Page 1 of 52

ARIZONA

2018 ANNUAL REPORT
2018 Arizona 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 ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 16

General Listing of Projects ............................................................................................................................... 18

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

General Highway Safety Trends ....................................................................................................................... 23

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 .............................................................................................................................................................. 40

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

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 46
2018 Arizona 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 

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

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

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

lists, or other data.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 52

Executive Summary 

This annual report has been prepared by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), TSM&O Division, 

Traffic Safety Section (TSS) based on best available data and information collected from various internal and 

external sources.

Arizona DOT is continuing to make progress in the HSIP implementation on all public roads statewide. ADOTTSS has been leading the efforts to deliver the HSIP program.

Arizona SHSP has been updated in October 2014 to reflect MAP-21 requirements and FHWA guidance. The 

SHSP implementation phase began in early 2015. This annual report reflects Arizona 2014 SHSP emphasis 

areas and performance measures.

NOTE: Data are presented by different reporting periods, e.g. funding data or project listing is given by Federal 

Fiscal Year (FFY) whereas annual fatality and serious injury data is by Calendar Year (CY). Fatalities and 

serious injury tables and charts in the output report are given in 5-year rolling average.
2018 Arizona 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. 

The AZ ADOT HSIP Program Manager issues a call for potential HSIP projects in January of each calendar 

year. Agencies interested in applying must complete an HSIP application that is updated each year before the 

call for projects. The application process requires the agency to submit a cover/transmittal letter, a complete 

application, a cost estimate, a crash data spreadsheet, a B/C ratio calculation sheet, a location map, a project 

limits map and any warrant studies (if applicable). The documentation is evaluated by the ADOT HSIP 

Program Manager and staff to determine if the potential project is HSIP eligible, i.e. compliant with 26 USC 148 

/ 26 CFR 924, a proven safety countermeasure, identify fatal and serious injury crashes that countermeasure 

can potentially reduce, supports the AZ SHSP, and B/C ratio of equal to or greater than 1.5. The approved 

HSIP eligible project is then ranked by the HSIP Program Manager based on the B/C ratio and SHSP score." A 

Safety Review Committee, comprised of FHWA, ADOT staff, COG/MPO's, Inter Tribal Council and locals, 

reviews and approves the proposed list. The HSIP Program Manager then submits the prioritized list to the 

State Engineer's Office for final ranking and approval. Once the prioritized HSIP eligible list for the year is 

approved, the HSIP Program Manager issues the approved HSIP eligibility letters and enters the projects in 

the ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-TSMO

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

The HSIP staff are members of the ADOT Traffic Safety Section (TSS) which is a component of Operational 

Traffic and Safety Group under the Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) Division 

https://www.azdot.gov/business/tsmo/operational-and-traffic-safety

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 6 of 52

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

Arizona's HSIP funds are available for all public agencies and tribes to apply for as described in the prior 

general structure of the HSIP in the State. Prior year commitments are first identified and set aside, then 10% 

of the remaining eligible funds are set aside for unforeseen safety projects, and finally the remaining funds are 

available for statewide call for projects. ADOT and local public agencies identify high crash locations using any 

acceptable screening method and develop safety improvement projects. In recent years COGs/MPOs have 

been provided HSIP funds to develop Strategic Transportation Plans (STSP) with projects to support the State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). ADOT reviews all potential projects on a statewide basis and prioritize 

projects for funding. ADOT LPA, in consultation with MPOs and COGs, provides assistance to local agencies 

throughout the process of identifying and developing the projects. 

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

Other-ADOT Traffic Safety Section (TSS) and Local Public Agency Section (LPAS)

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

Describe coordination with internal partners.

Safety analyses begin with the compilation and correlation of data elements on a statewide system. 

Coordination takes place within ADOT including the State Engineer’s Office, the Director’s Office, Project 

Managers, District Engineers and others involved in safety projects as well as the Department of Public Safety 

(State enforcement agency). Once the project is identified, depending on the nature of the project, justification 

of HSIP funding through evaluation and formal eligibility process is established by ADOT and FHWA Arizona 

Division Office.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning.

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

Local Government Agency 

Tribal Agency

Law Enforcement Agency 

FHWA

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 7 of 52

In addition to the direct involvement of those listed, other agencies can participate in the HSIP planning 

through the Road Safety Assessment application process available at 

https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/traffic-library/rsa-application.pdf?sfvrsn=14"

Describe coordination with external partners.

External coordination involves participation and membership in COG/MPOs Safety Committee meetings and 

advisory groups. ADOT TSS encourages local and state agencies to submit their draft HSIP applications in 

advance of the final submittal date for the call for projects so the application can be reviewed and comments 

provided to the agencies to ensure a successful application. In addition to the direct involvement through the 

HSIP application process, agencies can participate in the Road Safety Assessment (RSA) program which can 

lead to HSIP applications. RSA applications are made available at: https://www.azdot.gov/docs/defaultsource/traffic-library/rsa-application.pdf?sfvrsn=14"

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

period?

Yes

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

As described in question number 5 of this report, The AZ HSIP moved from allocating funds 80% state and 

20% local to a central office statewide competitive application process.

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

No

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:

2015 HSIP Manual (RevFeb17).pdf

HSIP Appendix_A (Rev Jan18).pdf

HSIP Appendix_ B.pdf

HSIP Appendix_C.pdf
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 8 of 52

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP.

Roadway Departure

Shoulder Improvement

HRRR

Other-RSA

Other-Tree Removal

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

Program: HRRR 

Date of Program Methodology: 5/1/2015 

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 

Traffic 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

Lane miles 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 9 of 52

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

selection committee

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 1 

Available funding : 2 

Program: Roadway Departure 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/29/2012 

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]

Competes with all projects

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

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

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?
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 10 of 52

Yes

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

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation?

Competitive application process 

Other-Based on B/C Ratio and systemic projects based on crash type.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Program: Shoulder Improvement 

Date of Program Methodology: 4/30/2010 

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

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

Crash frequency

Relative severity index

Are local roads (non-state owned and operated) included or addressed in this program?
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 11 of 52

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-Based on B/C Ratio and systemic projects based on crash type.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Program: Other-RSA 

Date of Program Methodology: 1/10/2006 

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 

Median width 

All crashes Volume Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? [Check all that apply]
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 12 of 52

Crash frequency

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-Based on B/C Ratio and systemic projects based on crash type.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

Program: Other-Tree Removal 

Date of Program Methodology: 6/15/2010 

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 13 of 52

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

Crash frequency

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

No

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

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-Based on B/C Ratio and systemic projects based on crash type.

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

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

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2 

Available funding : 1 

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 20 

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening 

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Clear Zone Improvements

Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal 

Horizontal curve signs 

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]
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 14 of 52

Engineering Study 

Road Safety Assessment

Crash data analysis

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

Stakeholder input 

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? 

Yes

Describe how the State HSIP considers connected vehicles and ITS technologies. 

ITS technologies are critical components in Arizona's transportation management systems and are effective at 

improving safety, as well as mobility. Arizona has leveraged ITS technologies for freeway traffic management 

with so many miles of freeways currently managed. ITS technologies are critical for providing data to travelers 

through the AZ511 system, including the highway road closure system. Connected vehicles are emerging as 

new technology that has the ability to significantly reduce crashes and save lives. ADOT is investing in 

connected vehicle technologies so that we can maximize the benefits as the technology becomes available in 

passenger vehicles. The infrastructure components of connected vehicles will allow significantly improved 

traffic management systems, such as speed harmonization, queue warning, work zone traffic management. 

The primary goal of connected vehicles is improving safety and Arizona believes that this emerging technology 

will save lives. Therefore, State HSIP fund can be utilized for connected vehicles and ITS technologies.

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 HSM has been used on a limited bases primarily to support B/C ratio analysis and determining CMFs. 

Arizona's emphasis on predictive modeling over the last year has been focused on bring Safety Analyst online. It currently has been used to identify systemic projects on the State Highway System.

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

period?

No

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

Page 15 of 52

No
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 16 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) $59,003,450 $59,003,450 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $0 0%

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 $1,924,740 $1,924,740 100%

Totals $60,928,190 $60,928,190 100%

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

The obligated amount is based on the 2017 federal fiscal year, the exact amount programed over that amount 

if any is currently not available as the system only allows the State fiscal year data to be pulled, State fiscal 

year was 46,156,000. The remainder of programed funds was from the overlapping difference between state 

and federal fiscal years 16 and 17 respectively. A new ADOT eSTIP system is being rolled out that will allow 

this to be calculated correctly during the next reporting cycle.

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

31% 

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

31% 

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?
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 17 of 52

2% 

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

2% 

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.

None

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

No
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 18 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

F0018 ADOT SE DISTRICT, 

US60, US95, SR74

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

56 Miles $114754 $114754 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,290 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

F0020 

SOUTHCENTRAL/CENTRAL 

DISTRICT SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

70 Miles $481883 $481883 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

F0023 DRAGOON ROAD - 

JOHNSON ROAD PHII

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

3 Rock Removal $2516990 $2660458 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

14,944 75 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

F0025 I-17; NEW RIVER 

(MP 232 TO SR 169 (MP 

279)

Speed 

management

Radar speed 

signs

12 Dynamic 

Feedback Signs

$2106780 $2226866 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

31,765 75 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

F0056 TELLER LANE - 

AZTEC ROAD

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $478000 $478000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

32,007 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

F0142 HORIZONTAL 

CURVE WARNING SIGNS, 

PHASE I

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier 

30418 Signs $299874 $299874 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

F0143 Statewide Horizontal 

Curve Warning Signs PHASE 

II

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

4813 Signs $219719 $219719 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

F0146 AZTEC ROAD - 

VALENCIA ROAD & CP 

MOHAVE ROUNDABOUT 

SR95

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $849000 $849000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

32,007 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H7637 BYLAS AREA, US 70 Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

1 PHB, TURN 

LANES

$6951441 $7347673 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

0 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

H7904 SR 79 at SR 79B 

RECONSTRUCTION

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $780145 $824613 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Minor 

Arterial

13,421 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8102 I:8: ARABY ROAD/I-8 

TI 

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Interchanges $10559335 $10559335 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Interstate

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8112 APACHE JCT - 

TORTILLA FLATS, SR 88

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Curve-related 

warning signs and 

flashers

1716 Signs $1933765 $2043989 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

2,771 25 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

H8265 SR 92 @ 

FOOTHILLS BLVD

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $475272 $502362 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

25,696 45 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 19 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

H8308 SUPERSTITION 

BLVD ROUNDABOUT

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $3940907 $3940907 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,822 40 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8388 US 95 AT AVE 8E 

ROUNDABOUT

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $192149 $192149 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

12,424 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8408 WILLOW BEACH - 

WHITE HILLS ROAD US 93

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.5 Miles $3854708 $4074426 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,700 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8489 SR 95 @ MOHAVE 

RD

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $803800 $803800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

5,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8557 GILA BEND REST 

AREA TO I-10

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - 

upgrade or 

replacement

948 Signs $2078000 $2078000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

0 75 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

H8658 ELEVENTH ST - 

WINDY POINT ROAD, US 

93

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10 Miles $205574 $217291 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,700 65 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8659 WINDY POINT ROAD 

- MINERAL PARK ROAD, 

US 93

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.5 Miles $213118 $225265 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

14,700 65 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8744 I-40/US 93 WEST 

KINGMAN TI INTERIM 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Interchanges $51113 $54026 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

40,000 35 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8838 RUINS DR AT SR87 Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

Intersections $40714 $43034 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 11,998 50 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8859 SAN CARLOS HIGH 

SCHOOL to BIA 170, US70

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

1 Miles $735943 $735943 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

8,875 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8877 RANDOLPH RD 

INTERSECTION

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $616285 $651413 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 7,736 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

M5167 SYSTEMATIC 

IMPROVEMENT OF CRASH 

DATA - TRACS (TRAFFIC 

CRIMINAL SOFTWARE)

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

3 Agencies $23575 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

M5212 SYSTEMATIC 

IMPROVEMENT OF CRASH 

DATA - TRACS (TRAFFIC 

CRIMINAL SOFTWARE)

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

3 Agencies $25000 $25000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 State Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

M6937 SAFETY ANALYST 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

Data 

Configuration

$387356 $410770 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data More effective 

processes and 
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 20 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

safety 

management sys

PNGHS NACOG STSP Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportation 

Safety Plan

$26000 $26000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

PSC17 SCMPO - STSP Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportation 

Safety Plan

$210000 $210000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

PSHSP SEAGO STSP Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportation 

Safety Plan

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

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

PYM18 YMPO-Strategic 

Transportation Safety Plan 

Update 

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportation 

Safety Plan

$87000 $87000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Data More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

SH533 HRRR RIVER ROAD 

AND PENDLETON DRIVE 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 

S, SANTA CRUZ CO

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1 Intersections $56580 $56580 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH535 75TH AVE & 

CACTUS TI, PEORIA

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $3374379 $3374379 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

25,810 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH536 75TH AVE & PEORIA 

TI, PEORIA

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $3480960 $3480960 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

21,407 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH561 IR 15 AND IR 19, 

TON

Roadway Roadway - other 10 Guardrails $205000 $205000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 1,885 55 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH568 4TH AVE 

/CONGRESS 

STREET/TOOLE AVE 

OF TUCSON

-CITY 

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Crosswalks $286829 $303178 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

SH571 HRRR REAY LANE 

IRRIGATION CANAL DITCH 

RELOCATION, US70 - 

SAFFORD BRYCE ROAD

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

0.21 Miles $181999 $192372 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 1,317 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH586 YUMA COUNTY - 

SOMERTON AVE & 

COUNTY 18TH ST.

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $57 $60 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 County Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH596 SIGN 

REPLACEMENT, 

FLAGSTAFF

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

4165 Signs $43000 $43000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 21 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

SH599 CYMPO HSIP 

REGIONAL SIGN PROJECT 

- PHASE II

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

810 Signs $592860 $592860 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH609 CITY OF KINGMAN 

SIGN INVENTORY 

PROJECT

Non-infrastructure Non-infrastructure 

- other

1 SIGN MGT 

SYSTEM

$153600 $153600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH629 CITY OF KINGMAN 

PROTECTED LEFT TURN

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $80640 $85236 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH634 SIGN MGMT 

SYSTEM/SIGN UPGRADE, 

BUCKEYE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

2490 Signs $167400 $167400 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH635 59TH AND OLIVE 

AVENUES, GLENDALE

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $1206376 $1275139 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

21,800 40 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH636 PED COUNTDOWN 

SIG HEADS/ APS/ SIGNA, 

AVONDALE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

16 Signal heads $205744 $205744 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

SH645 SIGN PANEL 

REPLACEMENT, PINAL 

COUNTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1849 Signs $140995 $140995 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH646 VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS, ELOY SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - 

upgrade or 

replacement

797 Signs $71772 $71772 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SS914 ALMA SCHOOL 

ROAD/ CHANDLER BLVD, 

CHANDLER

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $4208929 $4448837 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SS942 Lake Mary Road;MP 

290.5-317.5, Coconino 

County

Roadway Roadway - other 27 Clear Zone - Tree 

Clearing

$211385 $223433 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

0 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SS990 HRRR REAY 

LANE/SAFFORD-BRYCE 

ROAD INTERSECTION

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $489110 $516989 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 1,062 55 State Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SS991, HRRR 8TH AVENUE 

& AIRPORT ROAD 

INTERSECTION,GRAHAM 

CO

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $65012.32 $68718 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Spot Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

T0009 Design Sign 

Management 

System/Updgrade, Phase 

AVONDALE

3, 

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - 

upgrade or 

replacement

3360 Signs $423600 $423600 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0019 VAR LOCATIONS - 

CITY OF GLENDALE FYA 

PHASE III

Roadway Roadway - other 22 Flashing Yellow 

Arrows

$288000 $288000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Systemic Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 22 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

T0022 VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS - SUPERIOR 

SIGN STRIPING UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting - 

upgrade or 

replacement

1400 Signs $156658 $156658 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0039 NACOG MULTIAGENCY SIGN 

PROCUREMENT - PHASE 2

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

3800 Signs $597812 $597812 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0055 FLORENCE BLVD; 

PEDSTRIAN SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Roadway - other 1 PHB $213553 $213553 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Spot Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

T0113 NACOG REGIONAL 

SIGN REPLACEMENT - 

PHASE 3

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1710 Signs $150000 $150000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0146 SIGN PANEL 

REPLACEMENT, Pima 

County

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

38601 Signs $643000 $643000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Other 0 County Highway 

Agency

Systemic Other Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 23 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 806 759 827 821 849 774 897 952 1,007

Serious Injuries 4,827 4,648 4,598 4,508 4,328 3,959 4,175 4,575 4,125

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.340 1.270 1.390 1.370 1.400 1.240 1.380 1.450 1.550

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.050 7.760 7.720 7.500 7.140 6.320 6.420 6.970 6.340

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

147 173 177 149 189 184 191 224 262

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

574 552 568 572 502 483 485 640 563

VMT 59,978 59,906 59,575 60,129 60,586 62,631 65,045 65,606 65,069
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 24 of 52

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 25 of 52

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

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

9

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

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

Page 26 of 52

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

Describe fatality data source.

FARS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.

56000

57000

58000

59000

60000

61000

62000

63000

64000

65000

66000

67000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

VMT

VMT 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 27 of 52

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

77 182.4 3.62 8.27

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

0.6 33.2 2.42 0.05

Rural Principal Arterial 

(RPA) - Other

64.6 123.4 5.44 10.11

Rural Minor Arterial 43.8 94.4 8.67 19.35

Rural Minor Collector 15 32.8 9.15 24.69

Rural Major Collector 81 167.8 9.61 20.33

Rural Local Road or Street 24.2 64.4 4.27 3.68

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Interstate

51.8 138 1.98 5.57

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other Freeways 

and Expressways

38.4 197.4 1.43 7.96

Urban Principal Arterial 

(UPA) - Other

198 1,047 6.31 34.83

Urban Minor Arterial 185.8 1,102 4.72 28.49

Urban Minor Collector 3.4 8.2 5.66 11.83

Urban Major Collector 45.8 273.6 3.25 21.58

Urban Local Road or Street 32.4 176.4 1.07 4
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 28 of 52

Year 2017

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 240.2 0 0.24 0

County Highway Agency 44.8 0 0.04 0

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

6.8 0 0.01 0

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

205.4 0 0.2 0

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0.6 0 0 0

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, University)

0.2 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0.2 0 0 0
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 29 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 30 of 52

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 31 of 52

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 33 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 34 of 52

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 35 of 52

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Arizona 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 1001.5 

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

Arizona established our safety performance projections based on the 5-year rolling 

averages of statewide crash data. While the targets cover central areas of our State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan 

which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end 

of 2019. 

Number of Serious Injuries 4166.9 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

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

Page 37 of 52

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

Arizona established our safety performance projections based on the 5-year rolling 

averages of statewide crash data. While the targets cover central areas of our State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan 

which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end 

of 2019. 

Fatality Rate 1.442 

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

Arizona established our safety performance projections based on the 5-year rolling 

averages of statewide crash data. While the targets cover central areas of our State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan 

which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end 

of 2019. 

Serious Injury Rate 6.102 

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

Arizona established our safety performance projections based on the 5-year rolling 

averages of statewide crash data. While the targets cover central areas of our State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan 

which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end 

of 2019. 

Total Number of Non-Motorized 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 814.0 

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

Arizona established our safety performance projections based on the 5-year rolling 

averages of statewide crash data. While the targets cover central areas of our State 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan 

which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end 

of 2019. 

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

It should be noted that the above "projections" are not the same as the SHSP goals because the SHSP goals 

were based on the calendar years during the economic downturn, reduced VMT and lower numbers of 

crashes. The current projections are based on the most current crash data and VMT which has been steadily 

increasing.

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

targets. 
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 38 of 52

Individual meetings were held with each COG/MPO to discuss the State safety performance targets in addition 

to a general meeting with the State COG/MPO council. Each COG/MPO was given the opportunity to establish 

their own targets or to adopt the State safety performance targets. Sample target letters and wording was 

provided to aid them in meeting the submittal date. Prior to adopting the proposed targets, a meeting was 

conducted with GOHS to reach consensus on the State’s safety performance targets. The process that ADOT 

followed in reaching the recommended safety performance targets was described. Attendees agreed to 

support the suggested targets.

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? 

No

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 113 90 110 105 126 121 134

Pedestrian Fatalities

Number of Older Driver and 352 349 396 328 419 420 369

Pedestrian Serious Injuries
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 39 of 52

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

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 Arizona 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

Benefit/Cost Ratio

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.

Projects implemented during this reporting period were selected based on all crashes, HSIP manual was 

updated on May 2015, only fatal and serious injury crashes are allowed to be used in B/C ratio calculations for 

all future projects.

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program?

# RSAs completed

Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

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.

Year 2017 
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 41 of 52

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted 

Crash Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality 

Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious 

Injury Rate

(per 

HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

Lane Departure 471.6 1,636 0.74 2.56 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 356 1,016.2 0.56 1.59 0 0 0

Intersections 247.4 1,904.6 0.39 2.99 0 0 0

Pedestrians 180.2 348.4 0.28 0.54 0 0 0

Bicyclists 29.8 186.2 0.05 0.29 0 0 0

Older Drivers 88 350.6 0.14 0.55 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 143.4 673 0.23 1.06 0 0 0

Work Zones 12.6 36 0.02 0.06 0 0 0
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 42 of 52

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017
2018 Arizona 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

0.7

0.8

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

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 44 of 52

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2018 Arizona 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. 

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

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

No
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 46 of 52

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/14/2014 

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP?

From: 2014 To: 2019 

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

 2019 

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

Efforts are currently underway to update the 2014 SHSP with a target date of 10/2019 for publication.

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) 100 100 100 50 0 0

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 50 0 0

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 50 0 0

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 0 0

Median Type (54) 100 100
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 47 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

Access Control (22) 100 100

One/Two Way Operations 

(91)

100 100

Number of Through Lanes 

(31)

100 10 100 10

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 10

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 10 100 10 0 0

INTERSECTION

Unique Junction Identifier 

(120)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 1 Crossing Point 

(122)

100 0

Location Identifier for 

Road 2 Crossing Point 

(123)

100 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) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

0 0

INTERCHANGE/RAMP

Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

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) 100 10

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0
2018 Arizona 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

Roadway Type at End 

Ramp Terminal (199)

100 0

Interchange Type (182) 0 0

Ramp AADT (191) 100 10

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 10

Functional Class (19) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 84.44 62.50 25.00 72.73 30.00 100.00 53.33 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.

ADOT proposes the following steps to meet the requirement to have complete access to the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roadways by September 30, 2026. Each of the following steps describes necessary actions and 

completion dates to meet this goal.

Step 1. Establish a MIRE task force committee comprising representatives from the Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division (TSMO), the Information Technology Group (ITG), and the Multimodal Planning Division 

(MPD) who will take responsibility in ensuring completion of the following steps.

ADOT has formed a preliminary MIRE task force committee consisting of nine total members, three from each division stated above:

Transportation Systems Management and Operations Division (TSMO)

• John Riemer 

• Kerry Wilcoxon 

• Vacant 

Information Technology Group (ITG)

• Mark Flahan 

• Scott Parkey* 

• Tom Tyndall 

Multimodal Planning Division (MPD)

• Mick Cseri* 

• James Meyer 

• Patrick Whiteford 
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 49 of 52

* Indicates MIRE task force co-leader responsible for ensuring the following steps are completed.

Each division of the MIRE task force committee will work closely to ensure the following steps are completed timely and accurately.

Step 2. Create an outreach plan to facilitate communication between ADOT and Tribal and local agencies. The plan will include specific measures to promote awareness and understanding of the MIRE FDE plan and establish a mutual 

understanding of potential future data needs. This step will be completed in 2017. ADOT parties involved: MPD/ITG/TSMO.

Step 3. Verify the completeness and compatibility of the data that ADOT has at the State level for ADOT-maintained roads, noting the collection methodology and frequency. This step should also include verifying which division collects, 

receives, and maintains the data as well as how the data is stored, managed, and who has access to it. This step will be completed in 2017. ADOT parties involved: MPD/ITG/TSMO.

Step 3b. For all new elements, ADOT will establish a database schema.

Step 4. Determine the roadway characteristics and format of the data that each of the 15 Counties, 46 Cities, 45 Towns, 22 Tribes, and other agencies is collecting for their non-ADOT-maintained roadways. The collection methodology 

and frequency, quality control / quality assurance measures employed for the collected data, database schema, and software that each locality uses should also be confirmed. This step will begin in 2017. ADOT parties involved: 

MPD/ITG/TSMO.

Step 4b. Determine if the locality data is complete and compatible with ADOT’s existing data. This step will begin in 2017 and be completed simultaneously with Step 2. This step will determine if data needs to be collected by ADOT for 

the non-ADOT-maintained roadways. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 5. Finalize the data collection needs for both ADOT and non-ADOT-maintained roadways. This step should be completed directly following Step 3. This step will be completed in 2018. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 6. Create a detailed data collection and maintenance plan to include specific costs, resource needs, prioritization, and schedules. The data collection plan should specify the anticipated data collection methodology, who is 

responsible for collecting the data, how it will be made available to ADOT, and how frequently the data will be updated. If a quality assurance / quality control process has not yet been established, ADOT will create one prior to data 

collection. This step will be completed in 2019. ADOT parties involved: MPD/ITG/TSMO.

Step 7. Create a cost estimate for all data collection and maintenance efforts. This step will be completed in 2018. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 8. Identify funding sources for the data collection and maintenance process. This step will be completed in 2019. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 9. Allocate funding and resources for the data collection efforts. This step will be completed in 2020. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 10. Gather all remaining data. This step will be completed by September 2025 to allow one year for post-processing. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

Step 11. Post-process all data into a user-friendly format compatible with appropriate State data systems. This step must be completed by September 2026 to meet federal regulations. ADOT parties involved: MPD/TSMO.

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 Incapacitating Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Crash Report Form Instruction Manual Incapacitating Injury Yes Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined 

as "needing help from the scene." 

Yes Includes: severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness when 

taken from the crash scene.

Yes

Crash Database Incapacitating Injury Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes
2018 Arizona 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 Incapacitating Injury Yes Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which 

prevents the injured person from walking, 

driving or normally continuing the activities 

the person was capable of performing 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

Yes Includes: severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness when 

taken from the crash scene.

Yes

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.

The self-assessment of the Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Program Review was completed in May 2018. The objectives of the program review were to:

a. Benchmark and track progress towards improving the adoption of best practices for the HSIP over the long term

b. Raise the level of awareness of HSIP-related practices and strategies

c. Identify gaps in existing HSIP efforts; and

d. Generate strategies to improve HSIP-related to adoption and practices.

See attached Final Report.
2018 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program 

Page 51 of 52

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

2015 HSIP Manual (RevFeb17).pdf

HSIP Appendix_A (Rev Jan18).pdf

HSIP Appendix_ B.pdf

HSIP Appendix_C.pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation: 

Compliance Assessment:
2018 Arizona 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.