - 1 EDGELINE MARKINGS 4
All Crashes 79 30 100 63 52 15
Run-Off-Road 37 30 0 60 56 10
4 - 2
RAISED PAVEMENT
MARKERS
43
All Crashes 4275 11 16 11 12 11
Sideswipe (Same) 431 13 100 6 7 14
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 41 12 40 15 4 38
Run-Off-Road 800 33 23 37 37 31
Nighttime 1309 16 35 10 12 18
4 - 3 RUMBLE STRIPS 5
All Crashes 43 53 83 65 73 29
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 5 80 100 100 100 67
Run-Off-Road 28 54 75 56 60 38
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
4 - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
4 - 4 NEW CURVE SIGNING 188
All Crashes 558 14 55 20 24 3
Sideswipe (Same) 20 75 100 100 100 71
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 73 29 57 47 49 3
Run-Off-Road 328 17 57 24 27 1
4 - 5 UPGRADE CURVE SIGNING 138
All Crashes 439 21 6 23 22 21
Rear-End 25 48 0 38 38 76
Sideswipe (Same) 5 100 100 100 100 100
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 53 26 50 11 14 34
Run-Off-Road 286 21 0 25 23 18
4 - 6 "ICY PAVEMENT" SIGNING 20
All Crashes 247 15 67 24 13 17
Icy Pavement 76 22 100 52 42 16
4 - 7
"SLIPPERY WHEN WET"
SIGNING
185
All Crashes 1819 7 81 10 6 8
Wet Pavement 323 31 0 29 28 33
4 - 8
"NARROW BRIDGE"
SIGNING
9
All Crashes 15 47 0 86 86 13
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 5 20 0 100 100 33
Run-Off-Road 6 50 0 100 100 0
4 - 9
"WATCH FOR ROCKS"
SIGNING
32
All Crashes 342 13 0 13 12 14
Striking Rocks 33 64 0 88 88 56
4 - 10
ANIMAL WARNING
SIGNING
195
All Crashes 2039 10 15 8 6 13
Striking Animals 400 18 83 2 12 19
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
4 - TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
4 - 11 INTERSTATE SIGNING 20
All Crashes 3961 7 8 10 10 25
5 - PEDESTRIANS
5 - 1 SIDEWALKS 4
All Crashes 128 15 100 70 58 7
Hit Pedestrian 9 89 100 88 89 0
5 - 2 PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS 6
All Crashes 15 33 0 0 0 62
Hit Pedestrian 3 67 0 50 67 0
5 - 3 PEDESTRIAN SIGNING 96
All Crashes 1870 4 4 8 8 1
Hit Pedestrian 66 15 22 17 17 33
6 - STRUCTURES
6 - 1 BRIDGE WIDENING 23
All Crashes 76 36 50 38 38 32
Sideswipe (Same) 7 57 0 100 100 0
Run-Off-Road 54 44 50 27 29 62
6 - 2 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 17
All Crashes 52 62 100 36 40 70
Rear-End 6 100 0 100 100 100
Sideswipe (Same) 1 100 0 100 100 0
Sideswipe (Opp) & Head-On 1 100 0 0 0 100
Run-Off-Road 23 52 100 0 17 65
6 - 3 NEW BRIDGE 13
All Crashes 27 11 0 38 36 15
Wet Pavement 4 50 0 50 50 50
6 - 4
UPGRADE BRIDGE
BARRIER
45
All Crashes 51 25 100 50 41 14
Run-Off-Road 33 42 0 46 46 40
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
Arizona HSIP Manual March 2010
CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS
CRASH REDUCTION LEVELS WHICH MAY BE ATTAINABLE FROM VARIOUS SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS (ARIZONA DATA)
# OF
PROJECTS
# OF
BEFORE
CRASHES ALL FATAL INJURY
FATAL
&
INJURY PDO
7 - RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
7 - 1 NEW FLASHING LIGHTS 3
All Crashes 7 43 0 0 0 60
Hit Train 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 - 2
UPGRADE FLASHING
LIGHTS
7
All Crashes 28 43 0 29 29 57
Hit Train 8 38 0 0 0 60
7 - 3
NEW GATES REPLACING
CROSS-BUCKS
105
All Crashes 107 59 90 73 76 44
Hit Train 48 96 100 95 96 95
7 - 4
NEW GATES
SUPPLEMENTING
FLASHING LIGHTS
22
All Crashes 34 62 100 71 73 53
Hit Train 10 80 100 100 100 60
7 - 5
CROSSING SURFACE
IMPROVEMENT
16
All Crashes 29 7 100 0 22 20
Run-Off-Road 8 25 0 33 33 20
Hit Train 5 20 100 50 50 67
7 - 6 SIGNING 13
All Crashes 4 100 0 100 100 100
Run-Off-Road 2 100 0 100 100 100
Hit Train 2 100 0 100 100 0
7 - 7 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 141
All Crashes 169 48 100 43 42 51
Run-Off-Road 32 22 0 8 8 30
Rear-End 71 58 0 52 52 62
Hit Train 43 56 100 50 43 62
Note: Underlined numbers represent statistically significant rate reductions. Numbers in bold represent rate increases.
% REDUCTION IN CRASH RATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT