Pedestrian safety action plan: final report

              Arizona Department of
Transportation
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
PGKG 3267
Contract # TO849U0001
Final Report
ADOT Task Assignment MPD 04- 08
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 2009
091374020
TABLE OFCONTENTS
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc i Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Problem and Need Statement ............................................................................................... 7
1.2 Study Overview ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Study Area and Scope of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ................................... 8
1.4 Tribal Coordination .............................................................................................................. 9
1.5 Purpose and Content of the Final Report............................................................................. 9
2.0 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GOALS AND EMPHASIS AREAS ................................................................. 11
3.0 STATE HIGHWAY HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS ......................................................... 13
4.0 PRIORITIZATION OF HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS .................................................... 19
4.1 Segment Prioritization and Methodology ........................................................................... 19
4.2 Interchange Prioritization and Methodology ..................................................................... 24
5.0 POTENTIAL COUNTERMEASURES FORHIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH AND TRIBAL COMMUNITY
LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................................... ........ 26
6.0 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 69
6.1 Recommended Policies and Programs................................................................................ 69
6.2 Suggested Modifications to Policies and Practices for Consideration by ADOT .............. 79
6.2.1 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2000, Section
200 – Traffic Studies, Subsection 240 – Traffic Impact Analysis ................................................... 79
6.2.2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, March 2001, Section
600 – Traffic Signals, Subsection 621 – Signal Phase Change Intervals ........................................ 79
6.2.3 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2003, Section
700 – Illumination ........................................................................................................................ 79
6.2.4 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, November 2008,
Section 900 – Pedestrians, Subsection 910 – Pedestrian Crosswalks ............................................ 79
6.2.5 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 107.2 – Pedestrian Facilities .................. 85
6.2.6 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 404 – Driveway and Turnout Access ...... 86
6.2.7 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 408.11 – Right- Turn Channelization ....... 86
7.0 RESPONSES TO FHWAHOW TO DEVELOP A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN
QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................... 88
7.1 Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................... 88
7.2 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................ 89
7.3 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 90
7.4 Analyzing Information and Prioritizing Concerns ............................................................ 91
7.5 Providing Funding .............................................................................................................. 93
7.6 Creating the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ....................................................................... 95
TABLE OFCONTENTS
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc ii Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... ................. 96
Appendix A – Maps of High- crash Locations
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit E1– Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006 ........................... 1
Exhibit E- 3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments ..................................................... 3
Exhibit E- 4 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Interchanges ................................................ 5
Exhibit E- 5 – Total Cost of Improvements for Tribal Community Locations ......................................... 5
Exhibit 1- 1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System ......................... 8
Exhibit 1- 2 – Arizona State Highway System ...................................................................................... 10
Exhibit 2- 1 – Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highway System ........................................ 12
Exhibit 3- 1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations ....................................... 13
Exhibit 3- 2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations ................................................. 15
Exhibit 3- 3 – Tribal Community Locations ......................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 4- 1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix ........................................................................................ 22
Exhibit 4- 2 – Interchange Prioritization Matrix ................................................................................... 25
Exhibit 5- 1 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 1 ...................................................................... 27
Exhibit 5- 2 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 2 ...................................................................... 28
Exhibit 5- 3 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 3 ...................................................................... 29
Exhibit 5- 4 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4A.................................................................... 30
Exhibit 5- 5 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4B .................................................................... 31
Exhibit 5- 6 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4C .................................................................... 32
Exhibit 5- 7 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 5 ...................................................................... 33
Exhibit 5- 8 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 6 ...................................................................... 34
Exhibit 5- 9 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 7 ...................................................................... 35
Exhibit 5- 10 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8A .................................................................. 36
Exhibit 5- 11 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8B .................................................................. 37
Exhibit 5- 12 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8C .................................................................. 38
Exhibit 5- 13 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 11 .................................................................. 39
Exhibit 5- 14 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 12 .................................................................. 40
Exhibit 5- 15 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 13 .................................................................. 41
Exhibit 5- 16 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 14 .................................................................. 42
Exhibit 5- 17 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 15 .................................................................. 43
Exhibit 5- 18 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 16 .................................................................. 44
Exhibit 5- 19 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 17 .................................................................. 45
Exhibit 5- 20 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 18 .................................................................. 46
Exhibit 5- 21 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 20 .................................................................. 47
Exhibit 5- 22 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 21 .................................................................. 48
Exhibit 5- 23 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 1 ................................................................ 49
Exhibit 5- 24 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 3 ................................................................ 50
Exhibit 5- 25 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 4 ................................................................ 51
Exhibit 5- 26 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 5 ................................................................ 52
Exhibit 5- 27 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 9 ................................................................ 53
Exhibit 5- 28 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 10 .............................................................. 54
TABLE OFCONTENTS
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc iii Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 29 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 11 .............................................................. 55
Exhibit 5- 30 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 12 .............................................................. 56
Exhibit 5- 31 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 13 .............................................................. 57
Exhibit 5- 32 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 14 .............................................................. 58
Exhibit 5- 33 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 18 .............................................................. 59
Exhibit 5- 34 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 1 ....................................... 60
Exhibit 5- 35 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 2 ....................................... 60
Exhibit 5- 36 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 3 ....................................... 61
Exhibit 5- 37 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 4 ....................................... 61
Exhibit 5- 38 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 5 ....................................... 62
Exhibit 5- 39 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 6 ....................................... 62
Exhibit 5- 40 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 7 ....................................... 63
Exhibit 5- 41 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 8 ....................................... 63
Exhibit 5- 42 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 9 ....................................... 64
Exhibit 5- 43 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 10 ..................................... 64
Exhibit 5- 44 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 11 ..................................... 65
Exhibit 5- 45 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 12 ..................................... 66
Exhibit 5- 46 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 13 ..................................... 67
Exhibit 5- 47 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 14 ..................................... 67
Exhibit 5- 48 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 15 ..................................... 68
Exhibit 6- 1 – Access Management Driveway Design .......................................................................... 78
Exhibit 6- 2 – Proposed 2009 MUTCD Warrant Criteria for a Pedestrian Hybrid Signal ....................... 81
Exhibit 6- 3 – Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks ..................................................... 84
Exhibit 6- 4 – Improved Free Right Turn Lane Design ......................................................................... 87
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 1 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In 2005, Arizona ranked 5th among states in pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents, with 164
pedestrian fatalities on Arizona’s roadways— a nearly 30 percent increase from 2003 levels. To reduce
the number of pedestrian crashes in Arizona, the state of Arizona is participating with the Federal
Highway Administration ( FHWA) to reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries. The Arizona
Department of Transportation ( ADOT) is leading the initiative in coordination with FHWA Arizona
Division Office and the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. A key activity of the initiative
is development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
recommends actions that when funded and implemented will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian
crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Arizona State Highway System. The Plan recommends achievable
strategies to improve pedestrian safety on the State Highway System. Elements of the ADOT
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan include:
􀂃 Identification and prioritization of high- crash segment locations
􀂃 Development of conceptual countermeasures and their estimated costs
􀂃 Recommendations for new or revisions to existing policies for consideration by ADOT
Crash Statistics, 2002 - 2006
A review of Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary for the years 2002 through 2006 reveals that 8,033
pedestrian- motor vehicle crashes occurred in Arizona over the 5- year period. Exhibit E1 lists the
number of pedestrian crashes and fatalities that have occurred each year from 2002 to 2006.
Exhibit E1– Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006
Pedestrian Crashes ( on all Arizona
Roadways), 2002 - 2006
Pedestrian Crashes on the State Highway
System, 2002 - 2006
Total
Pedestrian
Crashes
Fatal
Pedestrian
Crashes
Pedestrian
Fatalities
Total
Pedestrian
Crashes
Fatal
Pedestrian
Crashes
Pedestrian
Fatalities
2002 1,608 147 158 139 30 33
2003 1,595 123 126 152 23 23
2004 1,631 132 135 161 35 35
2005 1,581 161 164 177 40 44
2006 1,618 163 170 142 45 45
TOTAL 8,033 726 753 771 173 180
Source: Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary, 2002 through 2006
The study area for the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is limited to roadways on the Arizona State
Highway System. A review of crash data provided by the ADOT for the years 2002 through 2006
demonstrated that 771 pedestrian crashes occurred on roads within the Arizona State Highway System –
representing less than 10% of the more than 8,000 pedestrian crashes that occurred on all Arizona
roadways from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. The remaining 90% of crashes occurred on
roads constructed and maintained by local agencies; city, county, and tribal governments.
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 2 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
ADOT recognizes that the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan only addresses a small percentage of
total pedestrian crashes in the state of Arizona. As such, development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan is the first of many steps required to adequately address pedestrian safety in Arizona. It is
envisioned that other agencies and jurisdictions in Arizona will develop individual pedestrian safety
action plans to meet their respective needs, and that each of the individual pedestrian safety action plans
will subsequently be incorporated into a Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan.
Proposed Pedestrian Safety Goal for Arizona
The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan proposed a goal to reduce pedestrian crashes ( both fatal and
non- fatal) by 20 percent by the year 2016. The reduction in pedestrian crashes will be measured by a
five- year average ( 2012 to 2016). The five- year average for the years 2002 through 2006 will serve as
the base years.
Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas
Review and analysis of crash data, coupled with stakeholder and technical advisory committee input
lead to identification of pedestrian safety emphasis areas for Arizona. Identification of emphasis areas
facilitates focusing of resources to areas where the largest benefits can be realized. Identified emphasis
areas are:
􀂃 Reduce pedestrian crashes in urban areas at locations with high pedestrian activity
􀂃 Reduce pedestrian crashes at intersections involving turning vehicles ( right and left)
􀂃 Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided ( no median barrier) roadways
􀂃 Reduce pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking
􀂃 Reduce dart/ dash / mid- block pedestrian crashes
􀂃 Reduce pedestrian crashes involving turning vehicles at interchanges
􀂃 Improve lighting conditions at high pedestrian activity locations
High pedestrian Crash Locations, Potential Countermeasures, and Planning Level Cost Estimate
Review of pedestrian crash data led to identification of state highway locations, including segments and
interchanges, with the highest numbers of pedestrian crashes. Throughout the development of the
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, the study team recognized the challenges associated with pedestrian
crashes on tribal communities: comprehensive crash data on tribal lands is not available in state crash
databases; and where data for crashes on tribal lands is available in state databases, it is often
incomplete. To ensure that pedestrian safety needs for tribal communities was not overlooked, tribal
communities were provided the opportunity to identify specific locations on state highways in need of
pedestrian safety improvements.
A list of high pedestrian crash locations is provided in Exhibit E- 3, and E- 4. Locations identified by
tribal communities are listed in Exhibit E- 5.
Potential countermeasures that could be considered were identified for each high pedestrian crash
location. Potential countermeasures include:
􀂃 Crosswalk Striping
􀂃 Pedestrian Crossing Warning signs
􀂃 " Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians" signs
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 3 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
􀂃 “ No Right Turn on Red" signs
􀂃 Pedestrian Countdown Signals
􀂃 Lighting
􀂃 Curb Radii Reduction
􀂃 Pedestrian Hybrid Signals
􀂃 Pedestrian Refuge Islands
􀂃 Sidewalks
􀂃 Curb Ramps
􀂃 Raised Medians
A planning- level cost estimate was subsequently developed for each segment. Conceptual costs of
improvements for each segment, interchange, and tribal community location are presented in Exhibit E-
3, E- 4, and E- 5.
The total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety projects for high pedestrian crash segments
ranges between $ 30 million and $ 50 million. The lower range excludes construction of raised medians
as a pedestrian safety countermeasure. The upper range of the cost estimate assumes that raised median
islands are constructed on segments as appropriate.
As presented in Exhibit E- 4, the total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety projects for high
pedestrian crash interchanges is approximately $ 500,000.
As presented in Exhibit E- 5, the total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety improvements for
locations identified by the Tribal communities is approximately $ 42 million.
Exhibit E- 3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments
Segment
Number
Road Name From To City
Segment
Cost with
Raised
Median
Segment
Cost without
Raised
Median
1 SR- 95 & SR- 68 North Oatman Rd
( MP 243.5)
Davis Dam Rd
( MP 251.3)
Bullhead
City
$ 14,237,840 $ 5,751,440
2 SR- 95 Joy Ln
( MP 236.4)
Camp Mohave Rd
( MP 238.4)
Bullhead
City
N/ A $ 2,800,920
3 SR- 287
( Florence Blvd)
SR- 387
( MP 111.8)
Arizola Rd
( MP 114.3)
Casa
Grande
$ 4,777,600 $ 2,347,600
4A SR- 40B Riordan Rd
( MP 195.3)
Elden St
( MP 196.6)
Flagstaff $ 2,454,080 $ 1,257,800
4B SR- 89A University Ave
( MP 402.5)
SR- 40B
( MP 216.1)
Flagstaff $ 1,279,060 $ 723,100
4C US- 180 SR- 40B
( MP 215.4)
Birch Ave
( MP 216.1)
Flagstaff $ 269,920 $ 253,600
5 SR- 40B Arrowhead Ave
( MP 198.3)
Postal Blvd
( MP 199)
Flagstaff $ 1,006,440 $ 139,200
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 4 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit E- 3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments ( continued)
Segment
Number
Road Name From To City
Segment
Cost with
Raised
Median
Segment
Cost without
Raised
Median
6 US- 89 Snowflake Dr /
Trailsend Dr ( MP
420.1)
Townsend Winona
Rd
( MP 420.7)
Flagstaff $ 951,840 $ 382,800
7 SR- 40B 5th Ave
( MP 286.3)
I- 40 Exit 286 G-Ramp
( MP 287.4)
Holbrook $ 2,251,480 $ 1,052,800
8A SR- 77 I- 10 Frontage Rd
( MP 68.1)
Limberlost Dr
( MP 71)
Tucson N/ A $ 2,231,200
8B SR- 77 River Rd
( MP 72)
Sahuaro Vista
( MP 75.1)
Tucson N/ A $ 4,269,206
8C SR- 77 Magee Rd
( MP 75.9)
Mountain Vista Dr
( MP 76.2)
Tucson N/ A $ 402,579
11 SR- 90 SR- 92
( MP 321.5)
Giulio Cesare Ave
( MP 322.5)
Sierra
Vista
$ 1,933,310 $ 757,190
12 US- 95 Alamo Dr
( MP 25.2)
Avenue 3E
( MP 25.8)
Yuma $ 1,442,675 $ 766,115
13 SR- 8B 1st St
( MP 0.3)
32nd St
( MP 4)
Yuma $ 5,476,080 $ 1,128,000
14 SR- 89A Dry Creek Rd
( MP 371)
Soldier Pass Rd
( MP 372.9)
Sedona N/ A N/ A
15 SR- 387/ Pinal
Ave
SR- 287
( MP 0)
Cottonwood Ln
( MP 1)
Casa
Grande
$ 1,419,080 $ 219,200
16 SR- 86 La Cholla Blvd
( MP 169.9)
16th Ave
( MP 171.7)
Tucson $ 3,077,400 $ 1,358,400
17 SR- 87 / Arizona
Blvd
Martin Rd
( MP 131.5)
Vah Ki Inn Rd
( MP 133.5)
Coolidge $ 3,751,600 $ 1,615,600
18 US- 95 SR- 8B
( MP 23.4)
Redondo Center Dr
( MP 24.2)
Yuma $ 1,294,400 $ 584,000
20 US- 60X/
Apache Trail
Signal Butte Rd
( MP 193)
Meridian Rd
( MP 194)
Mesa $ 1,925,864 $ 737,864
21 US- 60X/
Apache Trail
Ellsworth Rd
( MP 191)
Crismon Rd
( MP 192)
Mesa $ 2,034,704 $ 846,704
Total $ 49,583,373 $ 29,625,318
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 5 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit E- 4 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Interchanges
Interchange
Number City On Road Related State Highway System Total Interchange
Cost
1 Phoenix Greenway Rd I- 17 Interchange $ 93,200
3 Phoenix 7th Ave I- 10 Interchange $ 6,800
4 Tempe Apache Blvd SR- 101 / SB Price Rd Interchange $ 8,800
5 Phoenix Cactus Rd I- 17 Interchange $ 93,200
9 Phoenix 32nd St SR- 202 Interchange $ 46,800
10 Phoenix Bethany Home Rd I- 17 Interchange $ 52,800
11 Phoenix Camelback Rd I- 17 Interchange $ 12,800
12 Phoenix Dunlap Ave I- 17 Interchange $ 52,800
13 Tempe University Dr SR- 101 / SB Price Rd Interchange $ 22,800
14 Tempe / Mesa Baseline Rd I- 10 Interchange $ 93,200
18 Phoenix Indian School Rd I- 17 Interchange $ 13,200
Total $ 496,400
Exhibit E- 5 – Total Cost of Improvements for Tribal Community Locations
Location State Route # Tribal Community Name From To Total
Location Cost
1 SR- 587 Gila River Indian Community MP 220 -- $ 300,000
2 SR- 87 Gila River Indian Community MP 135 MP 160 $ 11,272,400
3 US- 89 Navajo Nation ( Cameron) MP 464.7 MP 470 $ 610,000
4 US- 160 Navajo Nation ( Tuba City) MP 321.7 MP 323 $ 846,643
5 US- 160 Navajo Nation ( Kayenta) MP 393 MP 393.7 $ 444,032
6 US- 163 Navajo Nation ( Kayenta) MP 393.5 MP 395.4 $ 3,259,600
7 US- 191 Navajo Nation ( Chinle) MP 446.6 MP 448.2 $ 3,798,822
8 SR- 264 Navajo Nation ( Ganado) MP 446.3 MP 447.6 $ 1,070,843
9 SR- 264 Navajo Nation ( Window Rock) MP 474.7 MP 475.8 $ 1,992,400
10 SR- 86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 74 MP 76 $ 1,450,000
11 SR- 86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 90 MP 94 $ 2,670,000
12 SR- 86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 111.1 MP 116.6 $ 1,755,000
13 SR- 264 Hopi Tribe MP 385 MP 390 $ 3,250,000
14 SR- 264 Hopi Tribe MP 367 MP 369 $ 766,864
15 SR- 73 White Mountain Apache Tribe Fort Apache
Road
SR- 260 $ 8,170,728
Total $ 41,657,332
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 6 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends new policies and programs that upon their development
and implementation will serve to reduce pedestrian crashes on the state highway system. In addition,
the Plan recommends modifications to existing policies and practices that if adopted will improve
pedestrian safety on the state highway system.
High pedestrian Crash Locations, Potential Countermeasures, and Planning Level Cost Estimate
The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan provides recommendations for the policies and programs that ADOT
should consider to improve pedestrian safety on the state highway system. These are:
􀂃 Develop an ADOT internal pedestrian safety working group
􀂃 Develop and adopt an ADOT Pedestrian Policy
􀂃 Develop and adopt an ADOT Complete Streets Policy
􀂃 Develop traffic impact study agreements with local agencies
􀂃 Review all ADOT design and maintenance guidelines and manuals to identify effective measures
for accommodating pedestrians on the State Highway System
􀂃 Develop partnerships with local law enforcement agencies
􀂃 Develop a mechanism to track the level of investment in pedestrian facilities
􀂃 Encourage implementation or expansion of educational programs
􀂃 Provide pedestrian facility training to state and local governments
􀂃 Review existing Arizona Revised Statutes related to pedestrians
􀂃 Develop transition plan for implementation of pedestrian countdown signals
􀂃 Develop transition plan for implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ( ADA)
􀂃 Adopt Access Management Plan
􀂃 Develop an evaluation program
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 7 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem and Need Statement
In 2005, Arizona ranked 5th among states in pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents, with 164
pedestrian fatalities on Arizona’s roadways— a nearly 30 percent increase from 2003 levels. To reduce
the number of pedestrian crashes throughout Arizona, the state of Arizona is participating with the
Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) as one of fourteen “ focus states1” receiving technical
assistance to reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries. The Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT) is leading the initiative in coordination with FHWA Arizona Division Office
and the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety.
1.2 Study Overview
The purpose of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan was to recommend actions that when funded
and implemented will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the
Arizona State Highway System. The Plan established a framework and practical and achievable
strategies to improve pedestrian safety on the State Highway System. The Plan has been developed
consistent with the guidance provided in the FHWA Report entitled How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan2 and the Arizona Supplement3 that was completed in April 2007 by the ADOT Highway
Enhancements for Safety Team. The Plan included stakeholder input, identification and prioritization of
high- crash segment locations, development of conceptual countermeasures that could be implemented at
each high- crash location, and their estimated costs. The Plan also identified new or revisions to existing
policies that ADOT should consider that upon implementation will improve pedestrian safety in
Arizona. The Plan included development of five working papers and a final report
( http:// mpd. azdot. gov/ planning/ PedSafety. php).
Title Content
Working Paper No. 1 Profile of Pedestrian Safety
in Arizona
Summary of existing pedestrian safety conditions on the
state highways in Arizona;
Working Paper No. 2 Goals and Emphasis Areas
to Improve Pedestrian
Safety in Arizona
Pedestrian safety goals and emphasis areas for ADOT
Working Paper No. 3 Prioritization of Crash
Locations and Identification
of Pedestrian Crash
Countermeasures
Prioritization system to rank locations and
recommendations of potential countermeasures, policies,
and programs to meet pedestrian safety goals for
emphasis areas
1 States for FY2008 are Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The 14 “ focus states” were selected if
they had at least 150 pedestrian fatalities in 2005, or a pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population of greater than 2.5.
2 How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, available at:
http:// www. walkinginfo. org/ library/ details. cfm? id= 229
3 A Guide to Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, An Arizona Supplement to the National “ How to
Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Enhancements for
Safety ( HES), April 9, 2007, available at:
http:// www. gtsac. org/ GTSAC/ Studies_ Reports/ PDF/ Guide_ to_ Developing_ a_ Pedestrian_ Safety_ Action_ Plan. pdf
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 8 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Working Paper No. 4 Funding Assessment Cost estimates for high- crash locations and potential
funding sources and collaborative funding alternatives for
pedestrian infrastructure on Arizona’s highways
Working Paper No. 5 Recommendations and
Implementation Steps
Process for selecting and implementing pedestrian safety
countermeasures
Throughout the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, six Technical Advisory Committee
( TAC) meetings were held to solicit input and review of the plan and the content of each Working
Paper. Attendees of the TAC meetings included the agencies and organizations listed below.
ADOT Flagstaff District ADOT Roadway Design City of Flagstaff
ADOT Highway Enhancements for
Safety
ADOT Safford District Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
ADOT Holbrook District ADOT Traffic Engineering City of Phoenix
ADOT Kingman District ADOT Tucson District Federal Highway Administration
ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Arizona Department of Public Safety Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Arizona Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety
Maricopa Association of
Governments
1.3 Study Area and Scope of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
A review of Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary for the years 2002 through 2006 identifies a total of
8,033 pedestrian- motor vehicle crashes in Arizona over the 5- year period4. Exhibit 1- 1 lists the number
of pedestrian crashes and fatalities that have occurred each year from 2002 to 2006.
The Arizona State Highway System is depicted in Exhibit 1- 2. The Arizona Department of
Transportation is responsible for maintenance and construction of the Arizona State Highway System.
The study area for the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is limited to roadways on the Arizona State
Highway System. A review of crash data provided by the ADOT for the years 2002 through 2006
demonstrated that 771 pedestrian crashes occurred on roads within the Arizona State Highway System,
as listed in Exhibit 1- 1, representing less than 10% of the more than 8,000 pedestrian crashes that
occurred on all Arizona roadways from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. The remaining 90% of
crashes occurred on roads constructed and maintained by local city, county, and tribal governments.
Exhibit 1- 1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System
Pedestrian Crashes ( on all Arizona
Roadways), 2002 - 2006
Pedestrian Crashes on the State Highway
System, 2002 - 2006
Total
Pedestrian
Crashes
Fatal
Pedestrian
Crashes
Pedestrian
Fatalities
Total
Pedestrian
Crashes
Fatal
Pedestrian
Crashes
Pedestrian
Fatalities
2002 1,608 147 158 139 30 33
2003 1,595 123 126 152 23 23
2004 1,631 132 135 161 35 35
2005 1,581 161 164 177 40 44
4 Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, available at: http:// www. azdot. gov/ mvd/ statistics/ crash/ index. asp
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 9 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 1- 1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System ( continued)
2006 1,618 163 170 142 45 45
TOTAL 8,033 726 753 771 173 180
Source: Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary, 2002 through 2006
ADOT recognizes that the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan does not address all pedestrian safety
needs on all roads in the state of Arizona, as demonstrated by the crash statistics, but that the ADOT
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan only addresses a small percentage of total pedestrian crashes in the state
of Arizona. As such, development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is the first of many steps
required to adequately address pedestrian safety in Arizona. It is envisioned that other agencies and
jurisdictions in Arizona will develop individual pedestrian safety action plans to meet their respective
needs, and that each of the individual pedestrian safety action plans will subsequently be incorporated
into a Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. As the large majority of pedestrian crashes and safety
issues occur on roadways outside of ADOT control, they need to be addressed by local and regional
agencies. The City of Phoenix has already taken the initiative to develop a pedestrian safety action plan.
1.4 Tribal Coordination
Coordination with tribal communities was an important element of development of the ADOT
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Tribal communities comprise a significant percentage of the land area of
Arizona. Tribal input to the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan was solicited and received through
coordination with Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
All references to local agencies within the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan are inclusive of tribal
agencies and governments.
Continued coordination with tribal communities is important as the recommendations of the ADOT
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan are implemented. The impacts of recommendations on tribal
communities should be considered.
1.5 Purpose and Content of the Final Report
The objective of the Final Report is to summarize the findings and recommendations of the Pedestrian
Safety Action Plan. The Final Report includes key findings from each of the five Working Papers. The
Final Report is organized into the following sections:
1. Introduction
2. Pedestrian Safety Goals and Emphasis Areas
3. High Pedestrian Crash Locations
4. Prioritization System for High Pedestrian Crash Locations
5. Recommended Countermeasures for High Pedestrian Crash and Tribal Community Locations
6. Recommended Policies and Programs
7. FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Questionnaire
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 10 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 1- 2 – Arizona State Highway System
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 11 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
2.0 PEDESTRIAN SAFETYGOALS AND EMPHASISAREAS
The FHWA and the State of Arizona have each established goals to improve pedestrian safety. In
support of the Arizona safety vision and goal and the FHWA goals, the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action
Plan established a goal to reduce pedestrian crashes ( both fatal and non- fatal) by 20 percent by the year
2016. The reduction in pedestrian crashes will be measured by a five- year average ( 2012 to 2016). The
five- year average for the years 2002 through 2006 will serve as the base years. This equates to 31 fewer
pedestrian crashes per year by the year 2016.
Vision Goal
Arizona Strategic
Highway Safety Plan,
Safety Vision and Goal
“ Zero fatalities on Arizona
roads, your life depends on
it.” 5
The vision is supported by a state “ stretch” goal
designed to bring about clear progress towards the
vision. The goal requires a reduction in the number of
fatalities on Arizona’s roadways of approximately 12
percent by the year 2012. The base year of
comparison will be 2007.
Federal Highway
Administration
Reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries by 10 percent
by the year 2011, and by 20 percent in ten years ( 2005
serves as the baseline year) 6
ADOT Pedestrian
Safety Action Plan Goal
Reduce the number of pedestrian crashes on Arizona
state highways by 20 percent by 2016.
This will be measured by the average annual number of
pedestrian crashes from 2012 to 2016, compared to the
average annual number of pedestrian crashes from
2002 to 2006.
From 2002 to 2006, the average annual pedestrian
crashes on state highways in Arizona were 154
pedestrian crashes. The 2016 goal is to have fewer
than 123 pedestrian crashes on state highways ( fatal
and non- fatal) per year.
Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highways in Arizona
Crash data for the years 2002 to 2006 was provided to the project team. At the time of the data
collection and analysis stage of the project, crash data beyond December 2006 was not yet available.
Analysis of the data demonstrated that more than 700 pedestrian crashes occurred on state highways in
Arizona from 2002 to 2006.
Ideally, countermeasures could be identified for each contributing factor for each pedestrian crash
location. In reality, this is not practical. Identification of emphasis areas facilitates focusing of
resources to areas where the largest benefits can be realized, and the identification of specific action
items to improve pedestrian safety on Arizona’s state highways. Identified pedestrian safety emphasis
areas are presented in Exhibit 2- 1.
5 Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan, available at: http:// www. gtsac. org/ GTSAC/ Studies_ Reports/
6 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety,
http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ ped_ bike/
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 12 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 2- 1 – Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highway System
Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Area Description and Justification
Reduce pedestrian crashes in urban
areas at locations with high pedestrian
activity
Statewide, approximately 90 percent of pedestrian crashes occurred
in urban areas. 65 percent of pedestrian crashes on state highways
occurred in urban areas.
Reduce pedestrian crashes at
intersections involving turning
vehicles ( right and left)
Turning vehicle type crashes make up 26 percent of pedestrian
crashes on high- crash segments in focus urban areas.
Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided
( no median barrier) roadways
Pedestrian crashes occurring on two- way roadways without a raised
median account for approximately 64 percent of statewide
pedestrian crashes.
Reduce pedestrian crashes involving
pedestrians who had been drinking
On high- crash segments, crashes involving pedestrians who had
been drinking total 27 percent of crashes along segments and 22
percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges. Alcohol
consumption by pedestrians has also been expressed as a concern
by local jurisdiction staff and by tribal communities.
Reduce dart/ dash / mid- block
pedestrian crashes
Crash data for the study areas shows that dart/ dash crashes make
up 50 percent of the pedestrian crashes along segments and 43
percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges. Targeting these
types of crashes can help to reduce a significant amount of
pedestrian crashes.
Dart/ dash crashes include crashes when the pedestrian walked or
ran into the roadway at an intersection or mid- block location and
was struck by a vehicle.
Reduce pedestrian crashes involving
turning vehicles at interchanges
At interchanges 46 percent of pedestrian crashes are turning vehicle
crashes with the majority being right- turning vehicles. Focusing on
these types of pedestrian crashes may help to make crossing safer
for pedestrians at interchanges.
Turning vehicle crashes are crashes where the pedestrian was
attempting to cross at an interchange and was struck by a vehicle
that was turning right or left.
Improve lighting conditions at high
pedestrian activity locations
Approximately 50 percent of pedestrian crashes in high- crash
segments occurred in dark conditions. This is significant since
exposure is considerably less during the nighttime and early
morning hours. A majority of pedestrian fatalities occur in dark
conditions.
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 13 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
3.0 STATE HIGHWAY HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS
771 pedestrian crashes were reported on state highways in Arizona between January 1, 2002 and
December 31, 2006. State highway locations, including segments and interchanges, with the highest
numbers of pedestrian crashes were identified based on density analysis using geographic information
system tools and a visual review of crash locations. Crash records for high pedestrian crash locations
were subsequently obtained and reviewed. Crash records were reviewed for 283 segment crashes and
37 interchange crashes. The crash type and contributing factors were identified for each reviewed crash.
A summary of crash statistics is presented in Exhibit 3- 1. Crash types listed in Exhibit 3- 1 are based
on definitions in the Pedestrian Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool ( PBCAT) 7 and Pedestrian Safety Guide
and Countermeasure Selection System ( PEDSAFE) 8. The definitions for each crash type are listed in
Exhibit 3- 1.
Exhibit 3- 2 lists each high pedestrian crash location. A map of each high- crash location is included in
Appendix A.
Throughout the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, the study team recognized the
challenges associated with pedestrian crashes on tribal communities: comprehensive crash data on
tribal lands is not available in state crash databases; and where data for crashes on tribal lands is
available in state databases, it is often incomplete. To ensure that pedestrian safety needs for tribal
communities was not overlooked, tribal communities were provided the opportunity to identify specific
locations on state highways in need of pedestrian safety improvements. Locations identified by tribal
communities are displayed in Exhibit 3- 3. Exhibit 3- 3 lists the state highway location, existing
pedestrian facilities, and concerns as expressed by tribal communities. Maps showing each location are
included in Appendix A.
Exhibit 3- 1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations
Total
Crashes Fatalities Incapacitating
Injuries
Segments
Crash Type
Pedestrian Failed to Yield:
Pedestrian was crossing the road in a non- crossing area and failed to
yield to the motorist.
125 44% 23 74% 38 57%
Walking in Roadway:
Pedestrian was walking in the roadway prior to the crash, but the crash
cannot be further classified.
10 4% 4 13% 3 4%
Standing in Roadway:
Pedestrian was standing in the roadway prior to the crash, but the crash
cannot be further classified.
1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Motorist Left Turn - Parallel Paths:
Motorist was initially traveling on a parallel path with the pedestrian
before making a left turn and striking the individual.
32 11% 0 0% 3 4%
7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool ( PBCAT), available at:
http:// www. walkinginfo. org/ facts/ pbcat/ index. cfm
8 Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, available at:
http:// www. walkinginfo. org/ pedsafe/
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 14 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 3- 1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations ( continued)
Total
Crashes Fatalities Incapacitating
Injuries
Segments ( continued)
Crash Type
Motorist Left Turn - Perpendicular Paths:
Motorist was initially traveling on a crossing path with the pedestrian
before making a left turn and striking the individual.
5 2% 0 0% 1 1%
Motorist Right Turn - Parallel Paths:
Motorist was initially travelling on a parallel path with the pedestrian
before making a right turn and striking the individual.
15 5% 0 0% 3 4%
Motorist Right Turn - Perpendicular Paths:
Motorist was initially travelling on a crossing path with the pedestrian
before making a right turn and striking the individual.
27 10% 0 0% 4 6%
Through Vehicle at Signalized Location:
Pedestrian was struck at a signalized intersection or midblock location
by a vehicle that was traveling straight ahead.
28 10% 1 3% 6 9%
Through Vehicle at Unsignalized Location:
Pedestrian was struck at an unsignalized intersection or midblock
location. Either the motorist or the pedestrian may have failed to yield.
9 3% 1 3% 5 7%
Multiple Threat/ Trapped:
Pedestrian entered the roadway in front of stopped or slowed traffic and
was struck by a multiple- threat vehicle in an adjacent lane after
becoming trapped in the middle of the roadway.
2 1% 0 0% 1 1%
Walking Along Roadway:
Pedestrian was standing or walking along the roadway on the edge of a
travel lane, or on a shoulder or sidewalk.
3 1% 1 3% 1 1%
Non- Roadway:
Pedestrian was standing or walking near the roadway edge, on the
sidewalk, in a driveway or alley, or in a parking lot, when struck by a
vehicle.
19 7% 0 0% 1 1%
Unique Midblock:
Pedestrian was struck while crossing the road to/ from a mailbox,
newspaper box, or ice- cream truck, or while getting into or out of a
stopped vehicle.
1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Miscellaneous:
Other pedestrian crash types such as intentional crashes, driverless
vehicle incidents, a pedestrian struck after a vehicle/ vehicle collision, a
pedestrian struck by falling cargo, or an emergency vehicle striking a
pedestrian.
6 2% 1 3% 1 1%
Total Segment Crashes 283 31 67
Interchanges
Pedestrian Failed to Yield:
Pedestrian was crossing the road in a non- crossing area and failed to
yield to the motorist.
19 36% 3 75% 6 40%
Motorist Left Turn - Parallel Paths:
Motorist was initially traveling on a parallel path with the pedestrian
before making a left turn and striking the individual.
2 4% 0 0% 1 7%
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 15 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 3- 1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations ( continued)
Total
Crashes Fatalities Incapacitating
Injuries
Interchanges ( continued)
Motorist Left Turn - Perpendicular Paths:
Motorist was initially traveling on a crossing path with the pedestrian
before making a left turn and striking the individual.
2 4% 0 0% 0 0%
Motorist Right Turn - Parallel Paths:
Motorist was initially travelling on a parallel path with the pedestrian
before making a right turn and striking the individual.
7 13% 0 0% 2 13%
Motorist Right Turn - Perpendicular Paths:
Motorist was initially travelling on a crossing path with the pedestrian
before making a right turn and striking the individual.
9 17% 0 0% 2 13%
Through Vehicle at Unsignalized Location:
Pedestrian was struck at an unsignalized intersection or midblock
location. Either the motorist or the pedestrian may have failed to
yield.
9 17% 0 0% 3 20%
Miscellaneous
Other pedestrian crash types such as intentional crashes, driverless
vehicle incidents, pedestrian struck after a vehicle/ vehicle collision,
pedestrian struck by falling cargo, or an emergency vehicle striking a
pedestrian.
5 9% 1 25% 1 7%
Total 53 4 15
Exhibit 3- 2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations
City Location
Total
Crashes
Fatal and
Incapacitating
Crashes
Segments
1A Bullhead City SR- 95, North Oatman Rd to SR- 68 24 12
1B Bullhead City SR- 68, SR- 95 to Davis Dam Rd 2 2
2 Bullhead City SR- 95, Joy Ln to Camp Mohave Rd 7 4
3 Casa Grande SR- 287, SR- 387 to Arizola Rd 24 5
4A Flagstaff SR- 40B, Riordan Rd to Elden St 28 10
4B Flagstaff SR- 89A, University Ave to SR- 40B 15 4
4C Flagstaff US- 180, SR- 40B to Birch Ave 4 1
5 Flagstaff SR- 40B, Arrowhead Ave to Postal Blvd 11 3
6 Flagstaff US- 89, Snowflake Dr / Trailsend Dr to Townsend
Winona Rd
5 2
7 Holbrook SR- 40B, 5th Ave to I- 40 Exit 286 G- Ramp 17 3
8A Tucson SR- 77, I- 10 Frontage Rd to Limberlost Dr 23 9
8B Tucson SR- 77, River Rd to Sahuaro Vista 21 10
8C Tucson SR- 77, Magee Rd to Mountain Vista Dr 6 3
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 16 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 3- 2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations ( continued)
City Location Total
Crashes
Fatal and
Incapacitating
Crashes
Segments ( continued)
11 Sierra Vista SR- 90, SR- 92 to Giulio Cesare Ave 7 3
12 Yuma US- 95, Alamo Dr to Avenue 3E 5 3
13 Yuma SR- 8B, 1st St to 32rd St 29 11
14 Sedona SR- 89A, Dry Creek Rd to Soldier Pass Rd 14 4
15 Casa Grande SR- 387, SR- 287 to Cottonwood Ln 7 0
16 Tucson SR- 86, La Cholla Blvd to 16th Ave 12 4
17 Coolidge SR- 87, Vah Ki Inn Rd to Martin Rd 10 2
18 Yuma US- 95, SR- 8B to Redondo Center Dr 4 2
20 Mesa US- 60X / Apache Trail, Signal Butte Rd to Meridian
Rd
4 0
21 Mesa US- 60X / Apache Trail, Ellsworth Rd to Crismon Rd 4 3
Interchanges
1 Phoenix Greenway Rd / I- 17 Interchange 3 2
3 Phoenix 7th Ave / I- 10 Interchange 2 2
4 Tempe Apache Blvd / SR- 101 Interchange 3 2
5 Phoenix Cactus Rd / I- 17 Interchange 4 2
9 Phoenix 32nd St / SR- 202 Interchange 5 2
10 Phoenix Bethany Home Rd / I- 17 Interchange 5 2
11 Phoenix Camelback Rd / I- 17 Interchange 6 1
12 Phoenix Dunlap Ave / I- 17 Interchange 7 2
13 Tempe University Dr / SR- 101 Interchange 9 4
14 Tempe Baseline Rd / I- 10 Interchange 5 0
18 Phoenix Indian School Rd / I- 17 Interchange 4 1
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 17 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 3- 3 – Tribal Community Locations
Location
ID
State
Route #
Tribal
Community
Name
Beginning Ending Existing
Pedestrian
Facilities
Tribal Community Concerns
1 SR- 587 Gila River
Indian
Community
MP 220 -- Paved
shoulders
􀂃 Need for improved
shoulders
2 SR- 87 Gila River
Indian
Community*
MP 135 MP 160 􀂃 Need for wider
shoulders and lighting in
residential areas
􀂃 Need signage alerting
drivers entering
residential areas
􀂃 Need better
enforcement of speed
3 US- 89 Navajo Nation
( Cameron)
MP 464.7 MP 470 Paved
shoulders
􀂃 Lack of sidewalks
􀂃 Lack of street lighting
4 US- 160 Navajo Nation
( Tuba City)
MP 321.7 MP 323 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 Lack of sidewalks
􀂃 Lack of street lighting
5 US- 160 Navajo Nation
( Kayenta)
MP 393 MP 393.7 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 Lack of sidewalks
􀂃 Lack of street lights
6 US- 163 Navajo Nation
( Kayenta)
MP 393.5 MP 395.4 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 Needs raised median
􀂃 Needs pedestrian
crossing
7 US- 191 Navajo Nation
( Chinle)
MP 446.6 MP 448.2 Narrow paved
shoulders,
sidewalks
􀂃 Needs raised median
􀂃 Needs pedestrian
crossing
8 SR- 264 Navajo Nation
( Ganado)
MP 446.3 MP 447.6 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 Lack of sidewalks
􀂃 Needs pedestrian
crossing
9 SR- 264 Navajo Nation
( Window Rock)
MP 474.7 MP 475.8 Sidewalks 􀂃 Needs raised median
􀂃 Needs pedestrian
crossing
10 SR- 86 Tohono
O’odham
Nation
MP 74 MP 76 Unpaved
shoulders
􀂃 No shoulders for
pedestrians or cyclists
􀂃 Roads are narrow
􀂃 Vegetation is
overgrown
􀂃 Lack of lighting
11 SR- 86 Tohono
O’odham
Nation
MP 90 MP 94 Unpaved
shoulders
􀂃 No shoulders for
pedestrians or cyclists
􀂃 Roads are narrow
􀂃 Overgrown Vegetation
􀂃 Lack of lighting
12 SR- 86 Tohono
O’odham
Nation
MP 111.1 MP 116.6 Unpaved
shoulders
􀂃 No shoulders for
pedestrians or cyclists
􀂃 Roads are narrow
􀂃 Vegetation is
overgrown
􀂃 Lack of lighting
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 18 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 3- 3 – Tribal Community Locations ( continued)
Location
ID
State
Route #
Tribal
Community
Name
Beginning Ending Existing
Pedestrian
Facilities
Tribal Community Concerns
13 SR- 264 Hopi Tribe MP 385 MP 390 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 No crosswalks near
Second Mesa
Elementary School
􀂃 No sidewalks, bus stop
provisions, or turn
lanes
14 SR- 264 Hopi Tribe MP 367 MP 369 Narrow paved
shoulders
􀂃 Need of pedestrian/
bicycle walkway,
school bus stop areas,
and turn- out lanes
15 SR- 73 White
Mountain
Apache Tribe
Fort
Apache
Road
SR- 260 Paved
shoulders,
sidewalks
􀂃 Incomplete sidewalks
􀂃 Vegetation growing on
sidewalks
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 19 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
4.0 PRIORITIZATION OFHIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS
Chapter 4 summarizes prioritization of each of the high- crash locations identified in Chapter 3.
Prioritization of high- crash locations serves as a tool for allocating resources to improve pedestrian
safety. The prioritization methodology is described below for both segments and interchanges. A
detailed explanation of the scoring methods can be found in Working Paper No. 3
( http:// mpd. azdot. gov/ planning/ PedSafety. php).
It should be noted that the segment prioritization methodology described in chapter 4 is more applicable
to urban or small urban areas. As such, the methodology was not applied to high pedestrian crash
locations on tribal lands. The assessment of needs on tribal lands was more heavily reliant on direct
tribal input.
4.1 Segment Prioritization and Methodology
A prioritization scoring system was developed by the study team to be applied to each high pedestrian
crash location. The prioritization scoring system consists of criteria that quantify the need for pedestrian
safety improvements at each high- crash location. The four categories ( described below) include:
􀂃 Pedestrian Demand Index
􀂃 Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index
􀂃 Stakeholder Input, and
􀂃 Crash Severity Index
Each high- crash segment was scored for each criterion. An overall composite score was subsequently
calculated to represent the overall priority score for each segment, according to the equation below.
Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score
+ Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score
Note:
Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score was weighted by one sixth to account for the fact that this
index score is comprised of six deficiency factor sub- scores.
Prioritization
Criterion
Description
Pedestrian Demand
Index9
Reflects the propensity for pedestrian facilities to be utilized if they were provided; comprised
of four sub- indices that are developed on a census tract basis:
1. Activity Balance Index ( ABI): Measure of relationship between population and
employment; computed by dividing employment by population. The results are
subsequently divided into five quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 3 where:
- 1 = results in outer quintiles; ( the most imbalance between employment and
population)
- 2 = zones in second and fourth quintile
- 3 = zones in the middle quintile
9 Pedestrian Demand Index adapted from methodology published by: Matley, T., Goldman, L., Fineman, B.,
Pedestrian Travel Potential in Northern New Jersey. A Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Approach to
Identifying Investment Priorities. In Transportation Research Record 1705, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D. C., 2000; available at: http:// www. enhancements. org/ download/ trb/ 1705- 001. pdf
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 20 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
GIS data required: ( 1) population data, and ( 2) employment data by census tract.
2. Pedestrian Facilities Index ( PFI): Measure of the urbanization and population density;
computed by calculating population divided by land area for each census tract. The
results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 5 where:
- 1 = lowest results, or least relative index value; and
- 5 = highest relative index value ( most urban or densest population).
GIS data required: ( 1) population data, and ( 2) land area of census tract.
3. Road Density Index ( RDI): Measure of urbanization computed as the total number of
miles of non- limited access highway roads and streets in a census tract to the total land
area of that tract. The results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 5,
where:
- 1 = lowest results, or least relative index value; and
- 5 = highest relative index value.
GIS data required: ( 1) total number of miles of non- limited access highway facilities, per
census tract ( available through HPMS database), and ( 2) land area of census tract.
4. Journey to Work ( JTW) – Based on the U. S. Census Journey to Work data; computed
as the percentage of total workers ( 16 years and over) who travel to work by walking at
the census tract level. The results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to
5, where:
- 1 = lowest results, or least index value; and
- 5 = highest relative index value ( highest percentage of workers travel to work by
walking).
GIS data required: ( 1) number of workers 16 years and over and number of workers
who travel to work by walking.
Each sub- index is summed to calculate a total Pedestrian Demand Index ( PDI) score for
each highway segment. The overall PDI scores were normalized from 0 to 100. Roadway
segments within urbanized area boundaries ( U. S. Census definition) were given an
additional 10 points to their score, and the overall score was renormalized from 0 to 100.
To incorporate the overall PDI score into segment prioritization for the Pedestrian Safety
Action Plan, the state highway segments were assigned points consistent with the following
scale:
􀂃 1 point for lowest PDI scores ( less than 30),
􀂃 2 points for moderate PDI scores ( between 31 and 51), or
􀂃 3 points for highest PDI scores ( between 52 and 100).
Pedestrian Safety
Deficiency Index
Quantifies the relative magnitude of pedestrian safety deficiencies of each segment by rating
six factors:
1. Sidewalk Availability – Assesses sidewalk accessibility to pedestrians:
- 0 points for maintained 8' shoulder ( rural) or existing sidewalks ( urban),
- 1 point for damaged 8' shoulder ( rural) or existing sidewalks ( urban),
- 2 points for no sidewalks, or
- 3 points for discontinuous sidewalks.
2. Crossing Risk – Measures the roadway crossing risk associated with the roadway cross
section:
- 0 points for roadway segments with one lane in each direction,
- 1 point for a multi- lane roadway with a center median,
- 2 points for a multi- lane roadway with a two- way center left- turn lane, or
- 3 points for a multi- lane roadway with no median or two- way center left- turn lane.
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 21 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
3. Crossing Opportunities – Assesses frequency of opportunities for pedestrians to cross
at signalized intersections or mid- block:
- 0 points for segments with average signal spacing of less than 1,000 feet, or
- 2 points for segments with average signal spacing greater than 1,000 feet.
4. Pedestrian Crashes – Assesses pedestrian crash history of segment:
- 1 point for segments with 1- 5 crashes per mile,
- 2 points for segments with 6- 10 crashes per mile,
- 3 points for segments with 11- 15 crashes per mile,
- 4 points for segments with 16- 20 crashes per mile,
- 5 points for segments with 21- 25 crashes per mile, or
- 6 points for segments with 26- 30 crashes per mile.
5. Traffic Speed – Based on the speed limit of each segment; each segment scored from 1
to 3 and points:
- 1 point for speed limit < 25 mph,
- 2 points for speed limit < 35 mph, or
- 3 points for speed limit > 45 mph.
6. Traffic Volume – Measures the average daily traffic along a segment
- 1 point for volume > 2,500 vpd and < 7,500 vpd,
- 2 points for volume > 7,500 vpd and < 12,500 vpd,
- 3 points for volume > 12,500 vpd and < 17,500 vpd,
- 4 points for volume > 17,500 vpd and < 25,000 vpd, or
- 5 points for volume > 25,000 vpd.
Stakeholder Input,
and
Based on concerns expressed by jurisdictional stakeholders as documented in Working
Paper No. 1.
􀂃 1 point for concern expressed about pedestrians crossing at unmarked locations,
􀂃 1 point for concern expressed about discontinuous sidewalks,
􀂃 1 point for concern expressed about adequate lighting,
􀂃 1 point for concern expressed about crossing improvements,
􀂃 1 point for concern expressed about school crossings, and
􀂃 1 point for a request for a raised median or barrier.
Crash Severity
Index
The Crash Severity Index quantifies the severity of injuries along the segment. The type and
number of injuries or fatalities were taken into account and scores were assigned as follows:
􀂃 0 points for segments with no incapacitating injury crashes or fatal crashes,
􀂃 1 point for segments with incapacitating injury crashes but no fatal crashes,
􀂃 2 points for segments with one fatal crash, or
􀂃 3 points for segments with multiple fatal crashes.
Each segment score was normalized to 100. Each state highway segment was assigned a priority level
based on the normalized score with the following scale:
􀂃 Highest Priority: Normalized score between 85 and 100
􀂃 Moderate Priority: Normalized score from 72 to 84
􀂃 Lowest Priority: Normalized score below 72
Exhibit 4- 1 shows the prioritization of each segment for all four categories and the overall prioritization
score. Highest priority segments are depicted by a solid circle ( 􀀯 ), medium priority segments are
depicted by a half- circle ( 􀀉 ), and lowest priority segments are depicted by a hollow circle ( 􀀀 ).
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 Final Report. doc 22 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 4- 1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix
Seg-ment
#
Road Name From To City
􀀀 = Lowest Priority, 􀀉 = Moderate Priority, 􀀯 = Highest Priority
Pedestrian
Demand Deficiency Stakeholder
Input
Crash
Severity
Overall
Score1
Normalized
Score2 Overall
Priority
1A SR- 95 North Oatman
Rd ( MP 243.5)
SR- 68
( MP 249.7)
Bullhead
City 2 3 2 3 10 100 􀀯 􀀃
1B SR- 68 SR- 95
( MP 249.7)
Davis Dam Rd
( MP 251.3)
Bullhead
City 2 2 1 3 8 84 􀀉 􀀃
2 SR- 95 Joy Ln
( MP 236.4)
Camp Mohave
Rd ( MP 238.4)
Bullhead
City 2 3 2 3 10 100 􀀯 􀀃
3 SR- 287
( Florence Blvd)
SR- 387
( MP 111.8)
Arizola Rd
( MP 114.3)
Casa
Grande 2 2 2 3 9 96 􀀯 􀀃
4A SR- 40B Riordan Rd
( MP 195.3)
Elden St
( MP 196.6) Flagstaff 3 3 2 1 9 91 􀀯 􀀃
4B SR- 89A University Ave
( MP 402.5)
SR- 40B
( MP 216.1) Flagstaff 2 3 2 2 9 88 􀀯 􀀃
4C US- 180 SR- 40B
( MP 215.4)
Birch Ave
( MP 216.1) Flagstaff 3 2 2 1 8 81 􀀉 􀀃
5 SR- 40B Arrowhead Ave
( MP 198.3)
Postal Blvd
( MP 199) Flagstaff 2 2 2 2 8 84 􀀉 􀀃
6 US- 89
Snowflake Dr /
Trailsend Dr
( MP 420.1)
Townsend
Winona Rd
( MP 420.7)
Flagstaff 2 2 2 3 9 94 􀀯 􀀃
7 SR- 40B 5th Ave
( MP 286.3)
I- 40 Exit 286
G- Ramp
( MP 287.4)
Holbrook 2 3 1 2 8 77 􀀉 􀀃
8A SR- 77 I- 10 Frontage
Rd ( MP 68.1)
Limberlost Dr
( MP 71) Tucson 3 2 0 2 7 72 􀀉 􀀃
8B SR- 77 River Rd
( MP 72)
Sahuaro Vista
( MP 75.1) Tucson 3 3 0 3 9 88 􀀯 􀀃
1. Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score 􀀃
2. Normalized Score = 10.3*( Overall Score) 􀀃
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 Final Report. doc 23 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 4- 1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix ( continued)
Seg-ment
#
Road
Name From To City
􀀀 = Lowest Priority, 􀀉 = Moderate Priority, 􀀯 = Highest Priority
Pedestrian
Demand Deficiency Stakeholder
Input
Crash
Severity
Overall
Score( 1)
Normalized
Score( 2) Overall
Priority
8C SR- 77 Magee Rd
( MP 75.9)
Mountain Vista
Dr ( MP 76.2) Tucson 3 3 0 1 7 72 􀀉 􀀃
11 SR- 90 SR- 92
( MP 321.5)
Giulio Cesare
Ave
( MP 322.5)
Sierra Vista 2 3 0 2 7 67 􀀀 􀀃
12 US- 95 Alamo Dr
( MP 25.2)
Avenue 3E
( MP 25.8) Yuma 2 2 1 3 8 86 􀀯 􀀃
13 SR- 8B 1st St
( MP 0.3)
32nd St
( MP 4) Yuma 3 2 1 2 8 81 􀀉 􀀃
14 SR- 89A Dry Creek Rd
( MP 371)
Soldier Pass
Rd ( MP 372.9) Sedona 2 2 2 3 9 93 􀀯 􀀃
15 SR- 387
( Pinal Ave)
SR- 287
( MP 0)
Cottonwood Ln
( MP 1)
Casa
Grande 3 3 1 0 7 67 􀀀 􀀃
16 SR- 86 La Cholla Blvd
( MP 169.9)
16th Ave
( MP 171.7) Tucson 3 3 0 1 7 70 􀀀 􀀃
17
SR- 87
( Arizona
Blvd)
Martin Rd
( MP 131.5)
Vah Ki Inn Rd
( MP 133.5) Coolidge 2 2 2 1 7 69 􀀀 􀀃
18 US- 95 SR- 8B
( MP 23.4)
Redondo
Center Dr
( MP 24.2)
Yuma 3 2 1 1 7 72 􀀉 􀀃
20
US- 60X/
Apache
Trail
Signal Butte Rd
( MP 193)
Meridian Rd
( MP 194) Mesa 3 2 0 0 5 53 􀀀 􀀃
21
US- 60X/
Apache
Trail
Ellsworth Rd
( MP 191)
Crismon Rd
( MP 192) Mesa 3 2 0 3 8 84 􀀉 􀀃
1. Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score 􀀃
2. Normalized Score = 10.3*( Overall Score) 􀀃
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 Final Report. doc 24 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
4.2 Interchange Prioritization and Methodology
Interchange prioritization utilized three of the indices described in Section 4.1: Pedestrian Demand
Index, a Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index, and Crash Severity Index. An overall priority score was
calculated using the scores from all three categories.
The overall priority score was computed for each interchange by summing each of the sub indices:
Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score
+ Crash Severity Index Score
Exhibit 4- 2 shows the index score for each interchange, the overall normalized score, and the
prioritization of each interchange consistent with the following scale:
􀂃 Highest Priority: Normalized score between 85 and 100
􀂃 Moderate Priority: Normalized score from 72 to 84
􀂃 Lowest Priority: Normalized score below 72
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 Final Report. doc 25 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 4- 2 – Interchange Prioritization Matrix
Interchange
Number
Interchange
Location 􀀃
􀀀 = Lowest Priority, 􀀥 = Moderate Priority, 􀀯 = Highest Priority
Pedestrian
Demand Deficiency Crash
Severity Overall Score( 1) Normalized
Score( 2) Overall Priority
1 I- 17 Greenway Rd 3 1 1 5 63 􀀀 􀀃
3 I- 10 7th Ave 3 1 1 5 63 􀀀 􀀃
4 SR- 101 / SB Price Rd Apache Blvd 3 1 2 6 75 􀀥 􀀃
5 I- 17 Cactus Rd 3 2 1 6 75 􀀥 􀀃
9 SR- 202 32nd St 3 2 1 6 75 􀀥 􀀃
10 I- 17 Bethany Home
Rd 3 2 2 7 88 􀀯 􀀃
11 I- 17 Camelback Rd 3 2 2 7 88 􀀯 􀀃
12 I- 17 Dunlap Ave 3 3 1 7 88 􀀯 􀀃
13 SR- 101 / SB Price Rd University Dr 3 3 2 8 100 􀀯 􀀃
14 I- 10 Baseline Rd 3 2 0 5 63 􀀀 􀀃
18 I- 17 Indian School
Rd 3 2 2 7 88 􀀯 􀀃
1. Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Crash Severity Index Score 􀀃
2. Normalized Score = 12.5*( Overall Score) 􀀃
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 Final Report. doc 26 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
5.0 POTENTIALCOUNTERMEASURES FOR HIGH PEDESTRIAN
CRASH AND TRIBALCOMMUNITY LOCATIONS
Chapter 5 presents potential countermeasures that may be considered for implementation at each high
pedestrian crash location. It must be emphasized that additional site- specific engineering analysis is
required for each pedestrian crash location prior to final countermeasure selection.
Potential countermeasures are presented in Exhibit 5- 1. Potential countermeasures were identified
considering crash typing, field review, and stakeholder input.
Exhibit 5- 1 through 5- 33 list key characteristics of each high pedestrian crash location, field review
observations, stakeholder input, potential countermeasures for each location, and estimated conceptual
costs.
Potential countermeasures for implementation on state highways located within tribal lands are also
identified. Potential countermeasures and estimated conceptual costs are shown in Exhibit 5- 34
through 5- 46.
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 27 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 1 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 1
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 1, SR- 95, North Oatman Road to SR- 68, Bullhead City
This segment is a 7.8- mile- long 4- lane state highway in urban
area from North Oatman Road to Davis Dam Road ( MP 243.5
to MP 251.3). The segment can be separated into two sub-segments,
which are continuous. The AADT is approximately
32,600 vehicles per day ( vpd) on SR- 95 and 13,000 vpd on
SR- 68. Other key features include:
SR- 95
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – poor
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial, open space in
middle of segment
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
SR- 68
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – only for a short segment
􀂃 Median – majority raised median, a small segment of
TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – poor
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – open space
􀂃 Building Setback – N/ A
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
The City had the following comments:
􀂃 Pedestrian traffic crosses mid- block
􀂃 SR- 95 has no median
􀂃 SR- 68 is not well lit
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 HAWK signals may work in highly concentrated areas
􀂃 Installing a raised median would be best for pedestrians
􀂃 Recent road safety assessment ( RSA) suggested a median
􀂃 Alternating lighting but most of segment is lit
􀂃 Pedestrian walk time may need to be extended ( discussed in
RSA)
􀂃 Countdown pedestrian signals would be helpful
􀂃 Photo radar enforcement could be considered, as suggested in
Road Safety Assessment
Countermeasures identified for consideration in SR- 95 Road Safety
Assessment, MP 242 to 250, Bullhead City, October 20- 22, 2008:
􀂃 Improve lighting between 3rd Street and 6th Street, particularly
near 5th Street, to increase pedestrian visibility at night
􀂃 Consider one of the following signal/ crosswalk
recommendations:
a. Conduct a signal warrants analysis to determine the need for
a traffic signal at 5th Street
b. Install an In- Road Warning Light System with a high visibility
crosswalk and LED pedestrian crossing signs at 5th Street
c. Install 2- stage pedestrian crosswalks near 5th Street
d. Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, similar to the HAWK that
the City of Tucson uses, near 5th Street
􀂃 Provide additional advanced warning of pedestrian crossing
areas with oversized pedestrian crossing signs on both sides of
SR- 95, in both directions, with “ Next xx Feet” plaque
􀂃 Long term, consider eliminating the crest curve near 5th Street
􀂃 Improve lighting between Thunderstruck Drive and Ramar Road
􀂃 Provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval phase at Thunderstruck
Drive
Crosswalk Improvements
SR 95 Milepost 242 to 250, Bullhead City, Road Safety Assessment, October 20- 22, 2008, recommended
consideration of installation of an In- Road Warning Light System with high visibility crosswalk( s) and LED
pedestrian crossing signs as well as additional advanced warning of pedestrian crossing areas with oversized
signs.
$ 130,000
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 52,000
Provide Lead Pedestrian Interval
Provide leading pedestrian interval signal phase on SR- 95 to allow pedestrians to enter and occupy the
crosswalk before turning motorists enter it.
--
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Roadway Lighting
Evaluate lighting to determine appropriate lighting improvements. Design and construct lighting
improvements at intersections and along the roadway.
$ 220,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 4,280,000
Sidewalk Improvements
Install and improve sidewalks along SR- 68 to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve
mobility for pedestrians.
$ 1,069,440
Construct Raised Median on SR- 95
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 9,266,400
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 14,237,840
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 5,751,440
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 28 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 2 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 2
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 2, SR- 95, Joy Lane to Camp Mohave Road, Bullhead City
This segment is a 2- mile- long 4- lane state highway in
transitioning area from Joy Lane to Camp Mohave Road ( MP
236.4 to MP 238.4). The AADT along this segment is
approximately 30,200 vpd. The segment consists of other key
features as below:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – none
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – poor
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 No roadway lighting or sidewalks are present
􀂃 A raised median would be a good option
􀂃 Raised median may be more feasible on Segment 2 as
compared to Segment 1, because of business access
considerations, etc.
􀂃 May be difficult to have sidewalks installed
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Roadway geometry and field conditions must be
analyzed.
$ 8,000
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 16,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Roadway Lighting
Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night.
$ 65,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 1,240,000
Sidewalk Improvements
Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians.
$ 1,471,920
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median --
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 2,800,920
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 29 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 3 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 3
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 3, SR- 287, SR- 387 to Arizola Road, Casa Grande
This 2.5- mile- long 4- lane segment of state highway is a main
street in urban area from SR- 387 to Arizola Road ( MP 111.8 to
MP 114.3). The AADT along this segment is approximately
25,100 vpd. Other key features of this segment include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – majority TWLT median, a short segment of
raised median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph and 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
􀂃 Activity centers on both sides of the street
􀂃 Wide multi- lane roadway
􀂃 Consider a median
􀂃 This segment scheduled for turn- back to the City of Casa
Grande in 2009
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 18,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 3,600
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 36,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install dual- stage pedestrian crossings at selected locations between signalized intersections. The pedestrian
crossings should include pedestrian refuges.
$ 1,790,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, reducing turning radius.
$ 500,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 2,970,000
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 4,777,600
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 2,347,600
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 30 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 4 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4A
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 4A, SR- 40B, Riordan Road to Elden Street, Flagstaff
Segment 4A is along SR- 40B ( 4), also known as Route 66,
and extends from Riordan Road to Elden Street ( MP 195.3 to
MP 196.6). This segment is a 4- lane state highway with an
estimated AADT of 38,300 vpd. Other key features of this
segment include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 30 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial, some open
space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority < 10 feet, next to sidewalk on
westbound
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – yes
􀂃 Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that
are activated when the pedestrian phase is called.
􀂃 High volume roadway, with no defined areas for pedestrian
crossings. Consider raised median and pedestrian scale
lighting. Consider two- stage pedestrian cross walks.
􀂃 City indicated that having no place to cross and high speeds
are the two big issues.
􀂃 City indicated that linear improvements, e. g. sidewalks are
good, but crossing improvements are lacking.
􀂃 City indicated that it is difficult to find a common place to build a
crosswalk on Milton Avenue because there are no concentrated
places where pedestrians cross the street.
􀂃 City indicated that there are not obvious places for a HAWK
installation as there are so many driveways on the road.
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 Lighting is primarily from adjacent businesses causing light
pollution but lighting uniformity needs to be addressed
􀂃 Median would be opposed by district due to problems related to
snow removal
􀂃 Pedestrian crossings are random therefore it may be difficult to
get pedestrians to use HAWK signal
􀂃 Study needed for pedestrian traffic to determine locations for
HAWK signals
􀂃 Prohibiting right- turn on red may be considered, however, may
cause queuing problems
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
A study of pedestrian activity should be completed to determine suitable pedestrian crossings locations.
$ 12,000
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” Signs
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet
engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B. 45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns
over increased right- turn- on- red conflicts.
$ 800
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 24,000
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at large intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb
radius reduces pedestrian crossing distance and improves visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 230,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. A study of pedestrian activity should be
conducted to determine ideal locations of pedestrian crossings.
$ 860,000
Construct Shoulder
Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be
used as a designated bicycle lane.
$ 131,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 1,556,280
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 2,454,080
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 1,257,800
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 31 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 5 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4B
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 4B, SR- 89A, University Avenue to SR- 40B, Flagstaff
Segment 4B spans from University Avenue to SR- 40B ( MP
402.5 to MP 403.2) along SR- 89A ( Milton Road). This
segment is also a 4- lane state highway with an estimated
AADT of 35,000 vpd. Other key features of this segment
include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – yes
􀂃 Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that
are activated when the pedestrian phase is called.
􀂃 High volume roadway, with no defined areas for pedestrian
crossings. Consider raised median and pedestrian scale
lighting. Consider two- stage pedestrian cross walks.
􀂃 City indicated that having no place to cross and high speeds
are the two big issues.
􀂃 City indicated that linear improvements, e. g. sidewalks are
good, but crossing improvements are lacking.
􀂃 City indicated that it is difficult to find a common place to build a
crosswalk on Milton Avenue because there are no concentrated
places where pedestrians cross the street.
􀂃 City indicated that there are not obvious places for a HAWK
installation as there are so many driveways on the road.
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 Pedestrian crossings are random therefore it may be difficult to
get pedestrians to use HAWK signal
􀂃 Study needed for pedestrian traffic to determine locations for
HAWK signals
􀂃 Prohibiting right- turn on red may be considered, however, may
cause queuing problems
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 8,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 1,600
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” Signs
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet
engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B. 45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns
over increased right- turn- on- red conflicts.
$ 500
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 16,000
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 80,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 490,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 60,000
Construct Shoulder
Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be
used as a designated bicycle lane.
$ 67,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 795,960
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 1,279,060
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 723,100
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 32 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 6 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4C
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual
Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations,
engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the
magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 4C, US- 180, SR- 40B to Birch Avenue, Flagstaff
Segment 4C is along US- 180 ( Humphreys Street) from SR-
40B to Birch Avenue ( MP 215.4 to MP 216.1). This segment is
a 2- lane state highway with an estimated AADT of 15,000 vpd.
Other key features of these segments include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 25 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly residential
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 15 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
􀂃 Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that are
activated when the pedestrian phase is called.
􀂃 City indicated that linear improvements, e. g. sidewalks are good,
but crossing improvements are lacking.
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 A multi- use path was recently installed, making access to
crossings easier
􀂃 Midblock crossings may be well received
􀂃 Lighting is not continuous along the segment
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 6,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to
expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 1,200
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” Signs
Install “ No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering
warrants per MUTCD Section 2B. 45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased
right- turn- on- red conflicts.
$ 400
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 12,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused
on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 50,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 150,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or
reducing turning radius.
$ 20,000
Construct Shoulder
Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be
used as a designated bicycle lane.
$ 14,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning
vehicles.
$ 166,320
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 269,920
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 253,600
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 33 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 7 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 5
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 5, SR- 40B, Arrowhead Avenue to Postal Boulevard, Flagstaff
This segment is a 0.7- mile- long 4- lane state highway in urban
area from Arrowhead Avenue to Postal Boulevard ( MP 198.3
to MP 199). The AADT along this segment is approximately
27,400 vpd. The segment has other key features including:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial on westbound, open
space on eastbound
􀂃 Building Setback – some at 20 feet, some next to
sidewalk
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
The City had the following comments:
􀂃 Having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big
issues
􀂃 Linear improvements, e. g. sidewalks are good, but crossing
improvements are lacking
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 There is a residential area to the north and a possible retail
development to the south of the segment
􀂃 Large distance between signals
􀂃 Afraid that pedestrian problem will worsen once the retail
development is in place
􀂃 A new traffic signal may be possible at 1st Street
􀂃 Efforts should be coordinated with the new development
􀂃 Roadway lighting needs improvement
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 6,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 1,200
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 12,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 80,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 40,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 867,240
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 1,006,440
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 139,200
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 34 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 8 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 6
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 6, US- 89, Snowflake Drive / Trailsend Drive to Townsend Winona Road, Flagstaff
This segment is a 0.6- mile- long 4- lane state highway in a
transitioning area from Snowflake Drive / Trailsend Drive to
Townsend- Winona Road ( MP 420.1 to MP 420.7). The AADT
along this segment is approximately 26,400 vpd. Other key
features include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
The City had the following comments:
􀂃 Having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big
issues
􀂃 Linear improvements, e. g. sidewalks are good, but crossing
improvements are lacking
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 There are no sidewalks on either side of the roadway for half of
the segment, however there is a well worn footpath
􀂃 Installing sidewalks may be difficult since the county won’t
maintain the sidewalks
􀂃 Roadway lighting is present
􀂃 Alcohol related accidents are a major problem in this area
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 4,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 800
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 8,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 370,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 689,040
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 951,840
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 382,800
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 35 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 9 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 7
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 7, SR- 40B ( 8), 5th Avenue to I- 40 Exit 286 G- Ramp, Holbrook
This segment is a 1.1- mile- long 4- lane state highway from SR-
40B to 5th Avenue ( MP 286.3 to MP 287.4). The AADT on
this segment is approximately 11,100 vpd. Other key features
include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – majority TWLT median, one segment without
median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space
􀂃 Building Setback – next to sidewalk in downtown, others >
25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
􀂃 The City is trying to increase enforcement along SR- 77 and I- 40
to reduce the number of intoxicated pedestrian crashes.
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 Alcohol related accidents account for most of the pedestrian
crashes on this segment
􀂃 Sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and benches have been recently
installed
􀂃 Buildings are very close to the road - installed handrails to
direct pedestrians to side streets
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 4,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 800
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 8,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 200,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 620,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 220,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 1,318,680
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 2,251,480
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 1,052,800
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 36 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 10 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8A
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 8A, SR- 77, I- 10 Frontage Road to Limberlost Drive, Tucson
From the I- 10 Frontage Road to Limberlost Drive, Segment 8A
of SR- 77 is a 2.9- mile- long state highway. It has 4 lanes from
I- 10 to Oracle Road and 6 lanes from Miracle Mile to
Limberlost Drive ( MP 68.1 to MP 71). The AADT on Segment
8A is approximately 40,200 vpd. Other features of this
segment include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – yes
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – raised median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph
􀂃 Illumination – good
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
􀂃 At Oracle Road and Fort Lowell Road, move bus stop closer to
the intersection to encourage pedestrians to cross at the
intersection.
􀂃 Install crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection at Oracle
Road and Fort Lowell Road.
􀂃 At Oracle Road and Miracle Mile, provide a railing to prevent
crossings on the north leg of the intersection and direct
pedestrians to cross on the south leg.
􀂃 City of Tucson indicated that on Oracle Road, a number of
changes were implemented:
􀂃 Signal timings were changed from 90 to 120 seconds to allow
full pedestrian crossings.
􀂃 Slowed the assumption on walking speeds between River Road
and Grant Road to 4 feet per second.
􀂃 All school crossings assumed 3.5 feet per seconds.
􀂃 Oracle Road is now fully illuminated.
􀂃 On Oracle Road, there are living areas on the east side of the
street and shopping on the west side of the street, leading to
more pedestrian crossings.
􀂃 There are socioeconomic factors regarding some of the
pedestrian activities, such as alcohol and drug use.
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 16,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 3,200
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 32,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 280,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install dual- stage pedestrian crossings.
$ 1,500,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 400,000
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median --
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 2,231,200
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 37 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 11 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8B
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 8B, SR- 77, River Road to Sahuaro Vista, Tucson
Segment 8B of SR- 77 is from River Road to Sahuaro Vista
( MP 72 to MP 75.1), and is about 3.1 miles long. It has 6
lanes with an estimated AADT of 52,100 vpd. Other features
of this segment include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – yes
􀂃 Sidewalks – none
􀂃 Median – raised median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Illumination – only at intersections
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – Oracle Road
􀂃 Refer to Segment 8A Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 8,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 1,600
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 16,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Roadway Lighting
Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night.
$ 100,000
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 270,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install dual- stage pedestrian crossings.
$ 1,500,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 100,000
Sidewalk Improvements
Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians.
$ 2,273,606
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median --
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 4,269,206
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 38 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 12 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8C
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 8C, SR- 77, Magee Road to Mountain Vista Drive, Tucson
Segment 8C of SR- 77, from Magee Road to Mountain Vista
Drive ( MP 75.9 to MP 76.2), is a 0.3- mile- long 6- lane state
highway. The AADT on this segment is approximately 55,100
vpd. Other key features include:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – yes
􀂃 Sidewalks – none
􀂃 Median – raised median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 50 mph
􀂃 Illumination – only at intersections
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial on southbound
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 Bus Stop Locations – none
􀂃 None Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 2,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 400
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 4,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Roadway Lighting
Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night.
$ 15,000
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 40,000
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install dual- stage pedestrian crossings.
$ 135,000
Sidewalk Improvements
Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians.
$ 206,479
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median --
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 402,579
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 39 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 13 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 11
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 11, SR- 90, SR- 92 to Giulio Cesare Avenue, Sierra Vista
This segment is a 0.99- mile- long 4- lane state highway from
SR- 92 to Giulio Cesare Avenue ( MP 321.5 to MP 322.5). The
AADT along this segment is approximately 17,000 vpd. The
segment consists of other key features as below:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes from SR- 92 to Tree Top Avenue, none
from Tree Top Avenue to Giulio Cesare Avenue
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 A multi- use trail is located on the north side of SR- 90
􀂃 There is a long wait to cross at SR- 92
􀂃 Large curb radii at SR- 92
􀂃 Heavy commercial use toward SR- 92
􀂃 No median on SR- 90 and wide cross section
􀂃 Distance between crossings is minimal toward SR- 92
􀂃 Discontinuous sidewalks and narrow shoulders east of Tree
Top Avenue
􀂃 Poor roadway lighting toward the east end of the segment
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 6,000
Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs
Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to
what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid- block crossings.
$ 1,200
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 12,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Sidewalk Improvements
Install and improve sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for
pedestrians.
$ 737,990
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 1,176,120
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 1,933,310
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 757,190
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 40 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 14 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 12
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 12, US- 95, Alamo Drive to Avenue 3E, Yuma
This segment is a 0.62- mile- long 4- lane state highway from
Alamo Drive to Avenue 3E ( MP 25.2 to MP 25.8). The AADT
along this segment is approximately 15,100 vpd. It should be
noted that this route will be turned over to the City of Yuma in
September 2009. The segment consists of other key features
as below:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – none
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 55 mph
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 The City uses channelized right turn lanes to shorten pedestrian
crossing distances ( using pork chop islands).
􀂃 At SR 95 and Ave. 3E, an area with two fatal crashes, there is a
bar in the vicinity; people park on opposite side of street.
􀂃 Raised medians have been recommended in past studies
􀂃 Roadway lighting is only present at Avenue 3E and not the rest
of the segment
􀂃 This segment is scheduled for turn back in 2009.
Crosswalk Improvements
Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor.
$ 2,000
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 4,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Improve Pedestrian Crossings
Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges.
$ 310,000
Sidewalk Improvements
Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians.
$ 450,115
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 736,560
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 1,442,675
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 766,115
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 41 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 15 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 13
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 13, SR- 8B, 1st Street to 32rd Street, Yuma
This segment is a 3.66- mile- long 4- lane state highway from 1st
Street , extending south to Catalina Drive at the “ Big Curve”,
and the intersection of 4th Avenue/ SR- 8B and 32nd Street
( MP 0.3 to MP 4). The AADT along this segment is
approximately 16,500 vpd. It should be noted that this route
will be turned over to the City of Yuma in September 2009.
The segment consists of other key features as below:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial
􀂃 Building Setback – majority < 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
􀂃 There are more pedestrians on 4th Avenue ( Business SR- 8B),
north of 16th Street. There are more homeless persons there
and the library is near there.
The regional traffic engineer had the following comments:
􀂃 Lighting is present now
􀂃 There are several signals along the corridor therefore,
pedestrian crossings are not needed
Enhance Pedestrian Signals
Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian
crossing time if needed.
$ 48,000
Increased Enforcement Plans
Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’
awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be
focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally.
--
Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections
Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius
should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians.
$ 480,000
Driveway Improvements
Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing
driveways, or reducing turning radius.
$ 600,000
Construct Raised Median
Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with
left- turning vehicles.
$ 4,348,080
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $ 5,476,080
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $ 1,128,000
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 42 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09
Exhibit 5- 16 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 14
Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments
Potential Countermeasures for Consideration
Estimated
Conceptual Cost
The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not
intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further
investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is
provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location.
Segment 14, SR- 89A, Dry Creek Road to Soldier Pass Road, Sedona
This segment is a 1.88- mile- long 4- lane state highway from
Dry Creek Road to Soldier Pass Road ( MP 371 to MP 372.9).
The AADT along this segment is approximately 24,700 vpd.
The segment consists of other key features as below:
􀂃 Bicycle Lane – none
􀂃 Sidewalks – yes
􀂃 Median – TWLT median
􀂃 Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph
􀂃 Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space
􀂃 Building Setback – majority > 25 feet
􀂃 Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections
SR89A MP 371- 373 has an ongoing safety project managed by ADOT- HES and funded by FHWA through the
Highway Safety Improvement Program grants. The project scope includes continuous highway lighting, traffic
signal at Andante Drive, and a right- turn lane on SR89A turning east onto Andante Drive.
--
Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median --
Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median --
091374020 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report. doc 43 Final Report
06/ 24/ 09