Page 1 of 39

ARIZONA

2019 ANNUAL REPORT
2019 Arizona 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 ....................................................................................................................... 7

Project Implementation .......................................................................................................................14

Funds Programmed.........................................................................................................................14

General Listing of Projects ..............................................................................................................16

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.......................................................................................................................33

Compliance Assessment.....................................................................................................................34
2019 Arizona 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 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 4 of 39

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 State 

Fiscal Year (SFY) 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.
2019 Arizona 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can potentially reduce, supports the AZ SHSP, and B/C ratio of equal to or greater than 2.5. The approved 

HSIP eligible project is then ranked by the HSIP Program Manager based on the B/C ratio." A Safety Review 

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

approves the proposed list. The HSIP Program Manager then presents the list to the Director, TSM&O for final 

ranking and approval. Once the prioritized HSIP eligible list for the year is approved, the HSIP Program 

Manager issues the approved HSIP eligibility letters and enters the projects in the ADOT Five Year 

Transportation Facilities Construction Program.

Where is HSIP staff located within the State DOT? 

 Other-TSM&O

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

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

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

How are HSIP funds allocated in a State? 

• Central Office via Statewide Competitive Application Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

been provided HSIP funds to develop Strategic Transportation Plans (STSP) with projects to support the State 
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 6 of 39

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

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

throughout the process of identifying and developing the projects. 

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

Bureaus, Divisions) are involved with HSIP planning. 

• Design

• Districts/Regions

• Maintenance

• Operations

• Planning

• Traffic Engineering/Safety

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

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. 

• FHWA

• Law Enforcement Agency

• Local Government Agency 

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

• Tribal Agency

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

through the Road Safety Assessment (RSA)application process available at 

https://azdot.gov/business/transportation-systems-management-and-operations/operational-and-trafficsafety/road-safety

Describe coordination with external partners. 

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

workshops, and advisory groups. ADOT TSS encourages local and state agencies to submit their draft HSIP 

applications in advance of the final submittal date for the call for projects so the application can be reviewed 

and comments provided to the agencies to ensure a successful application. In addition to the direct 

involvement through the HSIP application process, agencies can participate in the Road Safety Assessment 

(RSA) program which can lead to HSIP applications. RSA applications are made available at: 

https://azdot.gov/business/transportation-systems-management-and-operations/operational-and-trafficsafety/road-safety
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 7 of 39

Program Methodology

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

implementation and evaluation processes? 

Yes

FileName:

2015 HSIP Manual (RevDec18)

HSIP Appendix A

HSIP Appendix_B

HSIP Appendix_C

HSIP Appendix_D

https://azdot.gov/business/transportation-systems-management-and-operations/operational-and-traffic-safety

Select the programs that are administered under the HSIP. 

• HRRR

• Roadway Departure

• Shoulder Improvement

• Wrong Way Driving

• Other-RSA

• Other-Tree Removal

Program: HRRR

Date of Program Methodology:5/1/2015

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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

Traffic 

Volume 

Lane miles 

Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 8 of 39

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? 

• selection committee

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

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

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:1

Available funding:2

Program: Roadway Departure

Date of Program Methodology:6/29/2012

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

• Relative severity index

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

program? 

Yes
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 9 of 39

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

Yes

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

• Competitive application process

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

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

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

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Shoulder Improvement

Date of Program Methodology:4/30/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only Volume Functional classification 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• 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
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 10 of 39

How are projects under this program advanced for implementation? 

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

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

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

Enter either the weights or numerical rankings. If weights are entered, the sum must 

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

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

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Wrong Way Driving

Date of Program Methodology:4/11/2017

What is the justification for this program? 

• Addresses SHSP priority or emphasis area

What is the funding approach for this program? 

Funding set-aside

What data types were used in the program methodology? 

Crashes Exposure Roadway 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

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. 
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 11 of 39

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

April 11, 2017 an HSIP eligibility letter was approved to fund Statewide – Wrong Way/Do Not Enter Sign 

Installation.

Program: Other-RSA

Date of Program Methodology:1/10/2006

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 

Median width 

Horizontal curvature 

Roadside features 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

Yes

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

Yes

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 
2019 Arizona 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).

Rank of Priority Consideration

Ranking based on B/C:2

Available funding:1

Program: Other-Tree Removal

Date of Program Methodology:6/15/2010

What is the justification for this program? 

• 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 

Fatal and serious injury crashes only 

What project identification methodology was used for this program? 

• Crash frequency

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

program? 

No

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

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
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 13 of 39

What percentage of HSIP funds address systemic improvements? 

 20

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

• Add/Upgrade/Modify/Remove Traffic Signal

• Clear Zone Improvements

• Horizontal curve signs

• Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation

• Pavement/Shoulder Widening

• Rumble Strips

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

• Stakeholder input

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 

commercial freight and passenger vehicles. Connected vehicle infrastructure, comprised of the roadside units, 

on-board units, communication network and software platforms, will allow significantly improved traffic 

management systems through the dissemination of information, such as basic safety messages. Areas of 

potential improvement will be in speed harmonization, queue warning, and 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 associated 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 few years has been focused on bring Safety Analyst 

on-line. It currently has been used to identify systemic projects on the State Highway System.
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 14 of 39

Project Implementation

Funds Programmed

Reporting period for HSIP funding. 

State 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) $32,992,353 $32,992,353 100%

HRRR Special Rule (23 

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

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

154)

$0 $0 0%

Penalty Funds (23 U.S.C. 

164)

$0 $0 0%

RHCP (for HSIP 

purposes) (23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(2))

$0 $0 0%

Other Federal-aid Funds 

(i.e. STBG, NHPP)

$0 $0 0%

State and Local Funds $498,477 $498,477 100%

Totals $33,490,830 $33,490,830 100%

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

safety projects?

23%

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

23%

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

6%

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

6%

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 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 15 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? 

0%

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

the future. 

None
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 16 of 39

General Listing of Projects

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

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

M6945; La Paz County 

CRASH DATA - TRACS 

(TRAFFIC CRIMINAL 

SOFTWARE)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Enforcement 

Agencies

$23575 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Data Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

T0180; PEART RD; JK BLVD 

- AVENIDA ELLENA

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

5 Miles $154708 $154708 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 17,00

0

45 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

H8930; SR-377; SR277 - 

S77

Roadway Roadway 

widening - curve 

2 Curves $1111262 $1178433 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 2,341 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

M6983; STRATIGIC 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN 

UPDATE - FY19

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 STSP $235750 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A STSP Provides 

comprehensiv

e framework

H8388; US 95; US 95 AND 

8E Traffic Signal,Safety 

intersection improvement

Intersection 

geometry

Intersection 

geometry - other

1 Intersections $2184148 $2184148 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther12,42

4

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

T0031; City of Glendale 

VARIOUS LOCATIONS - 

FLASHING YELLOW 

ARROWS

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify traffic 

signal - add 

flashing yellow 

arrow

12 Signal heads $1218179 $1218179 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther0 0 City Systemic Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

F0029; SR 95 AT KIOWA 

BLVD - RIGHT TURN 

LANES RAISED MED

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn 

lane

2 Lanes $1194414 $1266610 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther22,39

4

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

T0169; MACRAE RD - 

WOODRUFF RD to VAH KI 

INN RD

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

7.2 Miles $117836 $117836 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 4,991 40 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 17 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

F0186; I-10 & US 60 URBAN 

SAFETY CORRIDORS 

(SPEED FEEDBACK 

SIGNS)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

4 Signs $126362 $126362 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialInterstate0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management

H7637; SR 70, BYLAS AREA Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Locations $1076234 $1076234 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 0 45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Making 

walking and 

street crossing 

safer

H8919; SR 77, RIVER RDCALLE CONCORDIA Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Install sidewalk 5 Miles $101844 $101844 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Principal ArterialOther42,11

5

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Pedestrians Making 

walking and 

street crossing 

safer

F0143; STATEWIDE 

HORIZONTAL CURVE 

SIGNS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

4813 Signs $986334 $986334 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

M6974; STATEWIDE 

CRASH HOT SPOTS - 

SPEED RELATED

Speed 

management

Radar speed 

signs

68 Speed 

Feedback 

Trailers

$311190 $330000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management

M6950; LED ENHANCED 

SPEED LIMIT SIGNS - CMF 

STUDY

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 CMF Study $25461 $27000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural N/A 0 0 COG Systemic Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management

F0019; SOUTHEAST 

DISTRICT SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Rumble strips - 

edge or shoulder

188.8 Miles $1699582 $1699582 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

F0164; SR 68 MP 8.5 - MP 

11, SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway 

delineation

Delineators postmounted or on 

barrier 

2.5 Miles $378143 $378143 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

M6977; SR 68 

PRECONSTRUCTION 

SAFETY CORRIDOR

Speed 

management

Speed 

management - 

other

1 Enforcement $94300 $100000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management

SH600; CENTRAL YAVAPAI 

COUNTY, VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

2192 Signs $110000 $110000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 COG Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0165; JUAN SANCHEZ 

BLVD; 10th AVE to AVE E

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

3 Miles $318374 $318374 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

0 65 Town or 

Township 

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 18 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

Highway 

Agency

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

SH607; SIGN INVENTORY 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/ 

SIGN UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1920 Signs $240007 $240007 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 City Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0117; PAVEMENT 

MARKINGS UPGRADE 

CATALINA HWY-ARIVACA 

RD

Roadway 

delineation

Improve 

retroreflectivity

47.6 Miles $551000 $576000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Major Collector 1,562 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

H8838; RUINS DR AT SR87 Intersection 

traffic control

Intersection 

traffic control - 

other

1 Intersections $84870 $84870 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 11,99

8

50 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

M6949; SMART WORK 

ZONE (SMZ) STUDY

Noninfrastructure Noninfrastructure - 

other

1 SMZ 

Specifications

$235750 $250000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Work Zones Develop and 

improve workzone design 

and mgt 

practices

F0025; I-17; NEW RIVER 

(MP 232 TO SR 169 (MP 

279)

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

4 DMS and 

Speed 

Feedback 

Signs

$130898 $130898 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate31,76

5

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management

F0178; ROAD SAFETY 

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Noninfrastructure Road safety 

audits

1 RSA Program $348910 $376000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A RSA 

Program

RSA Program

H8265; SR 92 @ 

FOOTHILLS BLVD

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1 Intersections $3225170 $3225170 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 25,69

6

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH596; CITY OF 

FLAGSTAFF VARIOUS 

LOCATIONS

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

4165 Signs $290797 $290797 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Local Road or 

Street

0 0 City Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH511; SWITZER 

CANYON/TURQUOISE 

DRIVE ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $1334259 $1334259 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

13,60

0

45 City Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH628; LED ENHANCED 

SPEED LIMIT SIGN

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

20 Signs $91414 $91414 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 COG Spot Speeding 

and 

Aggressive 

Driving

Speed 

Management
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 19 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

H8859; SR70, SAN CARLOS 

HIGH SCHOOL - BIA 170

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add right-turn 

lane

1 Intersections $130542 $138433 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 8,875 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8877; SR 87, RANDOLPH 

RD INTERSECTION

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $17979 $19066 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Arterial 7,736 55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

PSG18; 2018 WORK 

PROGRAM SEAGO

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportatio

n Safety Plan

$173328.2

3

$183805 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 COG N/A Intersection

s

Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

T0032; PHB, 8TH ST AND 

21ST AVE - YUMA

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Pedestrian signal 

- Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacon

1 Locations $198974 $198974 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 15,14

6

35 City Spot Pedestrians Making 

walking and 

street crossing 

safer

PNG18; 2018 PL WORK 

PROGRAM (NACOG)

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportatio

n Safety Plan

$245000 $259809 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 COG N/A Data Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

SH603; SIGN INVENTORYVARIOUS LOCATIONSRoadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1243 Signs $116274 $116274 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 Town or 

Township 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

H8308; SR 

88/SUPERSTITION BLVD - 

ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $3962768 $3962768 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 5,822 40 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SS998; RIO RICO DR & 

PENDLETON DR 

INTERSECTION IMPROVE 

Intersection 

geometry

Auxiliary lanes - 

add left-turn lane

1 Intersections $259325 $275000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Local Road or 

Street

8,450 35 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

H8659; US 93, WINDY 

POINT ROAD - MINERAL 

PARK ROAD

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10.5 Miles $213118 $226000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther24,31

3

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

H8658; US 93, ELEVENTH 

ST - WINDY POINT ROAD

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

10 Miles $205574 $218000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther14,70

0

65 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 20 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

infrastructure 

improvements

M5167; CRASH DATA - 

TRACS (TRAFFIC 

CRIMINAL SOFTWARE)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Enforcement 

Agencies

$23575 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Data Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

M5212; CRASH DATA - 

TRACS (TRAFFIC 

CRIMINAL SOFTWARE)

Noninfrastructure Data/traffic 

records

1 Enforcement 

Agencies

$25000 $25000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

N/A Data Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

H8489; SR 95 @ MOHAVE 

RD - ROUNDABOUT

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

all-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $885267 $885267 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther5,000 35 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

SH571; REAY LANE; US70 - 

SAFFORD BRYCE ROAD

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

0.2 Miles $106971 $113437 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Minor Collector 1,317 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

F0020; 

SOUTHCENTRAL/CENTRA

L DISTRICT SAFETY 

IMPROVEMENTS

Roadway Rumble strips - 

center

44.87 Miles $551035 $551035 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther0 0 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

PYM18; YMPO-STSP 

UPDATE

Noninfrastructure Transportation 

safety planning

1 Transportatio

n Safety Plan

$87000 $92258 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

N/A N/A 0 0 COG N/A Data Improve 

analysis and 

sharing of 

safety data

H7167; SR 92; BUFFALO 

SOLDIER TRAIL - KACHINA 

TRAIL

Access 

management

Access 

management - 

other

1 Raised 

Median

$938643 $995380 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Minor Arterial 22,90

0

55 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Lane 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

F0146; SR 95, AZTEC 

ROAD - S. BULLHEAD CITY 

Intersection 

traffic control

Modify control - 

two-way stop to 

roundabout

1 Intersections $849000 $849000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialOther32,00

0

45 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

H8557; GILA BEND REST 

AREA - I-10

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Sign sheeting - 

upgrade or 

replacement

948 Signs $1881390 $1881390 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate9,367 75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 21 of 39

PROJECT NAME IMPROVEMEN

T CATEGORY

SUBCATEGOR

Y

OUTPUT

S

OUTPUT 

TYPE

HSIP 

PROJECT 

COST($)

TOTAL 

PROJEC

T 

COST($)

FUNDING 

CATEGOR

Y

LAND 

USE/AREA 

TYPE

FUNCTIONAL 

CLASSIFICATIO

N

AADT SPEE

D

OWNERSHI

P

METHOD 

FOR SITE 

SELECTIO

N

SHSP 

EMPHASIS 

AREA

SHSP 

STRATEGY

T0146; SIGN PANEL 

REPLACEMENT

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

38901 Signs $643000 $643000 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Multiple/Varies 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH533; PAG REGION 

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

and traffic control 

- other

1 Intersections $56580 $56580 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 County 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

F0023; I-10, DRAGOON 

ROAD - JOHNSON ROAD 

PHII

Shoulder 

treatments

Widen shoulder - 

paved or other

5.5 Rock 

Removal

$2065327 $2171240 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Principal ArterialInterstate14,94

4

75 State 

Highway 

Agency

Systemic Roadway 

Departure

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

roadway 

infrastructure 

improvements

SH634; SIGN MGMT 

SYSTEM/SIGN UPGRADE

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

2490 Signs $151688 $151688 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 City Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

T0113; NACOG REGIONAL 

SIGN REPLACEMENT - 

PHASE 3

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

1710 Signs $596470 $596470 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 COG Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility

SH568; 4TH AVE 

/CONGRESS 

STREET/TOOLE AVE -CITY 

OF TUCSON

Pedestrians and 

bicyclists

Miscellaneous 

pedestrians and 

bicyclists

1 Crosswalks $286829 $286829 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Urban Major Collector 0 0 City Spot Pedestrians Making 

walking and 

street crossing 

safer

SS991; 8TH AVE & 

AIRPORT ROAD

Roadway Roadway - other 1 Intersections $65012.32 $65012.3

2

HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Rural Local Road or 

Street

4,595 45 County 

Highway 

Agency

Spot Intersection

s

Reduce 

fatalities 

through 

geometric 

configuration

T0009; SIGN 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM & 

SIGN INSTALLATION 

Roadway signs 

and traffic 

control

Roadway signs 

(including post) - 

new or updated

3360 Signs $255912 $255912 HSIP (23 

U.S.C. 148)

Multiple/Varie

s

Multiple/Varies 0 0 City Systemic Signage Improve 

retroreflectivity 

and visibility
2019 Arizona 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 759 827 821 849 774 897 952 998 1,010

Serious Injuries 4,648 4,598 4,508 4,329 3,966 4,213 4,604 4,194 3,738

Fatality rate (per 

HMVMT)

1.270 1.390 1.370 1.400 1.240 1.380 1.450 1.530 1.530

Serious injury rate (per 

HMVMT)

7.760 7.720 7.500 7.150 6.330 6.480 7.020 6.450 5.650

Number non-motorized 

fatalities

173 177 149 189 184 191 224 258 269

Number of nonmotorized serious 

injuries

552 568 572 502 484 486 643 569 553
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 23 of 39

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Fatalities

Fatalities 5 Year Rolling Avg.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Serious Injuries

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

Page 24 of 39

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

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

8

9

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT)

Serious injury rate (per HMVMT) 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Arizona 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

79.6 208 0.12 0.32

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

1.8 0.2 0 0

Rural Principal 

Arterial (RPA) - Other

69 159.4 0.11 0.25

Rural Minor Arterial 42.4 80.2 0.07 0.12

Rural Minor Collector 13.2 22.8 0.02 0.04

Rural Major Collector 74.2 153.2 0.11 0.24

Rural Local Road or 

Street

46.6 25.6 0.07 0.04

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Non Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Fatalities Serious Injuries 5 Year Rolling Avg.
2019 Arizona 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

55.8 177.6 0.09 0.27

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other 

Freeways and 

Expressways

38 219 0.06 0.34

Urban Principal 

Arterial (UPA) - Other

239.2 687.8 0.37 1.06

Urban Minor Arterial 161.2 1,591.4 0.25 2.45

Urban Minor Collector 2.8 5.8 0 0.01

Urban Major Collector 40.8 237.4 0.06 0.37

Urban Local Road or 

Street

53.6 62 0.08 0.1
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 27 of 39

Year 2018

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

318.8 447.8 0.49 0.68

County Highway 

Agency

58.2 154 0.09 0.24

Town or Township 

Highway Agency

7.4 5 0.01 0.01

City or Municipal 

Highway Agency

294.2 963.6 0.45 1.47

State Park, Forest, or 

Reservation Agency

0 0 0 0

Local Park, Forest or 

Reservation Agency

0.2 0 0 0

Other State Agency 0 0 0 0

Other Local Agency 0 0 0 0

Private (Other than 

Railroad)

0.6 0.8 0 0

Railroad 0 0 0 0

State Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Local Toll Authority 0 0 0 0

Other Public 

Instrumentality (e.g. 

Airport, School, 

University)

0.2 0 0 0

Indian Tribe Nation 0.8 2.2 0 0

Safety Performance Targets

Safety Performance Targets 

Calendar Year 2020 Targets *

Number of Fatalities:1014.4

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 
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 28 of 39

Plan, the projections do not reflect the goals of the plan which call for a 3-7 percent reduction in 

fatalities and serious injury crashes by the end of 2019.

Number of Serious Injuries:3934.0

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.

Fatality Rate:1.522

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:5.936

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:865.4

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.

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

safety performance targets. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

support the suggested targets.
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 29 of 39

Does the State want to report additional optional targets? 

No

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. 

After the review of the actual crash data for 2018 and compare the numbers to 2018 targets that were reported 

in August 2017 HSIP report and 2016 baseline, Arizona is making progress toward meeting the State's 2018 

Safety Performance Targets (based on data available as of August 30, 2019). Anticipated at least 4 out of 5 

targets will be met.

Applicability of Special Rules

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

No 

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

90 110 105 126 121 131 173

Number of Older Driver 

and Pedestrian Serious 

Injuries

349 396 328 421 421 373 386
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 30 of 39

Evaluation

Program Effectiveness

How does the State measure effectiveness of the HSIP? 

• Benefit/Cost Ratio

• Change in fatalities and serious injuries

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

the State's program level evaluations. 

None

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

success of the Highway Safety Improvement Program? 

• # RSAs completed

• HSIP Obligations

• Increased awareness of safety and data-driven process

• Increased focus on local road safety

• More systemic programs

Effectiveness of Groupings or Similar Types of Improvements

Present and describe trends in SHSP emphasis area performance measures. 

Year 2018

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 610.8 1,720.8 0.94 2.65 0 0 0

Roadway Departure 596 1,137.2 0.92 1.75 0 0 0

Intersections 253.4 1,844.4 0.39 2.84 0 0 0

Pedestrians 196.6 363.2 0.3 0.56 0 0 0

Bicyclists 28.8 183 0.05 0.28 0 0 0

Older Drivers 93.6 346.4 0.14 0.54 0 0 0

Motorcyclists 144.4 647 0.22 1 0 0 0

Work Zones 12.4 32.2 0.02 0.05 0 0 0

Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 31 of 39

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Fatalities

Number of Fatalities 

5 Year Average

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries 

5 Year Average

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

Page 32 of 39

Has the State completed any countermeasure effectiveness evaluations during the 

reporting period? 

No

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

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

3

3.5

Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per HMVMT) 

5 Year Average

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

Page 33 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)

none
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 34 of 39

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

The updated SHSP is in its final draft format and upon completion will be forwarded to the Governor for signature by October 2019.

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 50

Route Number (8) 100 100

Route/Street Name 

(9)

100 100

Federal Aid/Route 

Type (21)

100 100

Rural/Urban 

Designation (20)

100 100 100 100

Surface Type (23) 100 100 100 100

Begin Point 

Segment Descriptor 

(10)

100 100 100 50

End Point Segment 

Descriptor (11)

100 100 100 50

Segment Length 

(13)

100 100

Direction of 

Inventory (18)

100

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100 100 100

Median Type (54) 100 100

Access Control (22) 100 100
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 35 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 10 100 10

Average Annual 

Daily Traffic (79)

100 100 100 10

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 10 100 10

INTERSECTION Unique Junction 

Identifier (120)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 1 Crossing 

Point (122)

100

Location Identifier 

for Road 2 Crossing 

Point (123)

100

Intersection/Junction 

Geometry (126)

Intersection/Junction 

Traffic Control (131)

AADT for Each 

Intersecting Road 

(79)

100 100

AADT Year (80) 100 100

Unique Approach 

Identifier (139)

INTERCHANGE/RAMP Unique Interchange 

Identifier (178)

100 100

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (197)

Location Identifier 

for Roadway at 

Ending Ramp 

Terminal (201)

Ramp Length (187) 100 10
2019 Arizona 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

Roadway Type at 

Beginning of Ramp 

Terminal (195)

100

Roadway Type at 

End Ramp Terminal 

(199)

100

Interchange Type 

(182)

Ramp AADT (191) 100 10

Year of Ramp AADT 

(192)

100 10

Functional Class 

(19)

100 100

Type of 

Governmental 

Ownership (4)

100 100

Totals (Average Percent Complete): 100.00 84.44 62.50 25.00 72.73 30.00 100.00 53.33 0.00 0.00

*Based on Functional Classification

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 

• Vacant 

• Kerry Wilcoxon 

Information Technology Group (ITG) 

• Mark Flahan 

• Scott Parkey* 

• Tom Tyndall 

Multimodal Planning Division (MPD)
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 37 of 39

• Mick Cseri* 

• James Meyer 

• Patrick Whiteford 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPD/ITG/TSMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No

The last HSIP Program Review was completed in May 2018 and submitted as an attachment to last year's HSIP Annual Report.

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

2023
2019 Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program

Page 38 of 39

Optional Attachments

Program Structure:

HSIP Appendix_D (Dec 18).pdf

HSIP Appendix_C.pdf

HSIP Appendix_ B.pdf

HSIP Appendix A(Rev Dec18).pdf

2015 HSIP Manual (RevDec18).pdf

Project Implementation:

Safety Performance:

Evaluation:

Compliance Assessment:
2019 Arizona 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 

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

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

p

d

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.