Page 1 of 39

NEVADA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 2 of 39

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 9

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................18

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................18

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................20

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

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

Safety Performance Targets............................................................................................................27

Applicability of Special Rules...........................................................................................................29

Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................30

Program Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................30

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements .......................................................30

Project Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................34

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................35
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 3 of 39

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.”
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

Executive Summary

This annual Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report for 2019 summarizes the activities of the 

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

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

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

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

(FAST Act § 1113; 23 U.S.C. 148).

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

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

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

designed to develop safety improvement projects for the following areas:

· High crash locations (intersections and roadway segments)

· Urban intersection safety improvements

· Urban lane departure crash mitigation

· Rural lane departure crash mitigation

· Rural intersection safety improvements

· Systemic Safety Improvements Pedestrian related safety improvements

· Tribal Low-Cost Safety Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

crash data through a series of database procedures.

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

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

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

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

Safety Procedural Manual is located on the NDOT website.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 5 of 39

Introduction

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

achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. As per 23 U.S.C. 

148(h) and 23 CFR 924.15, States are required to report annually on the progress being made to 

advance HSIP implementation and evaluation efforts. The format of this report is consistent with the 

HSIP Reporting Guidance dated December 29, 2016 and consists of five sections: program structure, 

progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects, progress in achieving safety 

outcomes and performance targets, effectiveness of the improvements and compliance assessment.

Program Structure

Program Administration

Describe the general structure of the HSIP in the State. 

See attached HSIP Flow Chart 

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Planning

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• SHSP Emphasis Area Data 

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

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

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

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

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

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

injuries can be reduced by converting to a roundabout.

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering is developing a low-cost safety improvement project with the Pyramid Lake 

Paiute Tribe. The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe’s Wadsworth Project is an infrastructure improvement project 

designed to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety along a stretch of SR-447 that runs through the heart of 

Wadsworth, past an elementary school, head start center, tribal childcare center and community center. This 

route is frequently used by pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to the school and community amenities, while at 

the same time experiencing substantial through traffic from individuals traveling to Pyramid Lake and the 

annual Burning Man festival held in the Black Rock Desert. The project will realign existing crosswalks with 

current road approaches, add a multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists, add street lighting for road 

approaches, improve school zone signage, and improve roadside drainage facilities; improving pedestrian and 

bicycle safety along a key stretch of Route 447. Completion of the project will substantially improve traffic 

safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists traveling along SR-447, reducing injury and fatality crashes and 

accomplishing key goals established in the Tribe’s 2015 Transportation Safety Plan and supported by a 2017 

Road Safety Assessment.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

Describe coordination with internal partners. 

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering coordinates with: 

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

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

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

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

the project based on the review of field conditions. 

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

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

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

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

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

improvements. 

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

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

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

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

improvements into projects that are currently being evaluated.

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

and miscellaneous field reviews. 

3. The NDOT Planning division at many different levels to provide guidance regarding safety improvements in 

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

the early stage of development. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

serious injuries from secondary crashes. Under Interim Approval memo from FHWA, Wrong Way Driver 

systems (with RED flashing lights) have been installed at a number of freeway ramps and a study of their 

effectiveness is planned to be conducted under task order with the University of Nevada, Reno. Also under 

interim approval, Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) pedestrian crossing enhancements have been 

installed throughout the state in multiple jurisdictions. Coordination for green pavement markings on bike lanes 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

at conflict or mixing zones is also being considered on some projects under another experimental interim 

approval.

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

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

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

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

measures.

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

they are being identified as potential safety project locations.

Identify which external partners are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Academia/University

• FHWA

• Governors Highway Safety Office

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Tribal Agency

• Other-Emergency Medical Services

• Other-UNLV Traffic Safety Research

Describe coordination with external partners. 

1. 

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering (TSE) coordinated with:

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

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

Studies for Complete Streets and Benefit Cost Ratios of roundabouts. 

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

FHWA. TSE has meet with FHWA staff on a quarterly basis to review and develop HSIP 

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

project selection, and network screening. 

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

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

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

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

state of Nevada which results in achieving our combined performance measures. 

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

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

Emphasis Area teams. 

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

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

Critical Emphasis Area teams. 

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

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

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

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

Emphasis Area teams. 

8. UNLV - Traffic Safety Research - researchers at the UNLV School of Medicine maintain 2 

databases: (1) All Nevada Road User trauma data for years 2005-2017. This includes all 4 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

Nevada trauma centers (UMC, Renown, St. Rose, and Sunrise) and (2) A linked crash-trauma 

database for years 2005-2017 (crash data source = NDOT, trauma data see above). 

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

elaborate. 

Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan:

Ongoing administration of the SHSP is being augmented with consultant forces, currently Kimley-Horn, and 

their performance has been stellar. The Kimley-Horn team are true partners in the SHSP activities and not 

merely consultant forces. Without this support and Kimley-Horn’s partnering approach, the SHSP would not be 

where it is today. Kudos to Kimley-Horn for building the diverse and robust SHSP teams & partners that we 

have today.

Recurring activities for the SHSP include regular meetings of the Nevada Executive Committee on Traffic 

Safety (NECTS) (now meeting quarterly) and quarterly meetings for the seven SHSP Critical Emphasis Area 

(CEA) Task Forces: (Intersection Safety , Impaired Driving Prevention, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian 

Safety, Lane Departure Prevention, Motorcycle Safety and Young Driver Safety). The Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee (TRCC) has been integrated into the SHSP.

Planning is underway for the 2019 Nevada Traffic Safety Summit which will be in Reno this year. The focus or 

theme for the 2019 Nevada Traffic Safety Summit is MYZERO. The Zero Fatalities goal is owned by every 

person, and requires all of us to succeed. The theme for the Summit requires each attendee to personalize the 

Zero Fatalities message and fully understand why zero is important to them. Rather than thinking of Zero as a 

concept, philosophy or ideal we challenge each participant to speak from the heart, to describe why they show 

up every day to do what they do to achieve Zero Fatalities on our roadways. 

Road Safety Assessments (RSA)

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

use an RSA as a safety tool on their new projects. There were twelve (12) RSA performed from September 1, 

2018 to September 30, 2019 . The RSA were primarily performed on 3R preservation projects, capacity 

projects, corridor studies, high crash locations, post construction projects, and Tribal planning projects. The 

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

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

RSA database will identify suggestions that were incorporated in the project or implemented by NDOT District 

Maintenance crews and/or by other using agencies; and identify those suggestions that were not implemented. 

The RSA program statewide will continue in FFY 19-20. The updating of the RSA database will include those 

RSA that were performed in 2015 and 2016.

Systemic improvements:

A rural highway curve project was incorporated in the FY2019 HSIP program this year as systemic 

improvements. We also are utilizing 6” edge line striping on rural state route highway as a countermeasure for 

lane departure crashes as well as making it a standard.

Safety Management Plans: a safety focused corridor study

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

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

improvement on Principal Arterials, routes were identified that have highest rates of societal cost of crashes 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

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

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

Three SMP’s were started at the following locations:

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

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

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

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

projects. The purpose of a Safety Management Plan was to conduct a safety focused corridor study aimed at 

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

of short and long-range transportation safety improvement projects that incorporate relevant studies, access 

management principles, public and stakeholder input, crash and capacity analyses, benefit/cost analysis, and 

other impacts to all road users. A Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was created to help with the 

development of the SMP and to ensure that the plan was consistent with the needs of the many different 

stakeholders along the project corridor. The SMP process is consistent with the Nevada Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan’s goals of reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on Nevada’s roadways.

Traffic Safety Engineering Design Services (TSEDs):

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

projects were design in 2019 utilizing TSEDs:

• Intersection improvements, reconstructing SLIP Lanes, and pedestrian safety improvements 

o McCarran Blvd (E Greg St to Prater Way), Reno 

• Intersection improvements 

o Eastern and Washington, Las Vegas 

• Corridor improvements to include intersection, pedestrian, and ADA updates-Phase II 

o Eastern Ave/Civic Center Dr (Cheyenne to US-95), Las Vegas 

• Construct roundabout 

o McCarran Blvd and Baring Blvd, Sparks 

• Wrong Way Driver Signs (part of paving project) 

o I-580 Carson City Freeway (0.66 miles south of the CC/WA county line, MP CC 3.14 to CC 

8.95), Carson City 

• Install safety improvements to include signing, striping, guardrail, concrete barrier rail, asphalt paving 

and high friction surface treatment 

o SR-431(MP WA 0.00 to WA 3.00 and WA 13.00 to 16.00), Washoe County 

• Install Retro-Reflective Borders on Traffic Signal Backplates 

o Various locations in Washoe County 

• Pedestrian and ADA improvements 

o SR-147 (Lake Mead) @ Bassler St and @ Brand St, North Las Vegas 

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual final-updated-8.7.17.docx
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Intersection

• Pedestrian Safety

• Rural State Highways

• Segments

• Other-Safety Management Plans

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:10/22/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

Other-Combining with other projects:3

Other-Systemic Improvmeents:1

Program: Intersection

Date of Program Methodology:3/9/1997

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

• Other-Societal Cost normalized by AADT

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 12 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:30

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

Other-Societal costs per volume:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Pedestrian Safety

Date of Program Methodology:3/15/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Other-Land Use Generators Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Other-Land Use Generator Matrix (see attached)

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:30

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

Other-weight from land use generator matrix:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Rural State Highways

Date of Program Methodology:10/22/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Crash rate

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Rank of Priority Consideration 

Available funding:2

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

Other-Systemic Improvements:1

Program: Segments

Date of Program Methodology:9/15/2015

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

• Other-Societal cost per volume

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:30

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

Other-Societal cost per volume:50

Total Relative Weight:100

Program: Other-Safety Management Plans

Date of Program Methodology:6/15/2016

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

• FHWA focused approach to safety

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Competes with all projects

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

All crashes Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash rate

• Other-Societal Costs normalized by ADT

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Other-Priority Ranking

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

selected, indicate the relative importance of each process in project prioritization. 

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

equal 100. If ranks are entered, indicate ties by giving both processes the same rank 

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

Relative Weight in Scoring 

Available funding:30

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

Other-Sociatal Cost per ADT:50

Total Relative Weight:100

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements?

 46

 HSIP funds are used to address which of the following systemic improvements? 

• High friction surface treatment

• Rumble Strips

• Wrong way driving treatments

What process is used to identify potential countermeasures? 

• Crash data analysis

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

• Engineering Study

• Road Safety Assessment

• SHSP/Local road safety plan

• Other-Safety Management Plans

Does the State HSIP consider connected vehicles and ITS technologies? 

No

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

elaborate. 

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

TSE has continued to incorporate into our program systemic and spot treatments at intersections such as 

Retroreflective Back Plates, Flashing Yellow Arrows, pedestrian crossing islands and medians and that will 

provide better corridor access management. NDOT is also currently utilizing the Intersection Control Evaluation 

(ICE) methodology to evaluate intersection safety mitigation, as well as promoting roundabouts wherever 

possible.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

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

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

our HSIP program. TSE is currently working to update rumble strip design and standards. These new designs 

are less impactful on the roadway and include a bicycle friendly rumble strip.

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

recommended within the studies are being design for McCarran Blvd in Sparks, Nevada. This includes 

intersection redesign to improve sight distance, pedestrian improvements as well as a roundabout design at 

McCarran & Baring. Recommendations from the Eastern Ave SMP are also being designed at the intersection 

of Eastern and Washington in the City of Las Vegas. Three new SMP studies were also started at North 

McCarran Blvd in Reno; Sahara in Las Vegas; and Jones and Cheyenne in Las Vegas, Nevada.

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

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

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

enforcement and emergency services.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

Federal Fiscal Year

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

FUNDING CATEGORY PROGRAMMED OBLIGATED % 

OBLIGATED/PROGRAMMED

HSIP (23 U.S.C. 148) $10,107,294 $7,845,510 77.62%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

U.S.C. 148(g)(1))

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

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$1,598,654 $537,300 33.61%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $1,062,488 $1,062,488 100%

Totals $14,256,250 $10,933,112 76.69%

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

safety projects?

14%

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

14%

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

36%

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

47%

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
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

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

the reporting period under 23 U.S.C. 126? 

$10,000,000

$10,000000 was transferred into NHPP

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

the future. 

Utility companies reviews and new service agreements timelines have doubled due to their workloads in 

Nevada. This has resulted in projects not being completed in time to obligated. We are changing our processes 

to start earlier communication and coordination with the utility companies.

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

which the State would like to elaborate. 

The collaboration of state, local, and regional agencies while developing the Safety Management Plans has 

created better HSIP projects for all.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

Eastern Ave at 

Washington - Phase 2

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection geometrics - 

miscellaneous/other/unspecifie

d

1 Locations $134971 $1639652 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther14,950 40 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersections

Wrong Way Driver 

Signs on Carson City 

Freeway

Advanced 

technology and 

ITS

Advanced technology and ITS - 

other

$2385874 $1637581

0

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Impaired 

Drivers

SR 431 Install safety 

improvements to 

nclude signing, 

striping, quardrail, 

concrete barrier rail, 

asphalt paving and 

high friction surface 

treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

$1487814 $1763039 HRRR 

Special 

Rule (23 

U.S.C. 

148(g)(1))

0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

SR-147 Lake Mead at 

Bassler and Brand 

Streets Pedestrian and 

ADA Improvements

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 2 Locations $660000 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Principal ArterialOther43,500 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements at 

Cheyenne at Mary Dee

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons 1 Locations $250000 State and 

Local Funds

Urban Minor Arterial 0 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians

Traffic Incident 

Management

Advanced

technology and 

ITS

Congestion detection / traffic 

monitoring system

$1236235 $1301300 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Systemic Lane 

Departure

Data 

improvement/upgradin

g

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records $1673163 $1761224 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 Data

NCATS Noninfrastructure Data/traffic records $1425000 $1500000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 Data

SR 431 Install safety 

improvements to 

nclude signing, 

striping, quardrail, 

concrete barrier rail, 

asphalt paving and 

high friction surface 

treatment

Roadway Pavement surface - high friction 

surface

$37073 $1763039 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Lane 

Departure
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OUTPUTS

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/ARE

A TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTION

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEG

Y

CLRS on multiple 

locations Statewide

Roadway Rumble strips - center Miles $390009 $1950000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Corridor Improvements 

to include Intersection, 

Pedestrian and ADA 

updates on Second 

Street and Arlin

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons Locations $332369 $2125000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther6,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Pedestrians

Corridor Improvements 

to include Intersection, 

Pedestrian and ADA 

updates on Eastern 

Ave

Access 

management

Access management - other Locations $-118607 $3900000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther25,000 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Intersections

Pedestrian Safety 

Improvements on 

Stewart St, Carson City

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian beacons Crosswalk

s

$-108708 $860000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 9,200 35 City or 

Municipal 

Highway 

Agency

Land Use 

Generator 

Matrix

Pedestrians

SR 667, Kietzke Lane, 

Pedestrian and ADA 

Improvements (SMP) 

Package 2

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1.1 Miles $291881 $2960000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther150,00

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Safety 

Management 

Plan and 

Crash/Crash 

frequency 

analysis

Intersections

Nevada Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan

Noninfrastructure Transportation safety planning $166250 $175000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Administratio

n of Nevada 

Strategic 

Highway 

Safety Plan

Administratio

n of Nevada 

Strategic 

Highway 

Safety Plan

Intersection Improvements, reconstructing SLIP lanes, and Pedestrian Safety improvement McCarran Blvd (Greg to Prater) - this project also included Pedestrian Improvements

SR 431 safety improvements project included $37073 in Preliminary Engineering.

Wrong Way Driver Signs on Carson City Freeway work was including in a contract with pavement preservation work.

CLRS on multiple locations Statewide is the final contract payment balancing.

Corridor Improvements to include Intersection, Pedestrian and ADA updates on Second Street and Arlington is the final contract payment balancing.

Pedestrian Safety Improvements on Stewart St, Carson City is the final contract payment balancing.

SR 667, Kietzke Lane, Pedestrian and ADA Improvements (SMP) Package 2 is the final contract payment balancing.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 22 of 39

Safety Performance

General Highway Safety Trends

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

years.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatalities 257 246 261 266 290 325 329 309 317

Serious Injuries 1,339 1,254 1,048 1,205 1,144 1,097 1,232 1,094 1,199

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.160 1.100 1.150 1.130 1.140 1.300 1.320 1.095 1.200

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

6.370 5.970 4.590 3.900 4.490 4.370 4.910 3.880 4.360

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

46 48 61 68 80 83 86 108 88

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

232 190 197 211 199 181 206 229 203
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 24 of 39

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fatality rate (per HMVMT)

Fatality rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 25 of 39

Describe fatality data source. 

FARS

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

ownership. 

Year 2018

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

21 41 0.94 1.83

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

0 0 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

33 59 2.09 3.8

Rural Minor Arterial 9 21 2.17 5.26

Rural Minor Collector 3 3 2.15 2.15

Rural Major Collector 10 25 2.69 6.71

Rural Local Road or 

Street

6 10 1.18 1.96

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 26 of 39

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)

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Interstate

22 74 0.51 1.7

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

11 33 0.64 1.89

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

60 239 1.86 7.42

Urban Minor Arterial 86 366 1.7 7.27

Urban Minor Collector 30 128 1.38 5.96

Urban Major Collector 0 0 0 0

Urban Local Road or 

Street

25 113 0.5 2.29
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

Year 2015

Roadways Number of Fatalities

 (5-yr avg)

Number of Serious 

Injuries

 (5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

Serious Injury Rate

(per HMVMT)

 (5-yr avg)

State Highway 

Agency

County Highway 

Agency

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

City or 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

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:330.6

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

The target of 330.6 fatalities for 2020 was set to meet Nevada's SHSP Zero Fatalities Interim Goal of 

reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year moving average for each performance measure in half by 2030. 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

The current trend was projected through 2020 to be 344.1 and then a reduction from the 2020 

projection was calculated for a linear reduction to meet the 2030 Interim Goal.

Number of Serious Injuries:1088.6

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

The target of 1088.6 serious injuries for 2020 was set to meet Nevada's SHSP Zero Fatalities Interim 

Goal of reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year moving average for each performance measure in half by 

2030. The current trend was projected through 2020 to be 1197.5 and then a reduction from the 2020 

projection was calculated for a linear reduction to meet the 2030 Interim Goal.

Fatality Rate:1.214

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

The target of 1.214 fatality rate for 2020 was set to meet Nevada's SHSP Zero Fatalities Interim Goal 

of reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year moving average for each performance measure in half by 2030. 

The current trend was projected through 2020 to be 1.244 and then a reduction from the 2020 

projection was calculated for a linear reduction to meet the 2030 Interim Goal.

Serious Injury Rate:4.060

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

The target of 4.060 serious injury rate fatalities for 2020 was set to meet Nevada's SHSP Zero 

Fatalities Interim Goal of reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year moving average for each performance 

measure in half by 2030. The current trend was projected through 2020 to be 4.060 and then a 

reduction from the 2020 projection was calculated for a linear reduction to meet the 2030 Interim 

Goal.

Total Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries:294.7

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

The target of 294.7 fatalities and serious injuries based on a 5 year moving average for 2020 was set 

to meet Nevada's SHSP Zero Fatalities Interim Goal of reducing the 2004 to 2008 5-year moving 

average for each performance measure in half by 2030. The current trend was projected through 

2020 to be 308.8 and then a reduction from the 2020 projection was calculated for a linear reduction 

to meet the 2030 Interim Goal.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

data and other relative matters at the time. Our office works closely with each of the Local entities to provide 

them whatever data they request. This includes but not limited to: raw crash data, located crash maps, 

summarized crash analysis, heat maps and crashes by jurisdictional boundaries. The SHSO (DPS/OTS) and 
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

NDOT Traffic Safety Engineering office work extremely close to set and use the first three measures; number 

of fatal crashes, fatal rate and number of serious injuries. Also, NDOT's Safety Targets have been adopted by 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 

(RTCSN).

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

Describe progress toward meeting the State’s 2018 Safety Performance Targets (based 

on data available at the time of reporting). For each target, include a discussion of any 

reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. 

Performance Measure 1, 3, and 5 (Number of Fatalities, Number of Fatalities per 100M VMT, and NonMotorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries) the 5-year moving average was less than the projected 2020 target 

values. Performance Measure 2 and 4 (Number of Serious Injuries and Number of Serious Injuries per 100M 

Vehicles) the 5-year moving average was greater than the projected 2020 target values.

It is difficult to determine the reason for the increase in fatalities and serious injuries and why the strategies are 

not working. There has been a shift in the types of crashes with increase in motorcycle, young driver, and 

occupant protection fatalities, and a decrease in other types of crashes such as lane departures. Certain 

mitigation strategies that have been implemented to address those crashes appear to be effective, while others 

like the primary seatbelt law was not approved by the legislature and therefore cannot be implemented as 

identified in the SHSP.

Approximately half of traffic fatalities do not occur on NDOT maintained roadways. The Department cannot 

achieve the goal without the cooperation and assistance of our partners in the areas of law enforcement, 

education, emergency medical response and all the Local Public agencies. The DOT is constantly improving 

the working relations with the Local entities to help achieve this goal. 

The Department will continue to spend funds to improve the safety of the entire State transportation system. 

NDOT will also continue working with partners to take advantage of opportunities to reduce the severity and 

frequency of motor vehicle crashes statewide. Every life saved, and every serious injury avoided lessens or 

eliminates the cost to the families who would have been affected, as well as reduce the need for response by 

law enforcement, emergency medical services, and trauma centers.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

Yes

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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Fatalities

32 35 27 32 44 43 62

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

64 91 89 66 96 88 101
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

Based on the measures of effectiveness selected previously, describe the results of 

the State's program level evaluations. 

During this reporting period, the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries have increased slightly. Responses 

to traffic crash requests and analysis were prepared for various local, state and federal agencies, consulting 

firms, news media and private citizens. The studies supported efforts in the development of safety procedures, 

crash reduction countermeasures, selective law enforcement, urban and rural planning, and public information 

campaigns. Coordination between the Roadway Design Division and the Safety Engineering Division is 

continuing with Roadway Design requesting crash data on most of the projects early in the design phase of the 

project. The Safety Engineering Division continues to use a standard report to more effectively address the 

traffic safety concerns that should be incorporated in the design of projects. 

The HSIP program evaluates all of the crashes in the state and identifies high crash locations HCL as defined: 

• Rural – (Population under 5000) intersections 10 or more crashes in a three-year period 

• Small Urban – (Population above 5000 and under 50,000) intersections 20 or more crashes in a threeyear period 

• Urban – (Population above 50,000) intersections 30 or more crashes in a three-year period. 

Once the locations have been identified they are then prioritized by a safety index and any of the projects that 

are greater than one are candidates for safety projects. We have been focusing on intersections for the last 10 

plus years and are now in the process of making changes to the program to focus more on crash types and 

mitigations for crash types that we can implement a systemic / statewide approach.

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # miles improved by HSIP

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• More systemic programs

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 39

SHSP Emphasis Area Targeted Crash 

Type

Number of 

Fatalities

(5-yr avg)

Number of 

Serious 

Injuries

(5-yr avg)

Fatality Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Serious Injury 

Rate

(per HMVMT)

(5-yr avg)

Lane Departure 118 357 0.43 1.25

Intersections 55 271 0.22 1.43

Pedestrians 80 161 0.31 0.59

Bicyclists 8 32 0.03 0.18

Older Drivers 44 56 0.12 0.26

Motorcyclists 56 155 0.21 0.8

Work Zones 8 21 0.03 0.11

Young Drivers 34 45 0.08 0.31

Occupant Protection 77 154 0.28 0.81

Impaired 78 63 0.29 0.45
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 32 of 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 33 of 39

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016 2013-2017 2014-2018
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

Project Effectiveness

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

LOCATION FUNCTIONAL 

CLASS

IMPROVEMENT 

CATEGORY

IMPROVEMENT 

TYPE

PDO

BEFORE

PDO

AFTER

FATALITY

BEFORE

FATALITY

AFTER

SERIOUS 

INJURY

BEFORE

SERIOUS 

INJURY

AFTER

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

BEFORE

ALL OTHER 

INJURY

AFTER

TOTAL

BEFORE

TOTAL

AFTER

EVALUATION 

RESULTS

(BENEFIT/COST 

RATIO)

SR 147 CL 

9.67 to 

CL14.23. 

Phase I

Rural Major 

Collector

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

7.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 11.00 3.00

Multiple 

Intersections 

in District 1 

(City of North 

Las Vegas). 

Signal 

System. 

Package 2

Urban 

Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - 

Other

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

221.00 238.00 2.00 2.00 22.00 18.00 231.00 261.00 476.00 519.00

SR 160 MP CL 

22.00 to CL 

43.16 

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - 

Other

Roadway Roadway - other 71.00 47.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 36.00 30.00 115.00 82.00

The Before/After analysis is based on 3 years instead of 5 years of data.

The evaluation results were not included in this table because we are currently reviewing and updating our benefit/cost methodology under a Task Order with the University of Nevada, Reno.
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 of 39

Compliance Assessment

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

 10/11/2016

What are the years being covered by the current SHSP? 

From: 2016 To: 2020

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

 2020

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

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment Identifier 

(12)

100 100 100 100 100 100

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

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 100 100 100

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100 75

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 20 20

Access Control (22) 45 45
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 36 of 39

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

One/Two Way 

Operations (91)

100 100

Number of Through 

Lanes (31)

100 100

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100 100 100 100 100

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100 100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

30 30

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187) 100 100
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

ROAD TYPE MIRE NAME (MIRE 

NO.)

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - SEGMENT

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - INTERSECTION

NON LOCAL PAVED

ROADS - RAMPS LOCAL PAVED ROADS UNPAVED ROADS

NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE STATE NON-STATE

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 100 100

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 92.50 91.11 66.25 66.25 45.45 45.45 66.67 66.67 100.00 100.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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

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

Hire a consultant to assist with the planning, implementation and evaluation of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as it relates to MIRE data element requirements. The planning phase will include: Identifying processes for 

collecting and maintaining a record of crash, roadway, traffic and vehicle data on all public roads including railway-highway grade crossings inventory data that includes but is not limited to the characteristics of both highway and train 

traffic. Expanding the agency’s roadway inventory and traffic elements important to safety management to include all segments of our local roads. Identifying which HPMS data elements can be used in conjunction with the elements that 

comprise the MIRE data. Prioritizing the collection of data elements on Federal-aid roads and then expanding to non-Federal-aid roads The implementation phase will identify data collection costs, funding sources, safety tools, collection 

methodologies, time schedules and other resources. The evaluation phase shall include HSIP quality control measures to ensure the accuracy of the State’s safety data and established performance measures.

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

No

When does the State plan to complete its next HSIP program assessment.

2020
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Flow Chart3 .pdf

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

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Nevada Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 39 of 39

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 noninfrastructure 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.