Page 1 of 51

ARIZONA
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 51

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......................................................................................................................................... 15

Funds Programmed ........................................................................................................................................... 15

General Listing of Projects............................................................................................................................... 17

Safety Performance............................................................................................................................................... 22

General Highway Safety Trends....................................................................................................................... 22

Safety Performance Targets.............................................................................................................................. 35

Applicability of Special Rules.......................................................................................................................... 37

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Program Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................... 39

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements ...................................................................... 39

Project Effectiveness......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 45
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 51

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.” 
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 51

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.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 51

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. proven safety 

countermeasure, 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 nine member Safety Review Committee, 

comprised of FHWA, local and ADOT staff 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 letter and enters the project in the ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-TSM&O

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

Other-80% State, 20% Local

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.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 51

Eighty percent (80%) of Arizona’s HSIP funds are set aside for statewide safety projects and twenty percent (20%) for local 

public agencies and tribal. This 80/20 split was adopted to address traffic safety on all public roads with both ADOT and 

local public agencies (i.e. cities, towns, counties, tribal agencies). This split was re-evaluated as part of the Arizona SHSP 

update process followed by revision in the Arizona HSIP Manual published in May 2015. As ADOT and local public 

agencies identify high crash locations using any acceptable screening method and develop safety improvement projects, 

ADOT reviews them 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

FHWA

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

Describe coordination with external partners.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 51

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.

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?

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:

HSIP Appendix_C.pdf

HSIP Appendix_ B.pdf

HSIP Appendix_A.pdf

2015 HSIP Manual (RevFeb17).pdf

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]
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 51

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 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

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?

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?

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

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 51

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?

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).
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 51

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C : 2

Available funding : 1

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

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?

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?
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 51

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

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

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 

All crashes Volume 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

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?

Yes

Are local road projects identified using the same methodology as state roads?
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 51

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

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

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 

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?
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 51

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

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

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 14

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

apply.

Rumble Strips

Pavement/Shoulder Widening

Install/Improve Signing

Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

Clear Zone Improvements

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
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 51

SHSP/Local road safety plan

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

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 

on-line.

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?

No
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 51

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) $40,000,000 $39,369,134 98.42%

HRRR Special Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

$0 $3,366,690 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 $0 $1,463,184 0%

Totals $40,000,000 $44,199,008 110.5%

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?

20%

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

30%

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?
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 51

$0

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

3%

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

See answers to question 29 for a description of non-infrastructure safety projects.

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
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 51

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, US95, 

US60, SR89 and SR74

Roadway Rumble strips -

edge or shoulder

81.39 Miles $997779 $997779 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,290 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

F0025, I-17 Velda 

Rose-Sunset Point 

MP242-252

Roadway Roadway - other 47 Miles $396228 $396228 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

31,765 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

F0029 SR 95 AT 

KIOWA BLVD - MP 

184 RIGHT TURN 

LANES RAISED MED

Roadway Roadway - other 0.2 Miles $265926 $265926 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

22,394 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H5958 US60 MP 

111.13 TO MP 112.77

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Numbers $29649.46 $31441.63 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

17,459 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8230 I-10 DRAGOON 

ROAD TO JOHNSON 

ROAD PHASE I MP 

318

Roadway Roadway - other 1.83 Miles $176361 $56604 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

14,944 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8246 SR264 

BURNSIDE - FISH 

WASH, MP441 to 

MP450

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

8.83 Miles $9786342 $10221610 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

4,320 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8256 SR260 

CHENEY RANCH 

LOOP - BISON RIDGE 

TRAIL, MP 334- MP 

337.5

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

3.5 Miles $1242367 $1317463 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

17,459 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8258 SR 64 GRAND 

CANYON AIRPORT -

FS RD 328, MP 234 to 

MP 237

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

2.81 Miles $2618502 $2618502 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

6,790 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8265 SR 92 @ 

FOOTHILLS DR MP 

321

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Medians and 

pedestrian refuge 

areas

1 Intersections $344195 $344195 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Minor 

Arterial

25,696 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

H8308 SR88 

SUPERSTITION BLVD 

MP 196

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $5280800 $5280800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Major 

Collector

5,822 40 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8377 SR89A 

COYOTE SPRINGS 

RD TO LEGEND HILL 

RD 324.7 - MP-331.2

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

7.2 Miles $3303800 $4042734 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Major 

Collector

1,689 50 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8388 US 95 AT AVE 

8E, MP 30

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

1 Intersections $89200 $135000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

12,424 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 51

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

H8408 US93 WILLOW 

BEACH - WHITE 

HILLS ROAD MP 17.35 

to MP 28.09

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

10 Miles $1750110 $1750110 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

15,193 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8557 I-8 GILA BEND 

REST AREA - I-10, MP 

125 to MP 175

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

53 Miles $130000 $130000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

7,019 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

H8744 I-40 WEST 

KINGMAN TI INTERIM 

IMPROVEMENTS, MP 

49

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes -

add left-turn lane

1 Lanes $414694 $439574 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

37,485 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8825 I-19 TREE 

THINNING MP .8 TO 

MP 58

Roadway Roadway - other 50 Miles $1206554 $1206554 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

25,341 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8826 SR87 PAYSON 

TO FOREST ROAD/ 

TREE THINNING, MP 

254

Roadway Roadway - other 29 Miles $797762 $845984 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

5,888 50 State Highway 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

H8919 SR77 RIVER 

RD - SUFFOLK DR, 

MP 72 to MP 73

Lighting Lighting - other 2.86 Miles $707250 $707250 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

45,631 45 State Highway 

Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

HS010 ROAD SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT 

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 1 Numbers $12259 $12259 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Various 0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

HS013 I-10 PHOENIX 

CORRIDOR SAFETY 

STUDY 

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

7.5 Miles $8770 $8770 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 65 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

HX253 SR69 

KACHINA PLACE TO 

HEATHER HEIGHTS, 

MP 281 to MP 295

Intersection traffic 

control

Modify traffic 

signal timing - leftturn phasing 

(permissive to 

protected-only)

4 Numbers $63869 $36594 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Urban Principal 

Arterial - Other

34,474 55 State Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

M5149 I-17 NB MP 

305-312 & I-40 E/WB 

MP 204-221

Non-infrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Numbers $142000 $142000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

20,245 75 State Highway 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

PNGHS NACOG 2016 

APPROVED WORK 

PROGRAM-HSIP 

FUNDS

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $435000 $435000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

PWGHS WACOG 2016 

APPROVED WORK 

PROGRAM

Non-infrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Numbers $400000 $400000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

SH465 CITY OF 

FLAGSTAFF 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 100 Numbers $3000 $3000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 51

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

SH504 CITY OF 

FLAGSTAFF BUTLER 

AVENUE GUARDRAIL 

UPGRADES

Roadway Roadway - other 76 Locations $36155 $36155 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH511 SWITZER 

CANYON/TURQUOISE 

DR

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Numbers $130000 $130000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH527 MOHAVE 

COUNTY VARIOUS 

RURAL RD - SFTY 

IMPRVMNTS

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

12 Miles $191865 $191865 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH535 75TH AVE & 

CACTUS TI

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $936776 $1177000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH536 75TH AVE & 

PEORIA TI

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $1149557 $1149557 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH561 TUCSON 

DISTRICT, TOHONO 

OODHAM NATION

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

40 Miles $805683 $805683 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH571 REAY LANE 

IRRIGATION CANAL 

DITCH RELOCATION

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Numbers $20746 $20746 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH575 BIA ROUTE 6, 

US70-SR170 ON SAN 

CARLOS 

RESERVATION

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

12 Miles $148529 $148529 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH576 APACHE 

JUNCTION 

IRONWOOD DR 

SAFETY PULLOUTS

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder -

paved or other

1 Miles $20746 $20746 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH586 YUMA 

COUNTY -

SOMERTON AVE & 

COUNTY 18TH ST.

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Numbers $593431 $593431 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH590 COUNTY 

ROUTE 1/GOLDEN 

SHORES PKWY

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Numbers $1202439 $1202439 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 County Highway 

Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH595 CITY OF 

FLAGSTAFF 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

6867 Numbers $265000 $265000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH601 City of Safford -

Various

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

874 Numbers $14980 $14980 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 51

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

SH602 CITYWIDE 

TRAFFIC SIGN 

REPLACEMENT, 

NOGALES

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

896 Numbers $66932 $66932 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH606 TOWN-WIDE 

SIGN REPLACEMENT 

PROJECT, CLIFTON

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

546 Numbers $2000 $2000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH627 City Of 

Avondale SIGN MGMT 

SYSTEM/SIGN 

UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

4734 Numbers $33000 $33000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH633SIGN 

UPGRADE, 

PARADISE VALLEY 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

2348 Numbers $190234 $190234 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH635 59TH AND 

OLIVE AVENUES

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Numbers $100382 $100382 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH636 Avondale 

PEDESTRIAN 

COUNTDOWN 

SIGNALS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 256 Numbers $50000 $50000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

SH641 MARICOPASIGN MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

3730 Numbers $241800 $241800 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 County Highway 

Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH642 TOHONO 

O'ODHAM ROADWAY 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

40 Miles $2520000 $2520000 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH643 TOHONO 

OODHAM NATION IR 

16, 20, 24, 30 & 35

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

40 Miles $1353309.9 $1353309.9 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH643 TOHONO 

OODHAM NATION IR 

16, 20, 24, 30 & 35

Roadway 

delineation

Roadway 

delineation - other

40 Miles $846690 $846690 HRRR Special 

Rule (23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

Unavailable 0 Indian Tribe 

Nation

Other Lane Departure Minimizing the 

consequences of 

leaving the road

SH647 Town of Eloy 

VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Sign sheeting -

upgrade or 

replacement

34.5 Miles $140593 $140593 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Town or Township 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH648 VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS PED 

HEADS, CASA 

GRANDE

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal -

audible device

123 Numbers $31833 $31833 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH650 SIGN 

UPGRADE (SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS)

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

7517 Numbers $113295 $113295 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0022 VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS -

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

1400 Numbers $70000 $70000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 51

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

SUPERIOR SIGN 

STRIPING UPGRADE

T0031 Various 

Locations-Gln Flashing 

Yellow Arrow PH1

Intersection traffic 

control

Intersection traffic 

control - other

34 Intersections $174309 $174309 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 City of Municipal 

Highway Agency

Other Intersections Reduce fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

T0032 8TH ST AND 

21ST AVE - YUMA

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

1 Numbers $105000 $105000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

T0039 NACOG MULTIAGENCY SIGN 

PROCUREMENT -

PHASE 2

Roadway signs 

and traffic control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control -

other

4500 Numbers $45000 $45000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Older Drivers Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0055 FLORENCE 

BLVD; PEDSTRIAN 

SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian 

beacons

1 Numbers $105000 $105000 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 Other Local 

Agency

Other Pedestrians Making walking 

and street 

crossing easier

T0096 PAG 

REGIONAL ROAD 

SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT

Non-infrastructure Road safety audits 12 Numbers $428122 $428122 HSIP (23 U.S.C. 

148)

Unavailable 0 County Highway 

Agency

Other Data 

Improvement

More effective 

processes and 

safety 

management sys

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 51

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities 938 806 759 827 821 849 774 895 962

Serious Injuries 5,409 4,827 4,648 4,598 4,508 4,328 3,957 4,164 4,556

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 1.520 1.340 1.270 1.390 1.370 1.400 1.240 1.380 1.470

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

8.780 8.050 7.760 7.720 7.500 7.140 6.320 6.410 6.950

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

144 147 173 177 149 189 184 191 228

Number of non-motorized 

serious injuries

605 574 552 568 572 502 483 480 634
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 51

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 51

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 51

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 2016

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 -

Interstate

79.2 165.2 4.53 9.5

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

0.2 0 2.41 0

Rural Principal Arterial -

Other

60.4 110.8 6.71 12.33

Rural Minor Arterial 43.6 89.6 10.69 22.08

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 51

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 Minor Collector 14.4 38.2 11.19 31.32

Rural Major Collector 79.4 167.8 11.46 24.21

Rural Local Road or Street 19.6 19.4 5.03 4.87

Urban Principal Arterial -

Interstate

50.8 142 2.7 7.55

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other Freeways and 

Expressways

35.6 199.4 1.73 9.66

Urban Principal Arterial -

Other

163.2 935.2 6.76 38.45

Urban Minor Arterial 197.6 1,225 6.66 41.58

Urban Minor Collector 2.6 5.4 5.66 11.82

Urban Major Collector 48 310.2 3.24 21.54

Urban Local Road or Street 20.8 87.4 1.18 5
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 51

Year 2013

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 0 0 0 0

County Highway Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City of Municipal Highway 

Agency

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
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 51

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Functional Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 51

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 51

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Functional 

Classification 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities by Roadway Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 51

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

As of this reporting period, AADT and crash data by Roadway Ownership as required in this question was not 

available in order to complete the Highway Safety Trends by Roadway Ownership table. The required data is 

included in the MIRE fundamental data elements and as such will be collected. See Question 49 for timelines.

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 2018 Targets * 

Number of Fatalities 934.6 

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 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

State Highway Agency

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) by Roadway 

Ownership 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 51

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

end of 2019. 

Number of Serious Injuries 4330.4 

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 1.412 

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 6.551 

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 790.0 

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.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 51

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

targets. 

To establish the State’s CY 2018 safety targets, ADOT conducted a very successful coordination effort with its 

partners and stakeholders. This effort resulted in the state Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) and 

each of the eight Arizona MPOs committing to support the Department’s safety performance targets.

The following steps highlight the Department’s coordination with external stakeholders:

1. On August 15 and 16, 2016, hosted an FHWA pilot NHI training “Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming”. In attendance were representatives from FHWA, ADOT, MPOs, COGs, and Valley Metro (Phoenix 

area transit agency). The audience consisted of a mix of policy makers, planning professionals, and 

transportation engineers.

2. On December 6, 2016, hosted an FHWA/NHTSA facilitated “Safety Target Setting Workshop”. In attendance 

were representatives from NHTSA, FHWA, ADOT, GOHS, DPS, and MPOs.

3. On January 18, 2017, during the Arizona Annual Rural Transportation Summit, held a workshop on 

Transportation Performance Management with a discussion that continued the theme of the December 6, 2016, 

event.

4. On May 5, 2017, held a meeting of the Arizona Transportation Performance Management Committee. Members 

of this committee include ADOT, FHWA AZ-Division, AZ MPOs, and AZ COGs. The committee meets every other 

month jointly with the Statewide Transportation Planners meeting. The purpose and mission of this committee 

is to coordinate Arizona transportation system’s performance measures and target setting in compliance with 

federal laws and regulations. The committee was established during the Fall of 2016.

5. On May 5, 2017, briefed representatives from the two largest Arizona MPOs (MAG and PAG) regarding the 

process that ADOT is utilizing to set safety performance targets.

6. On May 16, 2017, conducted a meeting between the three Directors of ADOT, GOHS, and DPS to reach 

consensus on the State’s safety performance targets. The FHWA Arizona Division Administrator was in 

attendance. The process that ADOT followed in reaching the recommended safety performance targets was 

described. Attendees agreed to support the suggested targets.

7. On June 1, 2017, held a special two-hour meeting of the Arizona Transportation Performance Management 

Committee to discuss the approach that was used in establishing the safety performance targets. Members of 

the committee committed to support the State safety performance 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? 

Yes
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 51

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 for the past seven years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Fatalities

95 100 113 90 110 105 126

Number of Older Driver and 

Pedestrian Serious Injuries

357 321 352 349 396 328 419

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

# of Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Years

Number of Older Driver and Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries by 

Year.

Fatalities Serious Injuries
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 51

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.

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 2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 40 of 51

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 435.8 1,420.6 0.69 2.27

Roadway Departure 326 970.4 0.52 1.55

Intersections 226.4 1,919.4 0.36 3.06

Pedestrians 161.2 343.8 0.26 0.55

Bicyclists 27 190.4 0.04 0.3

Older Drivers 83.4 350.2 0.13 0.56

Motorcyclists 159 777.2 0.25 1.24

Work Zones 10 37.8 0.02 0.06
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 41 of 51

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 42 of 51

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?

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

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 43 of 51

No

Enter additional comments here to clarify your response for this question or add supporting information.
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 44 of 51

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 INJURY

BEFORE

ALL INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

I-10 (356-362.1) Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

24.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 10.00 7.00 38.00 21.00 2.71

US 93 (91.6-

101.3)

Rural Principal 

Arterial - Other

Roadway Roadway 

widening - add 

lane(s) along 

segment

38.00 18.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 12.00 12.00 63.00 35.00 3.79

8th St & Somerton Rural Local Road 

or Street

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 0.68

I-8 (71-82) Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Pavement surface 

- miscellaneous

38.00 39.00 1.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 18.00 13.00 63.00 58.00 -4.74

SR 83 (7.3-12) Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 4.00 -4.53

SR 347/Casa 

Blanca

Rural Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 3.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 7.00 14.00 -1.31

SR287/Eleven 

Mile Corner

Urban Minor 

Arterial

Roadway Roadway - other 17.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 9.00 3.00 35.00 8.00 7.4

I-40 (342-353.6) Rural Principal 

Arterial - Interstate

Roadway Superelevation / 

cross slope

116.00 78.00 7.00 6.00 12.00 10.00 66.00 33.00 201.00 127.00 1.6

SR 177 (139-

145.6)

Rural Major 

Collector

Roadway Roadway - other 19.00 12.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 8.00 11.00 39.00 24.00 14.9

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

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.

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

No
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 45 of 51

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.

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) 100 100 100 100 0 100

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name (9) 100 100

Federal Aid/Route Type 

(21)

100 100

Rural/Urban Designation 

(20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point Segment 

Descriptor (10)

100 100 100 100 0 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 0 100

Segment Length (13) 100 100

Direction of Inventory (18) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 100 100 100 100 0 100

Median Type (54) 100 100
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 46 of 51

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 0 100 0

Average Annual Daily 

Traffic (79)

100 100 100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 0 100 0 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 0

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100 0
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 47 of 51

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 0

Year of Ramp AADT (192) 100 0

Functional Class (19) 0 0

Type of Governmental 

Ownership (4)

0 0

Totals (Average Percent 

Complete):

100.00 83.33 62.50 25.00 54.55 9.09 100.00 77.78 0.00 80.00

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

• Pradeep Tiwari*

• Kerry Wilcoxon

 Information Technology Group (ITG)

• Mark Flahan

• Scott Parkey*

• Tom Tyndall

Multimodal Planning Division (MPD)

• Mick Cseri*

• James Meyer

• Patrick Whiteford
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 48 of 51

 * 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-ADOTmaintained 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.

It should be noted that unfortunately Arizona did not meet the requirement of 23 CRF Part 924.11 to incorporate the necessary language for the collection of MIRE data elements in the TRCC Strategic Plan by the July 1, 2017 deadline. Arizona has submitted a 

satisfactory communication to AZ FHWA and the appropriate language will be incorporated into the TRCC Strategic Plan and approved by the TRCC at the next scheduled meeting.

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

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 

Yes Includes: severe lacerations, broken or 

distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, 

abdominal injuries, unconsciousness when 

taken from the crash scene.

Yes
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 49 of 51

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 * 

before the injury occurred. Often defined as 

"needing help from the scene."

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?

No

When does the State plan to complete it’s next HSIP program assessment.

2018

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

May 31, 2018
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 50 of 51

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Appendix_C.pdf

HSIP Appendix_ B.pdf

HSIP Appendix_A.pdf

2015 HSIP Manual (RevFeb17).pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2017 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 51 of 51

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.