Page 1 of 52

NEVADA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 52

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 20

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance ............................................................................................................................................... 25

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 25

Safety Performance Targets .............................................................................................................................. 36

Applicability of Special Rules .......................................................................................................................... 38

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Program Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 40

Year 2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 41

Project Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................... 45

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 47
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 52

Disclaimer 

Protection of Data from Discovery Admission into Evidence 

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

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

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

amages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, 

ists, or other data.” 

d

a

d

l

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

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

potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 

130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or 

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

damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, 

lists, or data.” 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 52

Executive Summary 

This annual Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report for 2018 summarizes the activities of the 

Nevada Department of Transportation’s HSIP as required by Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) 

Act. The FAST Act continues the HSIP to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a 

data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance 

(FAST Act § 1113; 23 U.S.C. 148).

The FAST Act continued to allocate funds for the HSIP program in the Federal Fiscal Years 2016 – 2020. 

Available program funds for the purpose of this report are considered to be those funds obligated during the 

2018 federal fiscal year. The activities of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) are primarily 

designed to develop safety improvement projects for the following areas:

• High crash locations (intersections and roadway segments) 

o Urban intersection safety improvements

o Urban lane departure crash mitigation

o Rural lane departure crash mitigation

o Rural intersection safety improvements

• Systemic Safety Improvements 

• Pedestrian related safety improvements 

• Tribal Low-Cost Safety Improvements 

The crash data on all public roadways contained in this report is extracted from the Nevada Citation and 

Accident Tracking System (NCATS) and Brazos crash databases and prepared for Traffic Safety Engineering’s 

analysis as a normalized view. After the crash data is downloaded from the NCATS and Brazos databases, it is 

processed through our geo-location software and is linearly referenced to the statewide street centerline data. 

The geo-location software tools automate the cleanup of location attributes and assign a spatial location to the 

crash data through a series of database procedures.

The HSIP program is administered by the NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering section, a centrally located 

component of the NDOT. The methods used by the Traffic Safety Engineering section to identify, select, 

implement, and evaluate safety improvement projects have been compiled in the NDOT’s “Safety Procedural 

Manual,” implemented in 1980, amended in 1990, 2010, and 2016. A copy of the current updated NDOT 

Safety Procedural Manual is located on the NDOT website.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 52

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

See attached HSIP Flow Chart 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Under the systemic roadway improvements approach, NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering evaluates local roads 

for safety improvements such as Slope Flattening/Shoulder Widening, Flashing Yellow Arrows, Rumble 

Stripes, and turn pockets with acceleration/deceleration lanes on rural highways. We also use 

recommendations made during Road Safety Assessment (RSA) completed on local and tribal roads to develop 

projects. While evaluating rural intersections, we are identifying those locations where fatalities and serious

injuries can be reduced by converting to a roundabout.

Nevada was one of six states selected by FHWA to participate in the Local Road Safety Plan Pilot Project. 

Each of the six states were asked to select one or more counties to be included in the pilot project. The project 

vision is to advance road safety in the selected counties by reducing fatal and serious injuries. The NDOT 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 52

selected Elko and Douglas Counties to be part of the pilot project. The first step in the project process included 

a review of the 5-year fatal and serious injury crash data for each county. That was followed by face to face 

meetings with each county to reach concurrence on possible countermeasures to be considered. This is an 

ongoing effort that potentially will lead to the implementation of local road safety improvements.

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering developed a low-cost safety improvement project with the Washoe Tribe. The 

safety improvements included enhanced pedestrian lighting, signage, and sidewalk improvements.

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

are involved with HSIP planning.

Traffic Engineering/Safety

Design

Planning 

Maintenance

Operations 

Districts/Regions

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with internal partners.

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering coordinates with: 

1. The NDOT Roadway Design team at many various levels to include, recommend or request the inclusion of 

safety improvements from strategies identified in the Strategic Highway Safety Program (SHSP), Road Safety 

Assessments (RSA), Safety Management Plans (SMPs) or locations identified as safety management areas: 

• Preliminary Field Design Survey – at this level the team recommends possible improvements to include into 

the project based on the review of field conditions. 

• Pre-design – at this level the traffic safety team evaluates the design concepts for the inclusion of safety 

improvements and recommends possible safety improvements to include into the project. 

• Intermediate design – at this level the traffic safety team evaluates the preliminary design for the inclusion of 

safety improvements and recommends possible safety improvements to include into the project. 

• Final design – at this level the traffic safety team evaluates the final design for the inclusion of safety 

improvements. 

Also, NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering coordinates with the Roadway Design team to educate them in the 

latest safety strategies and provides guidance regarding safety improvements and ideas. This includes the 

utilization of the strategies included in the SHSP, the HSM and the federal guidelines. Traffic Safety 

Engineering coordinates with the Roadway Design Scoping section to initiate and recommend safety 

improvements into projects that are currently being evaluated.

2. The NDOT Maintenance/Operations division during Road Safety Assessment’s, Safety Management Plans 

and miscellaneous field reviews. 

3. The NDOT Planning division at many different levels to provide guidance regarding safety improvements in 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 52

the development of projects and by recommending safety improvements for inclusion into projects that are in 

the early stage of development. 

4. The NDOT Traffic Operations division when developing / implementing safety projects, which includes signal 

design, lighting design, operational analysis of roadway segments and intersections, and development and 

discussion of safety strategies, methodologies and guidelines. Traffic Safety and Traffic Operations have 

incorporated the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) as part of our intersection improvement evaluations and 

Wrong Way Driver countermeasures. The Traffic Incident Management (TIM) program is also a coordinated 

effort between Traffic Safety and Traffic Operations. The TIM programs primary goal is to reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries from secondary crashes.

5. The Governors Highway Safety Office (The Department of Public Safety - Office of Traffic Safety, OTS). 

Traffic Safety Engineering continues to coordinate with the OTS since the inception of the SHSP. Because of 

this long ongoing coordination between Traffic Safety Engineering and OTS, the safety messages continue to 

reach more and more road users in the state of Nevada which results in achieving our combined performance 

measures.

6. The NDOT District offices to gain knowledge of the locations that are of concern to the district to determine if 

they are being identified as potential safety project locations.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Governors Highway Safety Office 

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

Academia/University

FHWA

Other-Emergency Medical Services

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe coordination with external partners.

1. 

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering coordinated with:

1. Academia/University –the University of Nevada Reno, and the University of Nevada Las Vegas 

in several research projects, which includes Pedestrian safety, Safety Analyst, Before/After 

Studies for Complete Streets and Benefit Cost Ratios of roundabouts. 

2. FHWA – while attending webinars, peer- to- peers, and workshops that are hosted by the 

FHWA. In 2018, TSE has meet with FHWA staff on a quarterly basis to review and develop 

HSIP procedures. Together we are working to update and develop the procedures for data 

analysis, project selection, and network screening. 

3. Governors Highway Safety Office (The Department of Public Safety - Office of Traffic Safety, 

OTS). Traffic Safety Engineering has been coordinating with the OTS since the inception of the 

SHSP. Because of this long ongoing crash data coordination between Traffic Safety 

Engineering and OTS, the safety messages continue to reach more and more road users in the 

state of Nevada which results in achieving our combined performance measures. 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 52

4. Local Government Agency – representatives from local government agencies attended the 

Safety Summit, contribute to Safety Management Plans and are also members of the Critical 

Emphasis Area teams. 

5. MPO’s – staff from the Southern Nevada RTC, RTC of Washoe County, and CAMPO attended 

the Safety Summit, contribute to Safety Management Plans and are also members of the 

Critical Emphasis Area teams. 

6. Tribal Agency – some tribal representative attended the Safety Summit. Also, Traffic Safety 

Engineering has performed Road Safety Audits (RSAs) for a few tribes located in the state. 

7. Law Enforcement Agency - representatives from local law enforcement agencies attended the 

Safety Summit, contribute to Safety Management Plans and are also members of the Critical 

Emphasis Area teams. 

Have any program administration practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

No

Are there any other aspects of HSIP Administration on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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

Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan:

The focus has been on effective implementation of the 2016 to 2020 SHSP Update and 2017 Supplement. The 

NECTS decided at their first meeting in 2018 to rename the CEA teams “Task Forces,” as these groups are 

tasked with taking action to reduce fatalities and serious injuries for their particular CEA. The SHSP Steering 

Committee was determined to be duplicative and removed. Task Forces now report directly to the NECTS. In 

March 2018, the Chairs, Vice Chairs and Facilitators from each Task Force met in Carson City for a training 

session to discuss best practices, lessons learned and how to best lead task forces and get the most out of the 

task forces. The SHSP Task Force webpages went live in 2018 and provide information on task force activities, 

rosters, upcoming meetings, and information on how to join. Recurring activities for the SHSP in include 

regular meetings of the NECTS (now meeting quarterly) and quarterly meetings for the seven SHSP Critical 

Emphasis Area (CEA) Task Forces: (Intersection Safety Task Force, Impaired Driving Prevention Task Force, 

Occupant Protection Task Force, Pedestrian Safety Task Force, Lane Departure Prevention Task Force, 

Motorcycle Safety Task Force and Young Driver Safety Task Force). The TRCC has been integrated into the 

SHSP. Three meetings were held focusing on increased availability of relevant traffic safety data to improve 

the effectiveness of implementation. Planning is underway for the 2018 Nevada Traffic Safety Summit. The 

focus for the 2018 Nevada Traffic Safety Summit is #WAYTOOMANY, calling to action those in attendance to 

focus on reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries occurring on Nevada’s roadways.

Road Safety Assessments (RSA)

The RSA program is continuing in Nevada and has been a typical approach by the designer and/or planner to 

use an RSA as a safety tool on their new projects. There were thirteen (13) RSA performed from September 1, 

2017 to September 30, 2018. The RSA were primarily performed on 3R preservation projects, capacity 

projects, corridor studies, high crash locations, post construction projects, and Tribal planning projects. For 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 52

Federal Fiscal Year 18, the RSA program continued the updating and completed the compilation of the RSA 

that were performed on 123 RSA reports statewide in a 5-year period from February 2010 to November 2014. 

The RSA database is a compilation of all the RSA suggestions in one central file that can be sorted out 

according to the required data field for use as a design/planning reference by NDOT transportation 

professionals. The RSA database will identify suggestions that were incorporated in the project or implemented 

by NDOT District Maintenance crews and/or by other using agencies; and identify those suggestions that were 

not implemented. The RSA program statewide will continue in FFY 19-20. The updating of the RSA database 

will include those RSA that were performed in 2015 and 2016.

Systemic improvements:

Systemic improvements that were incorporated in the FY2018 HSIP program were: shoulder widening & slope 

flattening on rural two-lane highways, flashing yellow arrow installations, and a rural highway curve project. 

NDOT is currently using the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) methodology to determine the best 

intersection type based on safety and efficiency on all intersection projects. Utilizing 6” edge line striping on 

rural state route highway as a countermeasure for lane departure crashes was also implemented.

Safety Management Plans: a safety focused corridor study

To reduce the number of crashes on Nevada Roadways, the NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering Division 

identified corridors on arterial roads statewide to implement safety improvements. To identify corridors for 

improvement on Principal Arterials, routes were identified that have highest rates of societal cost of crashes 

per mile per AADT. For Minor Arterials, routes were identified that rank highest societal cost of crashes per 

mile and normalized by AADT and compared against similar functional class.

Three SMP’s were started at the following locations:

• Sahara Ave (Rainbow to I-15) in Las Vegas, Nevada 

• Jones Blvd (Carey to Rancho) & Cheyenne Ave (Torrey Pines to Decatur) in Las Vegas, Nevada 

• N. McCarran Blvd (I-80 to Socrates/Evans) in Reno, Nevada 

These SMP’s will evaluate the needs of all modes of transportation and make recommendations for future 

projects. The purpose of a Safety Management Plan (SMP) was to conduct a safety focused corridor study 

aimed at all road users and to include collaboration with stakeholders and the public. A SMP includes the 

development of short and long-range transportation safety improvement projects that incorporate relevant 

studies, access management principles, public and stakeholder input, crash and capacity analyses, 

benefit/cost analysis, and other impacts to all road users. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a 

Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) are created to help with the development of the SMP and to ensure that 

the plan was consistent with the needs of the many different stakeholders along the project corridor. The SMP 

process is consistent with the Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan’s goals of reducing the number of 

fatalities and serious injuries on Nevada’s roadways.

Traffic Safety Engineering Design Services (TSEDs):

The TSEDs were used to design safety improvements identified in RSAs and SMPs. The following list of 

projects were design in 2018 utilizing TSEDs:

• Washoe Tribe Low Cost Safety Improvements 

• Stewart Street, Carson City - Pedestrian and ADA Improvements 

• Eastern Ave and Civic Center Drive, Las Vegas - pedestrian, ADA, and access management safety 

improvements 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 52

• Second Street, Reno – Pedestrian and ADA Improvements throughout Corridor, including a compact 

roundabout at 2nd and Giroux 

• Pedestrian Safety Improvements with RRFB’s, upgrade lighting, and refuge islands at: 

o Rainbow @ Tara, Las Vegas 

o Rainbow @ Edna, Las Vegas 

o Cheyenne @ Mary Dee, Las Vegas 

o SR160 @ Postal Road, Pahrump 

Program Methodology

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

and evaluation processes?

Yes

To upload a copy of the State processes, attach files below.

File Name:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual final-updated-8.7.17.docx

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Intersection

Rural State Highways

Pedestrian Safety

Segments

HRRR

Other-Safety Management Plans

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 10/22/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 52

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2 

Other-Combining with other projects : 3 

Other-Systemic Improvmeents : 1

Program: Intersection 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/9/1997 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 52

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash rate

Other-Societal Cost normalized by AADT

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 30 

Other-combining with other projects with our traffic safety partners : 20

Other-Societal costs per volume : 50 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Pedestrian Safety 

Date of Program Methodology: 3/15/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 52

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Other-Land Use Generators Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Other-Land Use Generator Matrix (see attached)

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 30 

Other-Combining with other projects being done by our traffic safety partners : 20 

Other-weight from land use generator matrix : 50 

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Rural State Highways 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 52

Date of Program Methodology: 10/22/2012 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash frequency

Crash rate

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Available funding : 2 

Other-Combining with other projects being done by our traffic safety partners : 3

Other-Systemic Improvements : 1
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 52

Program: Segments 

Date of Program Methodology: 9/15/2015 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash rate

Other-Societal cost per volume

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 52

Available funding : 30 

Other-Combining with other projects being done by our traffic safety partners : 20

Other-Societal cost per volume : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

Program: Other-Safety Management Plans 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/15/2016 

What is the justification for this program? [Check all that apply]

Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area 

FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? [Check one]

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? [Check all that apply]

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]

Crash rate

Other-Societal Costs normalized by ADT

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

Yes

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

Yes

Describe the methodology used to identify local road projects as part of this program.

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Other-Priority Ranking 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 52

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

relative importance of each process in project prioritization. Enter either the weights or numerical 

rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring

Available funding : 30 

Other-combining with other projects with our traffic safety partners : 20

Other-Sociatal Cost per ADT : 50

Total Relative Weight : 100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 60 

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? Please check all that 

apply.

Cable Median Barriers

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Signing

Safety Edge

Install/Improve Lighting

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

High friction surface treatment

Wrong way driving treatments 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? [Check all that apply]

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Other-Safety Management Plans

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 52

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Yes

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

The Highway Safety Manual’s process for Network Screening and Project Prioritization is used to help 

determine the priority of HSIP projects as well as the predictive methodologies. We also use the Highway 

Safety Manual process for calculating the Safety Effectiveness of our projects. 

Have any program methodology practices used to implement the HSIP changed since the last reporting 

period?

Yes

Describe program methodology practices that have changed since the last reporting period.

The Highway Safety Manual’s process for Network Screening and Project Prioritization is used to help 

determine the priority of HSIP projects as well as the predictive methodologies. We also use the Highway 

Safety Manual process for calculating the Safety Effectiveness of our projects. From 2017 to 2018 NDOT, in 

2017 our corridor analysis was simply a societal cost per AADT/mile. This year we are doing a pure crash rate 

per mile combined with a severity index. Last year our intersections were analyzed as AADT per societal cost, 

this year we are combining Crash Rate, Frequency and a Severity index to our analysis. Currently we are 

collecting data to future our analysis to include the HSM predictive analysis.

Are there any other aspects of the HSIP methodology on which the State would like to elaborate?

Yes

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

Nevada was identified as a Focus State for Intersections by FHWA in July 2015. Because of this designation, 

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering (TSE) has continued to incorporate into our program systemic and spot 

treatments at intersections such as Retroreflective Back Plates, Flashing Yellow Arrows, pedestrian crossing 

islands and medians and that will provide better corridor access management. NDOT is also currently utilizing 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 52

the Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) methodology to evaluate intersection safety mitigation, as well as 

promoting roundabouts wherever possible.

Nevada was also identified as a High Risk Rural Roads state, and is incorporating systemic proven 

countermeasures such as rumble strips, wider edge line striping, curve improvements (including HFST) as well 

as local road safety plans into our HSIP program.

Three Safety Management Plans (SMP) were completed in 2016, and low-cost safety improvements that were 

recommended within the study are being design for Craig Road in the City of North Las Vegas. Design for lowcost safety improvements from the Eastern Ave SMP in Las Vegas as well as the 2nd Street SMP in Reno 

have been started with an estimated design completion date of June 2018. Three new SMP studies were also 

started at McCarran Blvd in Sparks; Lamb Blvd in Las Vegas; and Rancho Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada.

In 2017, NDOT approved “NDOT Complete Streets Policy”. The purpose of this policy is to include enhanced 

accommodations for people riding bicycles, walking, using transit, and other users, in addition to the traditional 

accommodations for vehicles. Provisions for all users will be integrated into the planning, design, construction, 

maintenance and operation of new and retrofit transportation facilities through the development of appropriate 

design features. NDOT will implement the Complete Street elements as appropriate. This will enable safe 

access and mobility of all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users of all ages and abilities. 

NDOT was able to identify many freeway off-ramps in the Reno and Las Vegas areas where red rapid 

rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB) are to be used as part of wrong way driver countermeasures on freeway 

off-ramps on freeway projects. The countermeasure package will include Wrong Way signs, red RRFB, vehicle 

detection, cameras and a communications unit that can communicate a wrong way movement to the local 

traffic control center and the Nevada Highway Patrol dispatch.

Traffic Safety Engineering and Traffic Operations is continuing to expand the Traffic Incident Management 

(TIM) program throughout the state. The primary goal of the of the TIM program is to reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries from secondary crashes by providing coordination and education to all partners, including 

enforcement and emergency services.

TSE is currently working with the District offices to test using wider 6” edge line striping for lane departure 

crash mitigation on rural state routes.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 52

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding.

Federal Fiscal Year

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $13,887,303 $13,887,303 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$1,487,814 $1,487,814 100%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 154) $0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 164) $0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP purposes) (23 

U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds (i.e. 

STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $996,000 $996,000 100%

Totals $16,371,117 $16,371,117 100%

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

52% 

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

52% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

35% 

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

35% 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

How much funding was transferred in to the HSIP from other core program areas during the reporting 

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

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

period under 23 U.S.C. 126?

0% 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

In order to lessen the disruption to traffic during construction, we combined safety projects with 3R projects that 

either moved to next fiscal year or didn't use the federal HSIP funds. 

Does the State want to elaborate on any other aspects of it’s progress in implementing HSIP projects?

Yes

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

would like to elaborate. 

During the development of Safety Management Plans, we have added an appendices with design concepts 

along with risks (right of way, environmental, etc.) that should speed up the scoping process for HSIP projects.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 52

General Listing of Projects

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

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Corridor 

Improvements to 

include 

Intersection, 

Pedestrian and 

ADA updates on 

Second Street and 

Arlin

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Locations $2112938 $2224144 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

6,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

Corridor 

Improvements to 

include 

Intersection, 

Pedestrian and 

ADA updates on 

Eastern Ave

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

Locations $3262942 $3434676 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

25,000 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements on 

Stewart St, 

Carson City

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $835456 $879427 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

9,200 35 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Low Cost 

Pedestrian & 

Road Safety 

Improvements in 

Washoe Tribe

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $869710 $915484 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various road 

function class 

0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Systemic Pedestrians

CLRS on multiple 

locations 

Statewide (HRRR)

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

Miles $1844096 $1941157 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Rural Local Road 

or Street

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane Departure

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Rainbow @ Tara

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $168,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

5,200 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Genererator 

Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Rainbow @ Edna

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $207,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

5,200 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Cheyenne @ 

MaryDee

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $160,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Minor 

Arterial

36,000 40 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

SR160 @ Postal, 

in Pahrump

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $146,000 State and Local 

Funds

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

23,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Charleston @ 

Mohawk

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $500,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

35,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 52

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Nellis @ Cedar

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $500,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

46,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Rancho @ Coran

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $500,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

40,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Pedestrian and 

ADA 

Improvements at 

Sahara @ 

Redwood

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

Crosswalks $500,000 State and Local 

Funds

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

45,000 45 State Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator Matrix

Pedestrians

Nevada Strategic 

Highway Safety 

Plan FY 2018

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$427500 $450000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Nevada Citation 

and Accident 

Tracking System 

Statewide Crash 

Repository

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$1187500 0

Douglas County 

Sheriff Office 

Crash Data 

Improvement

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$72751 $76580 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Henderson Police 

Department Crash 

Data Improvement

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$231848 $244050 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

HSIP Analytical 

Support FY 2108-

2022

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$100000 $105000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Road Safety 

Audits - 

Consulting 

Services

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits $256300 $269800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

DPS-OTS 

statwide oversight 

of Emergency 

Medical Services 

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$250000 $307917 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

NEVADA SHSP - 

DPS/NHP 

SUPPORT FOR 

EQUIPMENT, FY 

2018-19

Non-infrastructure Enforcement $325752 $651504 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

PSNCATS 

Rebuild

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$152000 $160000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

University of 

Nevada School of 

Medicine CrashTrauma Database

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$261250 $275000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 52

RELATIONSHIP TO SHSP

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS OUTPUT TYPE HSIP PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGORY

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATION

AADT SPEED OWNERSHIP METHOD FOR 

SITE SELECTION

EMPHASIS AREA STRATEGY

Washoe County 

Sheriff Office 

Crash Data 

Collection and 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$258307 $271902 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Carson City Police 

Department Crash 

Data Collection 

and Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$164536 $173196 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Humboldt County 

Sheriff Office 

Crash Data 

Collection and 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$28927 $30449 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

City of Fallon 

Police Department 

Crash Data 

Collection and 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$23919 $25178 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Winnemucca 

Police Department 

Crash Data 

Collection and 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$24777 $26081 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Clark County 

School District 

Police Department 

Crash Data 

Collection and 

Analysis

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

$31245 $26801 0

Lake Tahoe 

Regional Safety 

Plan

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$47500 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Safety 

Management Plan 

(SMP)

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

$950000 $1000000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

0

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Many projects fit into multiple improvement categories:

• Corridor Improvements to include Intersection, Pedestrian and ADA updates on Second Street and Arlington also has intersection improvements including a compact roundabout. 

• Corridor Improvements to include Intersection, Pedestrian and ADA updates on Eastern Ave also has Pedestrian improvements including mid-block RRFB pedestrian crossings. 

• Low Cost Pedestrian & Road Safety Improvements in Washoe Tribe also has many signing and striping improvements including speed feed back signs 

The following projects have various Function Classes, AADT's and Speed limits therefore these boxes were left empty:

• CLRS on multiple locations Statewide (HRRR) 

• Low Cost Pedestrian & Road Safety Improvements in Washoe Tribe 
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 52

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatalities 243 257 246 261 266 290 325 329 309

Serious Injuries 1,478 1,339 1,254 1,048 1,205 1,144 1,097 1,232 1,094

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.160 1.160 1.100 1.150 1.130 1.140 1.300 1.320 1.095

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.030 6.370 5.970 4.590 3.900 4.490 4.370 4.910 3.880

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

42 46 48 61 68 80 83 86 108

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

260 232 190 197 211 199 181 206 229
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Year 2017

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Interstate

20 39 0.96 1.82

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

31 56 2.1 3.8

Rural Minor Arterial 8 22 2.1 5.5

Rural Minor Collector 3 2 1.6 6.5

Rural Major Collector 10 24 2.7 1.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 52

Functional Classification Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Rural Local Road or Street 5 7 0.99 1.3

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

22 69 0.52 1.66

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

12 29 0.73 1.73

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

58 236 1.84 7.5

Urban Minor Arterial 83 366 1.63 7.2

Urban Minor Collector 27 123 0.01 5.4

Urban Major Collector 2 2 1.2 5.51

Urban Local Road or Street 22 119 0.47 2.5
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 52

Year 2015

Roadways Number of Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

State Highway Agency 151 497

County Highway Agency 55 417

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

50 256

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

Other State Agency

Other Local Agency

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

Railroad

State Toll Authority

Local Toll Authority

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

Indian Tribe Nation
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 52

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 52

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any other aspects of the general highway safety trends on which the State would like to 

elaborate?

No

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2019 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 319.2 

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

Decrease the upward trend so that the 2012-2016 five-year moving average of 294.4 

traffic fatalities is 319.2, which is less than the projected 330.4 fatalities by December 

31, 2019. 

Number of Serious Injuries 1186.4 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State Highway Agency County Highway Agency City of Municipal Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 52

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

Decrease the upward trend so that the 2012-2016 five-year moving average of 1240.4 

serious injuries is 1,186.4, which is less than the projected 1,214.4 serious injuries by 

December 31, 2019. 

Fatality Rate 1.209 

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

Decrease the upward trend so that the 2012-2016 five-year moving average of 1.147 

fatalities per 100M VMT is 1.209, which is less than the projected 1.236 fatality rate 

by December 31, 2019. 

Serious Injury Rate 4.970 

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

Decrease the 2012-2016 five-year moving average of 4.97 serious injuries per 100M 

VMT to 4.51 by December 31, 2019. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 299.1 

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

Decrease the upward trend so that the 2012-2016 five-year moving average of 271.5 

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is 299.1, which is less than the projected 

312.2 fatalities by December 31, 2019. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

The target of 319.2 was set to meet Nevada's Zero Fatalities Interim Goal of reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year 

moving average of 390.0 fatalities in half by 2030. The current trend was projected through 2019 and then a 

reduction from the 2019 projection was calculated for a linear reduction to meet the Interim Goal. The fit (Rsquared) of the linear trend line for the four and five-year periods through 2017 for both the actual number of 

fatalities and the 5-year moving average were reviewed. The 5-year moving average for the 5-year period 2013 

to 2017 had the highest correlation and was used to project the current trend through 2019.

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

targets. 

There are ongoing efforts with the Locals to establish safety performance measures. This includes standing 

monthly coordination meetings with discussions on the available data, trends in the data, problems with the 

data and other relative matters at the time.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 52

Our office works closely with each of the Local entities to provide them whatever data they request. This 

includes but not limited to: raw crash data, located crash maps, summarized crash analysis, heat maps and 

crashes by jurisdictional boundaries.

The SHSO (DPS/OTS) and NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering office work extremely close to set and use the 

first three measures; number of fatal crashes, fatal rate and number of serious injuries.

NDOT utilized FHWA’s “Local Road’s Safety Plans” pilot project with 2 counties in 2017. This is still an ongoing 

effort.

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

older for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

30 32 35 27 32 44 43

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

89 64 91 89 66 96 88
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

2011-2016 numbers were updated to reflect current data.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 52

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP?

Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of the State's program 

level evaluations.

NDOT measures the effectiveness of the HSIP by the measure of change in fatalities and serious injuries. 

From 2016 to 2017 Nevada saw an overall decrease in the Fatality and the Serious Injuries and rates. 

For Lane Departure crashes, Fatality and Serious Injury rates statewide have decreased (question # 43). Also, 

of the 3 shoulder-widening slope flattening projects (shoulder treatments) on rural highways listed on the 

project list of this report (question #45), 2 showed significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. 

Intersection crashes over the last 5 years has seen a steady decline in the 5 year average rates for both 

fatalities and serious injuries statewide . 

Nevada is continuing to work on reducing Pedestrian fatality and serious injuries with new programs.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# miles improved by HSIP 

More systemic programs

# RSAs completed

HSIP Obligations 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Are there any significant programmatic changes that have occurred since the last reporting period? 

No

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 52

Year 2017 

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 123 324 0.4 1.28

Intersections 64 410 0.22 1.63

Pedestrians 108 187 0.31 0.6

Bicyclists 9 45 0.04 0.16

Older Drivers 31 68 0.1 0.29

Motorcyclists 51 181 0.22 0.88

Work Zones 16 21 0.04 0.11

Young Drivers 27 84 0.07 0.33

Occupant Protection 63 272 0.28 0.86

Impaired 70 130 0.29 0.66
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the reporting period?

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We have started a Task Order to evaluate the effectiveness of Complete Streets and Roundabout projects with 

the University of Nevada, Reno. We hope to be able to report on the effectiveness of these systemic 

improvements soon.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 52

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

US 93 Lages 

Junction to Currie, 

MP WP112.8-

116.69, EL0.00-

11.79

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Shoulder 

treatments - other

19.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 27.00 6.00

US95 North of 

Winnemucca, MP 

HU1.50-33.00

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

37.00 20.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 14.00 6.00 58.00 32.00

SR 381 MP 

LN0.00-49.42, NY 

0.00-38.79, WP0-

22.56

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

71.00 92.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 28.00 24.00 108.00 123.00

US 395 MP DO 

17-89

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

23.00 17.00 2.00 13.00 14.00 38.00 31.00

US 93 MP EL 

11.79-54.46

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

18.00 26.00 2.00 2.00 8.00 7.00 26.00 37.00

Multiple 

Intersections in 

District 1, within 

City of North Las 

Vegas

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

15.00 7.00 3.00 6.00 18.00 13.00

Multiple 

Intersections in 

District 1, within 

City of Las Vegas

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

6.00 8.00 3.00 2.00 9.00 10.00

Fairview Drive, 

From S. Carson St 

to Roop St

Urban Minor 

Collector

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

68.00 65.00 2.00 1.00 16.00 11.00 86.00 77.00

Various locations 

in District 2

Urban Local Road 

or Street

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection 

flashers - add stop 

sign-mounted

80.00 114.00 3.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 41.00 55.00 130.00 177.00

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

We currently only have crash data located back to 2011 so the Rural Before/After analysis is based on 3 years instead of 5 years.

The evaluation results were not included in this table because we are currently reviewing and updating our benefit/cost methodology under a Task Order with the University of Nevada, Reno.

Are there any other aspects of the overall HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate?
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 52

Yes

Describe any other aspects of HSIP effectiveness on which the State would like to elaborate.

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering continues to focus on Pedestrian and Intersection improvement projects by utilizing FHWA proven countermeasures (see project list). NDOT has added a special focus on High Risk Rural Roads, as the 

HRRR special rule is applied to the state by memorandum dated January 17, 2017 for FFY 2018. Shoulder widening and slope flattening projects are being added to 3R projects wherever feasible. A continued focus on changing edge 

line striping on all rural 2-lane highways from 4” to 6” as a standard design is moving forward. Changes in rumble strip design on these rural highways is being reviewed to ensure their effectiveness while causing minimal impact to the 

structure of the roadway. Also, we have started to review and design projects that will focus on curves within the state.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 52

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/11/2016 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2016 To: 2020 

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

 2020 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT

Segment Identifier (12) 100 100 0 0 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 0 0

Surface Type (23) 100 100 0 0

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 0 0 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 0 0 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 50 50

Functional Class (19) 100 100 0 0 0 0

Median Type (54) 20 20

Access Control (22) 45 45
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 52

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 100 0 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 0 0

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

0 0

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

0 0

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 0 0

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Beginning of 

Ramp Terminal (197)

0 0

Location Identifier for 

Roadway at Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

0 0

Ramp Length (187) 0 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

0 0

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

0 0
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 52

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

MIRE NAME (MIRE NO.) STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 0 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 0 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

89.72 89.72 12.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

The State of Nevada will take the following steps to meet the MIRE requirements by September 30, 2026:

1. Hire a consultant to assist with the planning, implementation and evaluation of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as it relates to MIRE data element requirements. 

2. The planning phase will include: 

1. Identifying processes for collecting and maintaining a record of crash, roadway, traffic and vehicle data on all public roads including railway-highway grade crossings inventory data that includes but is not limited to the 

characteristics of both highway and train traffic. 

2. Expanding the agency’s roadway inventory and traffic elements important to safety management to include all segments of our local roads. 

3. Identifying which HPMS data elements can be used in conjunction with the elements that comprise the MIRE data. 

4. Prioritizing the collection of data elements on Federal-aid roads and then expanding to non-Federal-aid roads 

3. The implementation phase will identify data collection costs, funding sources, safety tools, collection methodologies, time schedules and other resources. 

The evaluation phase shall include HSIP quality control measures to ensure the accuracy of the State’s safety data and established performance measures.

Provide the suspected serious injury identifier, definition and attributes used by the State for both the crash report form and the crash database using the table below. Please also indicate whether or not these elements are 

compliant with the MMUCC 4th edition criteria for data element P5. Injury Status, suspected serious injury. 

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Report Form A - Suspected Serious Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual A - Suspected Serious Injury Yes Suspected serious injury is any injury other 

than

fatal which results in one or more of the 

descript

Yes Examples: Fractures of the spine, open or 

displaced fractures of the limbs, exposure 

of underlying tissue, crush injuries, 

significant burns (2nd/ 3rd degree over10% 

of body, unconsciousness when taken from 

the crash scene, paralysis

Yes

Crash Database A Yes N/A No N/A No
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 52

CRITERIA SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY 

IDENTIFIER(NAME) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY DEFINITION MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY ATTRIBUTES(DESCRIPTORS) MMUCC 4TH EDITION COMPLIANT * 

Crash Database Data Dictionary A Yes Crash database only stores the Code "A" 

and the corresponding description which 

currently is incapacitating. Project is about 

to begin to update the table that houses the 

code and description.

No Not stored in the crash database No

Please describe the actions the State is taking to become compliant by April 15, 2019.

The state database is housed at EITS Enterprise Information Technology Services, state It division. We have a project in queue to make the necessary changes to the code and description (identifier name) table that houses the information, 

unfortunately the start date has not been confirmed. The database does not store any descriptors. 

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.

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

Yes

Describe the purpose and outcomes of the State’s HSIP program assessment.

In Spring of 2017 a HSIP assessment was conducted with NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering and FHWA partners. As a result of this assessment, NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering has been updating their Project Evaluation process with 

guidance from the FHWA.
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 52

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Flow Chart3 .pdf

Pedestrian Safety Improvement Evaluation Guideline 4-2-2018.pdf

Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual final-updated-8.7.17.docx

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 52 of 52

Glossary

5 year rolling 

average 

means the average of five individuals, consecutive annual points of data (e.g. annual 

fatality rate). 

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

collaborative process. 

Highway safety 

improvement 

project 

means strategies, activities and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State 

strategic highway safety plan and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 

feature or addresses a highway safety problem. 

HMVMT means hundred million vehicle miles traveled. 

Non-infrastructure 

projects 

are projects that do not result in construction. Examples of non-infrastructure projects 

include road safety audits, transportation safety planning activities, improvements in the 

collection and analysis of data, education and outreach, and enforcement activities. 

Older driver special 

rule 

applies if traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over 

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

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

dated February 13, 2013. 

Performance 

measure 

means indicators that enable decision-makers and other stakeholders to monitor changes 

in system condition and performance against established visions, goals, and objectives. 

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

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

Roadway 

Functional 

Classification 

means the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, 

according to the character of service they are intended to provide. 

Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) 

means a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary plan, based on safety data developed by a 

State Department of Transportation in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148. 

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

system. 

Systemic safety 

improvement 

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features 

that are correlated with specific severe crash types. 

Transfer 

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

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

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