CLIMBING AND PASSING LANE PRIORITIZATION STUDY Final Report February 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 2 Project Charter.......................................................................................................................... 3 Technical Advisory Committee .................................................................................................... 3 Agency/Stakeholder Coordination .............................................................................................. 4 ADOT Partnering Process ........................................................................................................... 4 Study Process ............................................................................................................................ 4 Passing/Climbing Lanes - Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) .................................................... 5 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES, REPORTS, AND RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 6 ADOT’s Previous Methodology to Identify and Prioritize Passing Lane Locations .............................. 6 State-of-the-Practice Research for Passing Lanes........................................................................... 8 ADOT’s Previous Methodology to Identify and Prioritize Climbing Lane Locations .......................... 12 State-of-the-Practice Research for Climbing Lanes ...................................................................... 14 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................17 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 17 Existing Passing and Climbing Lane Inventory ............................................................................. 18 Evaluation of Existing Passing/Climbing Lanes - “Before and After” Comparison ........................... 28 4. ROUND ONE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ...............................................................................................29 5. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................................43 Methodology for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways .............................................................. 43 Methodology for Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ............................................................ 45 Methodology for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways ............................................................ 46 Round Two Stakeholder Outreach ............................................................................................ 48 6. SUMMARY RESULTS – PASSING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS ........................................................49 7. SUMMARY RESULTS – CLIMBING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS ......................................................83 8. SUMMARY RESULTS – CLIMBING LANES ON MULTILANE HIGHWAYS...................................................101 APPENDIX A i LIST OF FIGURES 1.1: Study Process .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1: KSDOT Suggested Minimum AADT for LOS B and C in Level and Rolling Terrain ........................ 10 2.2: TxDOT Recommended Values of Length and Spacing by ADT and Terrain .................................. 11 3.1: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Flagstaff District ....................................................... 19 3.2: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Globe District.......................................................... 20 3.3: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Holbrook District ..................................................... 21 3.4: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Kingman District ...................................................... 22 3.5: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Prescott District........................................................ 23 3.6: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Safford District ........................................................ 24 3.7: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Tucson District......................................................... 25 3.8: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Yuma District .......................................................... 26 4.1: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Flagstaff District ................................ 35 4.2: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Globe District ................................... 36 4.3: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Holbrook District............................... 37 4.4: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Kingman District ............................... 38 4.5: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Prescott District ................................. 39 4.6: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Safford District .................................. 40 4.7: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Tucson District .................................. 41 4.8: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Yuma District .................................... 42 5.1: Identification Process for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ................................................. 43 5.2: Prioritization Process for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways .................................................. 44 5.3: Identification Process for Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ............................................... 45 5.4: Identification Process for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways ............................................... 46 5.5: Prioritization Process for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways ................................................ 47 6.1: Statewide Ranking of Passing Lanes......................................................................................... 52 6.2: Passing Lane Rankings - Flagstaff District ................................................................................. 53 6.3: Passing Lane Rankings - Globe District .................................................................................... 54 6.4: Passing Lane Rankings - Holbrook District................................................................................ 55 6.5: Passing Lane Rankings – Kingman District ................................................................................ 56 ii LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) 6.6: Passing Lane Rankings - Prescott District .................................................................................. 57 6.7: Passing Lane Rankings - Safford District ................................................................................... 58 6.8: Passing Lane Rankings - Tucson District ................................................................................... 59 6.9: Passing Lane Rankings – Yuma District .................................................................................... 60 7.1: Statewide Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings .......................................................... 85 7.2: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Flagstaff District ............................................... 86 7.3: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Globe District.................................................. 87 7.4: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Holbrook District ............................................. 88 7.5: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Kingman District .............................................. 89 7.6: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Prescott District ................................................ 90 7.7: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Safford District ................................................ 91 7.8: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Tucson District................................................. 92 8.1: Statewide Ranking of Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways .................................................. 103 8.2: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Flagstaff District ............................................. 104 8.3: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Kingman District ............................................ 105 8.4: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Prescott District .............................................. 106 8.5: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Safford District ............................................... 107 8.6: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Tucson District ............................................... 108 8.7: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Yuma District ................................................. 109 iii LIST OF TABLES 2.1: Current Passing Lanes Methodology Data Items and Sources....................................................... 6 2.2: Performance Criteria for Ranking Candidate Passing Lane Locations ............................................ 7 2.3: Current Climbing Lanes Methodology Data Items and Sources .................................................. 12 2.4: Performance Criteria for Ranking Candidate Climbing Lane Locations ........................................ 14 3.1: Data Items and Sources ......................................................................................................... 17 3.2: Passing and Climbing Lanes by ADOT Districts ........................................................................ 18 3.3: EPDO Conversion Factors ...................................................................................................... 27 3.4: “Before and After” Crash Analysis ........................................................................................... 28 3.5: “Before and After” Level of Service Comparison ....................................................................... 28 4.1: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Flagstaff District ................................ 30 4.2: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Globe District ................................... 31 4.3: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Holbrook District............................... 31 4.4: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Kingman District ............................... 31 4.5: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Prescott District ................................. 32 4.6: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Safford District .................................. 33 4.7: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Tucson District .................................. 33 4.8: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Yuma District .................................... 34 5.1: Prioritization Criteria for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways .................................................. 44 5.2: Prioritization Criteria for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways ................................................ 47 6.1: Prioritized List of Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ............................................................. 49 7.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ........................................................... 83 8.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways ......................................................... 101 iv Acronyms AADT ADOT ALISS ATIS CL COG DOT EB EPDO GIS HCM HPMS LOS MPO NB PDO PL SB STIP TAC TDMS VMT WB Annual Average Daily Traffic Arizona Department of Transportation Accident Location Information and Surveillance System Arizona Transportation. Information System Climbing Lane Council of Government Department of Transportation Eastbound Equivalent Property Damage Only Geographic Information System Highway Capacity Manual Highway Performance Monitoring System Level of Service Metropolitan Planning Organization Northbound Property Damage Only Passing Lane Southbound Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Technical Advisory Committee Transportation Data Management System Vehicle Miles Traveled Westbound v 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW In 1999, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) commissioned a study to:  Establish a process to identify locations where a passing or climbing lane would provide benefit to the traveling public; and  Rank the identified passing and climbing lanes locations by the most effective and feasible projects. The end result of that study was a prioritized list of general locations for passing and climbing lanes within Arizona. In 2003, the study was updated to refine the previous methodology and to identify and reprioritize passing and climbing lane locations. Since this study was completed there has been a significant change in traffic patterns on the Arizona State Highway System that warranted the need to develop an updated list of passing and climbing lane candidate locations. The purpose of this study is to further enhance the 2003 methodology and to develop a new priority list of locations for passing and climbing lanes utilizing ADOT's more robust and current transportation datasets. For the purpose of this study, passing and climbing lanes are defined as: Passing Lane - Additional lane on highways to facilitate the passing of all types of slow moving vehicles at locations other than sustained grades where passing opportunities are unavailable or very limited over a long stretch of highway. Climbing Lane - Additional lane on steep upgrades to facilitate the passing of trucks and slow moving vehicles whose speed drops because of the sustained grade rather than a lack of passing opportunity over a long stretch of highway. Key benefits of incorporating passing and climbing lanes on highways include:    Reduced delays at specific bottleneck locations, such as steep upgrades where slow-moving vehicles are present; Improved overall traffic operations by breaking up traffic platoons and reducing delays caused by inadequate passing opportunities over substantial lengths of highway; and Improved safety by reducing the need for passing vehicles to travel in the opposing lane. While passing and climbing lanes are physically identical, they serve two different purposes. Usually passing lanes are used on two-lane highways, while climbing lanes are utilized on extended upgrade locations on two-lane and multilane highways.   For two-lane highways with moderate to high traffic volume levels, lack of passing opportunities at regular intervals often results in long queues and poor performance. In lieu of costly widening projects, adding a passing lane at these locations alleviates the problem. For two-lane highways with extended upgrade locations, trucks and other slow moving vehicles experience significant drop in speed causing long queues and poor performance even with low traffic volume levels. Adding a climbing lane at these locations alleviates the problem and 1  significantly enhances safety by reducing the need for passing vehicles to maneuver into the opposing lane. For multilane highways, "no passing" zones are not an issue. However, a highway with extended upgrade locations and high truck traffic causes the trucks to experience a significant drop in speed results in excessive queuing and unsafe conditions. Adding a climbing lane at these locations alleviates the problem. For these reasons, this study identified, evaluated, and prioritized passing and climbing lanes for the following scenarios:    Passing lanes on two-lane highways Climbing lanes on two-lane highways Climbing lanes on multilane highways PURPOSE AND NEED With the ultimate purpose of enhancing safety and improving mobility, the Climbing and Passing Lane Prioritization Study was initiated to develop a prioritized list of candidate locations for climbing and passing lanes. The need for this study stems directly from ADOT’s desire to increase safety and mobility along the Arizona State Highway System. The project purpose is demonstrated with the following statement of need:    Update the Methodology. The previous study and methodology has not been updated since 2003. ADOT now has more accurate data and several newer datasets which could be utilized to enhance the previous methodology to produce better recommendations. Update the List of Passing/Climbing Lane Locations. Since the last update, there has been a significant change in traffic patterns on the Arizona State Highway System that warranted the need to develop an updated list of passing and climbing lane candidate locations. In addition, several of the recommendations from the previous study have since been implemented and the list has to be updated. Address Safety and Improve Mobility. Adding a passing/climbing lane along an existing highway is one of the most cost effective ways to enhance safety and improve mobility. New passing/climbing lane locations would provide a tremendous benefit to the traveling public. 2 PROJECT CHARTER At the first Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, a Project Charter was developed with assistance from members of the TAC. As part of the Project Charter, a Mission Statement and Goals were developed to provide guidance to the study team. Mission Statement Develop a needs based prioritization for Climbing and Passing Lane locations on the Arizona State Highway System Study Goals Quality - Enhance safety and improve mobility; when typical design standards can’t be met, reference the 2010 Highway Safety Manual for additional guidance; work towards objective and needs based prioritization for climbing and passing lanes; consider best practices from other states Communication - Create a website to house climbing and passing lane study documents; reach every team member and/or intended recipient when communicating Issue Resolution - Be proactive with resolving issues; understand the process for how this team moves issues forward and resolve issues timely; discuss at TAC meetings as necessary to communicate decisions to all team members Teamwork - Interrelationships understood; work together to meet the challenge; take ownership of the study Schedule - Keep and attend scheduled meetings; meet the delivery dates for the prioritization Budget - Identify projects that can realistically be programmed; sensitivity to the route and route continuity (best bang for the dollar); communicate the need for specified funding for climbing/passing lanes Project Delivery - Reach consensus on how to prioritize; include functional class factor when setting priorities; prepare a needs based prioritization that is defendable and can be reviewed annually – the end result is the list TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The study is guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The role of the TAC is to provide technical guidance, support, advice, suggestions, recommendations, and to perform document reviews throughout the study process. TAC members included representatives from: ADOT Statewide Project Management ADOT State Engineer’s Office ADOT Engineering Districts ADOT Communications Division ADOT Multimodal Planning Federal Highway Administration ADOT Traffic Design/Safety ADOT Partnering Section ADOT Roadway Design 3 AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION To develop a thorough understanding of the issues, deficiencies, and needs, the study team identified a core group of stakeholders and conducted two rounds of interviews. The stakeholders included representatives from each ADOT District office. The study team also sent out email notifications to each Council of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to request feedback. Stakeholders’ feedback summary is presented in later chapters of this document. ADOT PARTNERING PROCESS The Climbing and Passing Lane Prioritization Study was conducted as per the guidelines of ADOT’s Partnering Process. Partnering is a process of collaborative teamwork to achieve measurable results through agreements and productive working relationships. The Partnering Principles include Communication, Commitment, Cooperation, and Continuous Improvement, and assist project teams to jointly solve problems, increase work efficiency, improve the project delivery process, and build and strengthen relationships. Project teams that agree on measurable goals, and utilize the partnering principles are more successful, and meet or exceed budget and schedule goals. In short, Partnering is a formal way for groups to work together and resolve issues. The ADOT Partnering Office assisted with facilitating the creation of the collaborative partnership agreement. In addition, the Partnering facilitator assisted with setting up the measurement tool, Partnering Evaluation Program, or PEP. At the end of each TAC meeting, members were requested to complete and submit the PEP forms. STUDY PROCESS An eight step comprehensive process was used to complete this study. The study team maintained contact with TAC and stakeholders by meeting at regular intervals through the course of the study. Figure 1.1 illustrates the process utilized for this study. Figure 1.1: Study Process 4 PASSING/CLIMBING LANES - STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN (SHSP) ADOT recently adopted a Statewide SHSP; that is intended to be a “living” implementation document, coordinating the efforts of individual Emphasis Areas to the overall goals and objectives of the SHSP. The 2014 Arizona SHSP is a data-driven, strategic approach to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on state roads. The 2014 SHSP update defines 12 Emphasis Areas focused on improving specific areas of roadway safety. During the SHSP update process, the roadway infrastructure improvements were identified as an effective countermeasure. SHSP Section 14: Roadway Infrastructure and Operations | Lane / Roadway Departure This emphasis area addresses head-on crashes associated with highway segments. A head-on crash typically occurs when a vehicle crosses a centerline or a median and collides with an approaching vehicle, or when a driver travels the wrong way in a traffic lane. Head-on crashes are often a result of a driver’s inadvertent actions, such as running off the road, or deliberate actions, such as performing unsafe passing maneuvers. SHSP Section 14 – Goals and Objectives The Emphasis Area goal for SHSP Section 14 is to, “reduce fatalities and the occurrence of serious injuries on all public roadways in Arizona through enhance roadway infrastructure and operations.” The objectives for reducing the number of head-on fatal crashes are:    Keep vehicles from encroaching into the opposite lane, Minimize the likelihood of a car crashing into an oncoming vehicle, and Reduce the severity of crashes that occur. Effectiveness of Strategies and Proposed Action The construction of passing and climbing lanes is a strategy that supports the SHSP Section 14 goals and objectives. A variety of studies conducted over the last twenty years have shown that the addition of passing and climbing lanes on highways reduces accident rates. Jacobs validated the safety benefit of adding passing and climbing lanes by conducting a crash analysis of selected location on both two-lane and multilane highways. The results of this analysis are documented on page 28 and 29 of this document. 5 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES, REPORTS, AND RESEARCH ADOT’S PREVIOUS METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE PASSING LANE LOCATIONS The process for identifying and prioritizing passing lanes on the Arizona State Highway System was first developed by the 1999-2000 Climbing/Passing Lane Study and later updated in the 2003 Passing Lane Prioritization Update. The 2003 Passing Lane Prioritization Update identified issues in the 1999-2000 Study methodology and developed an enhanced methodology to identify and rank candidate passing lane locations. This section provides a summary of the methodology developed as part of the 2003 Study and are currently employed by ADOT to identify candidate locations and to establish an ultimate priority list of locations for passing lanes. Step 1. Identify "Universe" of Candidate Locations. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the datasets utilized to develop a "Universe" of potential passing lane locations. Using this data, the state highway system is divided into smaller segments to reflect roadway segments with similar roadway characteristics (i.e., segments with identical AADT, number of lanes, truck percentage, etc.). Level of Service (LOS) is then calculated for each segment based on a volume-to-capacity (VC) ratio to ensure equal weights were given to each segment. Segments with an LOS of B or worse are identified and used to create a list of preliminary locations for a passing lane. Table 2.1: Current Passing Lanes Methodology Data Items and Sources Data Item Data Source Number of Travel Lanes Roadway Log Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Passing Length, No Passing Length Striping Database Directional Distribution HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database K Factor HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Seasonal Adjustment Factors ADOT Data Center Truck Percentage HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Highway Geometrics ADOT Data Center Speed ADOT Data Center Terrain HPMS Accidents ALISS Accident Database – Traffic Records Source: 2003 Passing Lane Prioritization Update Step 2. Compare Candidate Locations to Locations Recommended by ADOT Engineering Districts. Based on their local knowledge, ADOT District Engineers create a list of recommended locations for a passing lane. The District's Engineer's candidate locations are then compared to the "Universe" candidate locations developed in Step 1. If candidate locations identified in Step 1 were not recommended by the District Engineers, roadway segments are verified against the data items presented in Table 2.1. A list of all candidate locations is developed based on locations identified in Step 1 and verified District Engineer recommendations. 6 Step 3. Select Preliminary List of Candidate Locations. Utilizing Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methods, the LOS is determined for each candidate location. On a two-lane highway, the estimated LOS is based on two factors: a. Percent-Time-Spent-Following reflects the average percentage of time a vehicle on a highway spends following other vehicles. Percent-time-spent-following is estimated from the demand flow rate, the directional distribution of traffic, and the percentage of no-passing zones. b. Average-Travel-Speed represents the actual speed a vehicle achieves on a highway (not speed limit) after taking into consideration factors such as grade, percentage of no passing zones, traffic volumes etc. Segments with a LOS of D or worse are identified and used to create a list of preliminary candidate locations of passing lanes. Step 4. Filter Preliminary List of Candidate Locations. The preliminary list of candidate locations identified in Step 3 are compared against ADOT's Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program. Candidate locations that are programmed are removed from the preliminary list in the ranking program in Step 5. Step 5. Rank Preliminary Candidate Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways. The preliminary list of candidate locations is ranked using performance criteria displayed in Table 2.2. For each performance criterion a standard score is computed for each candidate location; the standard score indicates how much the criterion deviates from the mean of all candidate locations. A total score for each candidate is computed by summing points for each criterion. Based on the total score of the candidate, the segments are ranked and divided into three tiers (with each tier representing a range of project scores). Table 2.2: Performance Criteria for Ranking Candidate Passing Lane Locations Performance Criteria Maximum Number of Points Mobility (Existing level-of-service) 5 Percent-time-spent-following 10 Average-travel-speed 5 Passing related accidents 10 Accident rate 10 Source: 2003 Passing Lane Prioritization Update Step 6. Compare Preliminary Candidates with Candidates Identified By ADOT Districts. For segments recommended by the ADOT Engineering Districts in Step 2, data is verified and evaluated to determine the need for a passing lane at the location. On a case by case basis, additional analysis may include review of grade, truck percentages, AADT, etc. Step 7. Review of Preliminary Candidates by ADOT Districts. ADOT Engineering Districts review the preliminary list of ranked candidate locations for the following information: a. Candidate location programmed or scoped for passing lanes or widening, b. Passing lane already exist, and 7 c. Viability or constructability. Step 8. Ultimate List of Ranked Candidate Locations for Passing Lanes after Districts Review. Upon review by the ADOT Engineering Districts, an ultimate list of candidate locations for passing lanes on two-lane highways is prepared by eliminating all segments that were either programmed or deemed not viable. This ultimate list is re-ranked using the procedures outlined in Step 5. STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE RESEARCH FOR PASSING LANES Reviewing current practices and methodologies utilized by state Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies and relevant technical literature often provides insight into best practices that ADOT can utilize to enhance or streamline the identification and prioritization of passing lanes. Literature Review Kansas Department of Transportation (KSDOT) Based on the Design Guidelines for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Two-way Rural Roads in Kansas study conducted by KSDOT, the following are methods and procedures utilized by KSDOT to identify and prioritize passing lanes. Overview: KSDOT utilizes a two-level process to determine highway segments that need passing lane(s). The two-level process includes:  Network Level Analysis - Two-lane rural highway segments that operate at a LOS below a predefined acceptable level are identified. HCM LOS procedures for rural two-lane highways are utilized to develop AADT service levels. Figure 2.1 illustrates the suggested minimum AADT for LOS B and C in level and rolling terrain that KSDOT utilizes to warrant a passing lane(s).  Project Level Analysis - Highway segments identified at the network level are ranked on the basis of their need for passing lanes. Utilizing a computer simulation tool, such as TWOPAS, detailed analysis of different passing lane length, spacing, and configuration is conducted. Location Criteria: Location criteria can be grouped into four main considerations:  Safety o Distance to side road or driveway intersections within and immediately after passing lane section as well as high volume side road intersection o Minimum sight distance  Improved traffic performance o Select locations where there have been limited passing opportunities for approximately two miles or more and where field study shows substantial platooning (vehicles traveling together as a group, unable to pass) o Level terrain where a field study shows platooning o Leading away, rather than into, areas of traffic congestion (defined as no passing zones, reduced speed limit) o Start passing lanes on a horizontal curve to the left rather than right 8 o Use TWOPAS to minimize percent time of day  Design consistent with driver’s expectation o On or immediately after a restricted passing opportunity that causes platooning o Length of segment  Minimized construction costs o Avoid bridges, culverts, deep cuts, and high fills o Spacing between passing lanes is intended to make the passing lanes function as a coordinated system Figure 2.1: KSDOT Suggested Minimum AADT for LOS B and C in Level and Rolling Terrain Source: KSDOT Design Guidelines for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Two-way Rural Roads in Kansas Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) In 2004, MODOT conducted the Benefits and Design/Location Criteria for Passing Lanes Study to establish criteria for determining where passing lanes could improve LOS and safety on Missouri highways and to develop recommendations for the design, signing, and marking of passing lanes. The following is a summary of the results and recommendations provided in study. 9 Overview: MODOT utilizes two types of criteria to determine where passing lanes could provide LOS and safety benefits on Missouri highways:  Screening Criteria - utilized to screen an entire network of two-lane highways for potential passing lane candidate locations.  Site-Specific Criteria - utilized to screen a specific roadway section where passing lanes may provide substantial LOS and safety benefits and that warrant additional field investigation. A review of pre- and post-passing lane conditions was conducted at three different sites. Overall, it was found that the overall queue time improved by 10-31% in comparison to a conventional two-lane highway without passing lanes. At the three sites, LOS conditions improved from LOS levels of C and D to LOS levels of A and B with the inclusion of passing lanes. In addition, accident frequency per mile, per year, was reduced by 12-24% compared to two-land highways without passing lanes. Location Criteria: Preliminary Screening Criteria:  Traffic volumes - Site section for passing lanes focuses on two-lane highways with existing and projected traffic volumes between 5,000 and 20,000 vehicles daily.  Available Length of Roadway - Utilizing HCM methods, roadway segments capable of installing a passing lane of an optimal length. The study recommends a minimum available roadway length of 2.50 miles as a preliminary screening criterion.  Planned or Programmed Improvements at the Site - Sites that are already programmed for four-lane highway improvements should be removed from consideration for passing lanes. Site-Specific Criteria:  Truck Volume - Based on AASHTO's Green Book, identify isolated steep upgrades and downgrades in which passing lanes can be strategically placed to pass slow-moving vehicles.  Operating Speed - The study suggests that passing lanes are appropriate for two-lane highway sections with 85th percentile speeds over 45 mph and are most suitable for locations with 85th percentile speeds over 55 mph. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) TxDOT, in conjunction with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), completed the Design Guidelines for Passing Lanes of Two-Lane Roadways study in an effort to create a "Super 2" design criteria for inclusion in the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual. The three critical elements of the "Super 2" design criteria focused on passing lane length and spacing, lane and shoulder width requirements, and signing and marking strategies. The following is a summary of the passing lane design criteria developed by TxDOT. 10 Overview: To simulate the location of the passing lane sections, the advance microscopic simulation program TWOPAS was utilized to model two-lane, two-way rural highways with passing lanes. Hypothetically, two-lane highways were modeled and passing lane designs were tested that had passing lane spacing between one and eight miles and passing lane lengths between 0.25 and 2 miles. The study tested traffic volumes ranging between 400 and 1,000 vph, with a truck percentage between 0 to 40 percent. Measures of operational performance utilized by TxDOT to determine the impact of the passing lanes on two-lane highways include:  Percent time delay,  Percent of vehicles in platoon,  Speed,  Lane Utilization,  Platoon structure, and  Time headway distribution. Location Criteria: Based on the results of the simulation analysis, TxDOT developed a set of passing lane location criteria recommendations that included:  Recommended passing lane length is presented in Figure 2.2. These values reflect higher speed limits for rural roads.  Uphill grades are preferred sites over downhill grades. Passing lanes on significant uphill grades should extend beyond the crest of the hill.  Passing lane sections should be placed to avoid major intersections.  If present, minor intersections that do not require deceleration lanes should be located near the midpoint of passing lane sections, avoiding transition areas. Figure 2.2: TxDOT Recommended Values of Length and Spacing by ADT and Terrain Source: TxDOT Design Guidelines for Passing Lanes of Two-Lane Roadways Peer Agency Review In order to further examine current methodologies utilized by DOTs to identify and prioritize passing lanes, project team members contacted agency staff at Nevada, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Missouri DOTs. Agency staff was asked to provide details on current processes and success stories; however, little feedback was received. 11 ADOT’S PREVIOUS METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE CLIMBING LANE LOCATIONS This section provides a summary of the methodology developed as part of the 2003 Study and are currently employed by ADOT to identify candidate locations and to establish an ultimate priority list of locations for climbing lanes. Step 1. Identify "Universe" of Candidate Locations. Table 2.3 provides a summary of the datasets utilized to develop a "Universe" of potential climbing lane locations. In addition, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets suggests that climbing lanes on two-lane highways are considered if all the following criteria exists: a. The directional flow rate on the upgrade exceeds 200 vph b. The directional flow rate for trucks on the upgrade exceeds 20 vph c. Any one of the following conditions: a speed reduction of 10 mph for a typical heavy truck, LOS E or F on the grade, or a reduction of two or more levels-of-service from the approach segment to the grade. Using this data, roadway segments that have a grade over 2.5 percent and a length of at least 500 ft are identified. Table 2.3: Current Climbing Lanes Methodology Data Items and Sources Data Item Data Source Number of Travel Lanes Roadway Log Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Percent Grade GPS Data Length of Grade GPS Data Passing Length, No Passing Length Striping Database Directional Distribution HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database K Factor HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Seasonal Adjustment Factors ADOT Data Center Truck Percentage HPMS/Historical Traffic Volume Database Highway Geometrics ADOT Data Center Speed ADOT Data Center Terrain HPMS Accidents ALISS Accident Database – Traffic Records Source: 2003 Passing Lane Prioritization Update 12 Step 2. Verify that "Universe" Candidate Locations Meet Minimum Criteria Requirements for a Climbing Lane. "Universe" candidate locations developed in Step 1 are verified against GIS data to ensure that they meet minimum criteria for climbing lanes (i.e., directional flow rate on upgrade exceeds 200 vph, and directional flow rate for trucks on the upgrade exceeds 20 vph). Candidates that do not meet the minimum criteria are eliminated from the “Universe.” Step 3. Compare Candidate Locations to Locations Recommended by ADOT Engineering Districts. Based on their local knowledge, ADOT District Engineers create a list of recommended locations for a climbing lane. The District's Engineer's candidate locations are then compared to the "Universe" candidate locations developed in Step 1. If candidate locations identified in Step 1 are not recommended by the District Engineers, roadway segments are verified against the data items presented in Table 2.3. A list of all candidate locations a developed based on locations identified in Step 1 and verified against District Engineer recommendations. Step 4. Select Preliminary List of Candidate Locations. Utilizing HCM methods, the LOS is determined for each candidate location. On a two-lane highway, the estimated LOS is based on two factors: a. Percent-Time-Spent-Following - reflects the average percentage of time a vehicle on a highway spends following other vehicles. Percent-time-spent-following is estimated from the demand flow rate, the directional distribution of traffic, and the percentage of no-passing zones. b. Average-Travel-Speed - represents the actual speed a vehicle achieves on a highway (not speed limit) after taking into consideration factors such as grade, percentage of no passing zones, traffic volumes etc. Segments with a LOS of D or worse are identified and used to create a list of preliminary candidate locations of climbing lanes. Step 5. Filter Preliminary List of Candidate Locations. The preliminary list of candidate climbing lane locations identified in Step 3 are compared against ADOT's Five-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program. Candidate locations that are programmed are removed from the preliminary list in the ranking program in Step 5. Step 6. Rank Preliminary Candidate Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways. The preliminary list of candidate locations is ranked using the performance criteria displayed in Table 2.4. For each performance criterion a standard score is computed for each candidate location; the standard score indicates how much the criterion deviates from the mean of all candidate locations. A total score for each candidate is computed by summing points for each criterion. Based on the total score of the candidate, the segments are ranked and divided into three tiers (with each tier representing a range of project scores). Step 7. Compare Preliminary Candidates with Candidates Identified By ADOT Districts. For segments recommended by the ADOT Engineering Districts in Step 2, data is verified and a further evaluation is conducted to determine the need for a climbing lane at the location. On a case by case basis, additional analysis may include review of grade, truck percentages, AADT, etc. 13 Table 2.4: Performance Criteria for Ranking Candidate Climbing Lane Locations Performance Criteria Maximum Number of Points Mobility (Existing level-of-service) 5 Percent-time-spent-following 10 Average-travel-speed 5 Passing related accidents 10 Accident rate 10 Source: 2003 Climbing Lane Prioritization Update Step 8. Review of Preliminary Candidates by ADOT Districts. ADOT Engineering Districts review the preliminary list of ranked candidate locations for the following information: a. Candidate location programmed or scoped for climbing lanes or widening, b. Climbing lane already exist, and c. Viability or constructability. Step 9. Ultimate List of Ranked Candidate Locations for Climbing Lanes after Districts Review. Upon review by the ADOT Engineering Districts, an ultimate list of list of candidate locations for climbing lanes on two-lane highways is prepared by eliminating all segments that were either programmed or deemed not viable. This ultimate list is re-ranked using the procedures outlined in Step 5. STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE RESEARCH FOR CLIMBING LANES Literature Review Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) In 2004, MODOT conducted the Benefits and Design/Location Criteria for Passing Lanes Study to establish criteria for determining where passing and climbing lanes could improve LOS and safety on Missouri highways and to develop recommendations for the design, signing, and marking of climbing lanes. The following is a summary of the results and recommendations provided in study. Overview: MODOT utilizes two types of criteria to determine where climbing lanes could provide LOS and safety benefits on Missouri highways:  Screening Criteria - utilized to screen an entire network of two-lane highways for potential climbing lane candidate locations.  Site-Specific Criteria - utilized to screen a specific roadway sections where climbing lanes may provide substantial LOS and safety benefits and that warrant additional field investigation. Location Criteria: Preliminary Screening Criteria:  Traffic volumes - Site section for focuses on two-lane highways with existing and projected traffic volumes between 5,000 and 20,000 vehicles daily. 14  Available Length of Roadway - The study recommends a minimum available roadway length of 2.50 miles as a preliminary screening criterion.  Planned or Programmed Improvements at the Site - Sites that are already programmed for four-lane highway improvements should be removed from consideration for climbing lanes. Site-Specific Criteria:  Truck Volume or percent trucks  Operating Speed Following the guidelines set forth by the AASHTO Green Book(4), to justify the addition of a climbing lane on a two-lane highway, the MODOT verifies that the required criteria are met. Climbing lanes may also be justified, even where the critical length of grade is not exceeded, based on LOS analysis conducted with HCM procedures. South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) SDDOT's Roadway Design Manual incorporates detailed criteria guidelines that need to be satisfied in order to justify the inclusion of a climbing lane. The following is a summary of the guidelines presented in the SDDOT Roadway Design Manual. Overview: Three conditions, reflecting economic conditions, should be satisfied to justify climbing lanes. These include the following:  Upgrade traffic flow rate > 200 vph. With traffic data obtained from the projects scope or from the Transportation Inventory Management Office, use design hourly volume-two way (DHV) and multiply by 0.6 (50 to 70 percent range) to obtain traffic flow one way.  Upgrade truck flow rate > 20 VPH. From traffic data received use trucks % (T DHV) and multiply by condition 1 above. Note: Recreational vehicle (RV) traffic is not included with the percentage of trucks; therefore if condition 2 does not exist with given truck %, this condition may be satisfied if a significant part of traffic is RV.  One of the following conditions exist: o A 10 mph or greater speed reduction is expected for a typical heavy truck. o LOS E or F exists on the grade. LOS based on average traveling speed for a two-lane highway. o A reduction of two or more levels-of-service is experienced when moving from the approach segment to the grade. If all three of the above mentioned conditions exist an analysis shall be completed to determine the location of a climbing lane. The Roadway Design Manual recommends that when warranted, the climbing lane should begin when the truck 15 speed is reduced 10 mph below the average running speed for all traffic. The end of the climbing lane should extend until trucks obtain a speed within 10 mph of the average running speed for all traffic or until sufficient sight distance is available. In addition, climbing lanes should be a minimum of 0.5 miles long excluding tapers to be effective. Peer Agency Review In order to further examine current methodologies utilized by DOTs to identify and prioritize climbing lanes, project team members contacted agency staff at Nevada, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Missouri DOTs. Agency staff were asked to provide details on current processes and success stories; however, little feedback was received. 16 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT This chapter presents a summary of the existing passing and climbing lane location inventory and also provides a “Before and After” assessment of the safety and traffic improvements due to the construction of passing/climbing lanes. DATA COLLECTION ADOT’s GIS section, Bridge group, and Traffic Records Division now manage a robust and more accurate repository of transportation databases than what was available during the previous study. At the onset of the study, the study team met with the GIS Section and ADOT PM to obtain the data identified in Table 3.1. Each database was reviewed for quality and the data was adjusted where appropriate. Table 3.1: Data Items and Sources Dataset Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) Crash Database Striping plans (Passing distance lengths) Traffic volumes (AADT) - Current and past 5 years - Vehicle classification, K & D factors - Seasonal adjustment factors Future traffic volumes Functional classification Highway video log Highway centerline GPS data Highway log - Shoulders - Median type - Lane width - Grade/Terrain - Speed - Traffic Signals ATIS Dataset Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) - Beginning MP, Ending MP - Ownership - Lanes - Access Center Lane - Median and median width - Curve and Curve Length - Horizontal Alignment - Vertical Alignment - Urban and Rural Transportation Data Management System (TDMS) Bridges and Structures As-built drawings Source ADOT Traffic Records ADOT Traffic Records ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT MPD ADOT GIS section ADOT GIS section ADOT Bridge Group ADOT ROW 17 EXISTING PASSING AND CLIMBING LANES INVENTORY Compiling a comprehensive inventory of existing passing/climbing lane locations is an essential first step before evaluating the need for new passing/climbing lanes. ADOT’s existing passing and climbing lanes data set was used as the starting point. Each passing/climbing lane location and length was verified against aerial imagery. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the number of passing and climbing lanes in each ADOT District. Approximately 169 passing/climbing lanes currently exist on two-lane highways and the length of the passing lanes varies from 0.25 miles to over a mile. Shorter passing lanes are typically less effective than longer passing lanes especially on highways with higher traffic volume levels. On multilane highways, “no passing” zones is not an issue; extended upgrade locations coupled with high truck traffic warrant the need for climbing lanes on multilane highways. Currently, only four climbing lanes exist on Arizona’s multilane highways however, a few are now under construction and a few more are in the design stage. Figures 3.1 to 3.8 illustrate the locations of existing passing and climbing lanes in each ADOT District. Table 3.2: Passing and Climbing Lanes by ADOT Districts Passing/Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ADOT District Flagstaff Globe Holbrook Kingman Prescott Safford Tucson* Yuma Total Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways < 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1 mile > 1 mile Total > 1 mile 1 7 2 1 21 1 0 0 33 15 23 0 8 12 5 0 5 68 16 21 10 7 6 3 0 5 68 32 51 12 16 39 9 0 10 169 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 * Based on the inventory review, Tucson District did not have any passing or climbing lanes 18 Figure 3.1: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Flagstaff District 19 Figure 3.2: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Globe District 20 Figure 3.3: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Holbrook District 21 Figure 3.4: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Kingman District 22 Figure 3.5: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Prescott District 23 Figure 3.6: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Safford District 24 Figure 3.7: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Tucson District 25 Figure 3.8: Existing Passing and Climbing Lanes in the Yuma District 26 EVALUATION OF EXISTING PASSING/CLIMBING LANES – “BEFORE AND AFTER” COMPARISON To assess the benefits of passing/climbing lanes, crash history and traffic operational performance was evaluated for the “Before and After” conditions for twelve existing passing/climbing lanes. Crash data was collected for two years before construction and two years after construction of the passing/climbing lane. To account for the influence of the passing/climbing lane, crashes within five miles downstream were also included in the analysis. Number of crashes, crash rate, injury crash rate, and number of equivalent property damage only crashes (EPDO: Equivalent Property Damage Only) were estimated for each location. EPDO represents the relative number of Property Damage Only (PDO) or non-injury crashes. It takes into account the number of crashes and the severity of the crashes. Each crash is converted to an equivalent PDO using a multiplier for each crash type. Table 3.3 lists the multipliers used to derive the EPDO value. Table 3.3: EPDO Conversion Factors Crash Type Equivalent PDO Crashes (multiplier) Non-injury or Property Damage Only (PDO) 1 Possible Injury 2 Minor Injury 4 Severe Injury 7 Fatal 12 After a passing/climbing lane was constructed on two-lane highways:  Number of crashes decreased by 33%  Crash rate decreased by 31%  Injury crash rate decreased by 46%  EPDO measure decreased by 36% After a climbing lane was constructed on multilane highways:  Number of crashes decreased by 37%  Crash rate decreased by 51%  Injury crash rate decreased by 74%  EPDO measure decreased by 48% Crash rates are expressed as crashes per million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Crash data for years 20082012 was used during this analysis. Only two locations were available to evaluate the before/after conditions for climbing lanes on multilane lanes. Table 3.4 includes a summary of crash data analysis for climbing lanes on multilane lanes. 27 Table 3.4: “Before and After” Crash Analysis Route Dir BMP EMP Total Crashes Before After 23 7 Percent Change in Crashes -70% Crash Rate Before / After Before After 2.9 0.67 Injury Crash Rate Before / After Before After 0.94 0.1 Crash EPDO** Before 47 After 10 SR 64 NB 188.26 189.22 SR 64 NB 220.01 221.51 12 14 17% 1.16 1.28 0.77 0.18 54 20 SR 64 SB 224.84 225.91 14 11 -21% 1.45 1.08 0.41 0.1 40 14 SR 95 SB 170.67 171.32 23 11 -52% 0.93 0.51 0.44 0.28 59 43 US 160 EB 320.82 322.48 6 8 33% 0.15 0.18 0.07 0.14 19 35 SR 77 NB/SB 365.12 370.51 20 14 -30% 0.83 0.64 0.21 0.18 34 22 SR 260 WB 316.21 316.87 27 16 -41% 1.97 2.03 0.29 0.25 36 22 US 89 SB 500.15 501.12 4 2 -50% 0.48 0.26 0.12 0 7 2 US 89 NB 501.77 502.65 5 4 -20% 0.61 0.52 0.12 0.39 6 16 US 60 EB 238.71 239.52 25 19 -24% 2.19 1.63 1.05 0.77 64 53 SR 87 SB 205.39 206.96 25 11 -56% 1.56 0.58 0.62 0.1 60 15 I- 40 WB 66.87 71.29 51 37 -27% 0.45 0.4 0.14 0.1 104 70 * EPDO: Equivalent Property Damage Equivalent Only Value Level of service (LOS) for each location was determined before and after the passing/climbing lane was constructed. After a passing/climbing lane was constructed, LOS for each assessed location improved by at least one level for both two-lane highways. Table 3.5 summarizes the level of service analysis. Table 3.5: “Before and After” Level of Service Comparison Route Direction BMP EMP SR 64 NB 188.26 189.22 SR 64 NB 220.01 221.51 SR 64 SB 224.84 225.91 SR 95 SB 170.67 171.32 US 160 EB 320.82 322.48 SR 77 NB/SB 365.12 370.51 SR 260 WB 316.21 316.87 US 89 SB 500.15 501.12 US 89 NB 501.77 502.65 US 60 EB 238.71 239.52 LOS Before After C C C D C C B B B C B B B C B B A A A B 28 4. ROUND ONE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Round one of stakeholder outreach included individual meetings with each ADOT District staff and email outreach to the Council of Governments (COGs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Meetings with the Districts were conducted between August 12 – 20, 2013. The primary purpose of these meetings was to obtain feedback from each District about their preferred locations for passing/climbing lanes based on their understanding of the area’s travel patterns, crash history, and roadway improvement needs. District staff input was vital to understanding the unique needs and concerns in each District. Based on lessons learned from the previous studies, a comparison of the subjective analysis/feedback from each District against the data-driven technical analysis results is essential to     Validate the methodology to identify and prioritize passing/climbing lane locations Identify any inconsistencies or errors in the background data Identify reasons when District recommendations do not match technical analysis results Obtain Districts consensus’ on the methodology and study results Tables 4.1 to 4.8 summarize each District’s suggested preliminary locations for passing and climbing lanes on two-lane and multilane highways based on their understanding of the District roadways and Figures 4.1 to 4.8 display the tabular information. The beginning and ending milepost ranges in each table represent the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the desired passing/climbing lane location. Once the Districts feedback was obtained, and email was sent to each COG/MPO requesting their feedback with respect to the District’s preference and preliminary methodology for identifying and prioritizing passing/climbing lanes. Very little feedback was received from the COGs and MPOs. 29 Table 4.1: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Flagstaff District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 15 NB 2.09 4.08 CL Flagstaff I 15 NB 14.02 25.95 CL Flagstaff I 15 SB 21.91 20.04 CL Flagstaff I 17 NB 311.5 314.1 CL Flagstaff I17 DCR Project #2A - High Priority I 17 NB 299 302 CL Flagstaff I17 DCR Project #2E (High Priority) I 17 NB 304 311.5 CL Flagstaff I17 DCR Project #2D (303.1 - 306.0), #2C (306.0 - 307.0), #2B (307.0 - 311.5) - High Priority I 40 EB 149.6 153 CL Flagstaff Ash Fork to Williams I 40 EB 155.5 160.2 CL Flagstaff High Priority I 40 WB 162.72 161.1 CL Flagstaff I 40 EB 178.44 179.93 CL Flagstaff I 40 EB 188 189 CL Flagstaff I 40 I 40 S 64 S 64 S 64 S 64 S 64 S 89A S 89A U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 89 WB WB EB WB EB EB WB NB SB EB EB EB WB NB 195.03 206.21 196.3 200.3 202.5 213.5 215.5 390 390 312 314.5 336.5 338.5 452.7 191 205.09 198.2 202.3 204.7 218.5 220.5 399 399 313 319.5 341.5 343.5 453.8 CL CL PL PL PL PL PL CL CL CL PL PL PL PL Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff U 89 U 89 SB NB 453.5 477.7 455.05 478.4 PL PL Flagstaff Flagstaff U 89 U 89 U 89 U 89 U 89A U 89A SB SB SB NB NB NB 479 500 510 510.75 550 566.3 480.21 501.19 510.6 512.2 551 571.3 PL PL PL PL CL PL Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff DCR Underway. High Priority High Priority High Priority In FY14 - 18 Program (FY15 H7056 S. of Gray Mountain project) Pending (FY14 H8116 Moenkopi Wash - Hidden Springs project) (Project extension) Pending (FY14 H7866 Gray Hills Wash - N. Red Hill project) 30 Table 4.2: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Globe District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS U 60 WB 265.00 266.00 PL Globe U 60 EB 305.00 307.00 PL Globe U 60 EB 346.00 348.00 PL Globe High accident area, potential conflicts with turn lanes at Bourden Ranch Rd. U 70 EB 268.00 270.00 PL Globe Also need WB Climbing Lane. U 70 WB 268.00 270.00 CL Globe Table 4.3: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Holbrook District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 40 WB 234 237.6 CL Holbrook Medium Priority I 40 WB 252.1 255.8 CL Holbrook Medium Priority I 40 EB 252.1 255.8 CL Holbrook Medium Priority I 40 EB 285.2 289.5 CL Holbrook Medium Priority S 264 WB 388 395 PL Holbrook Medium Priority S 264 EB 388 395 PL Holbrook Medium Priority S 264 EB 376 379.5 PL Holbrook Low Priority (Arch and topo issues) S 264 EB 402.5 403.5 PL Holbrook Low Priority S 264 EB 454.5 460 PL Holbrook High Priority (shoulder work MP450-465) S 87 NB 290 295 PL Holbrook Medium Priority S 87 SB 290 295 PL Holbrook Low Priority U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 160 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 U 191 EB WB EB WB EB WB SB NB NB SB NB SB 362 362 374 374 384 460.8 354 375.5 420 443 450 450 374 374 384 384 393 463 355 377 424 447 456 456 PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL CL PL PL Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Medium Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Low Priority Low Priority- (Rock cut and washes) Medium Priority Low Priority (Light traffic) Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority (#1 Climbing Lane for District) High Priority High Priority Table 4.4: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Kingman District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 40 EB 45.25 48.85 CL Kingman Medium Priority - widen to median. I 40 EB 48.85 51.50 CL Kingman Low Priority I 40 EB 57.37 59.73 CL Kingman High Priority I 40 WB 75.00 71.40 CL Kingman Low Priority 31 Table 4.4: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Kingman District (Continued) ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 40 EB 75.38 77.80 CL Kingman Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP75.3987.90) - split to smaller length and avoids bridge widening I 40 EB 79.80 81.70 CL Kingman Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP75.3987.90) - split to smaller length and avoids bridge widening I 40 EB 82.30 84.30 CL Kingman Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP75.3987.90) - split to smaller length and avoids bridge widening I 40 EB 85.00 86.00 CL Kingman Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP75.3987.90) - split to smaller length and avoids bridge widening I 40 EB 87.00 88.00 CL Kingman I 40 EB 93.00 96.77 CL Kingman Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP75.3987.90) - split to smaller length and avoids bridge widening Low Priority I 40 WB 114.50 110.00 CL Kingman I 40 I 40 EB WB 124.74 136.49 130.83 132.00 CL CL Kingman Kingman Medium Priority - 110.26 -112.00 and 113 - 114 to avoid bridges. Low Priority Low Priority S 89 NB 353.30 354.00 PL Kingman Low Priority - New location S 89 NB 356.50 360.50 PL Kingman Low Priority - New location S 89 S 89 S 95 S 95 S 95 NB SB NB NB NB 358.00 362.95 161.00 162.00 163.00 360.50 359.67 167.30 163.00 164.00 PL PL PL PL PL Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman S 95 NB 165.60 167.00 PL Kingman S 95 S 95 S 95 NB SB NB 172.13 173.00 194.50 173.50 177.00 196.23 PL PL PL Kingman Kingman Kingman U 93 SB 161.25 164.16 PL Kingman U 93 U 93 U 93 NB SB SB 165.45 165.55 169.00 164.00 167.80 172.50 PL PL PL Kingman Kingman Kingman Low Priority - New location Low Priority - New location Medium Priority - past bridge Low Priority - New location Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP163.5168.5) - split to a smaller length Medium Priority - part of location on previous list (MP163.5168.5) - split to a smaller length Low Priority - New location Medium Priority High Priority - Existing passing lanes in both directions were only added by restriping the roadway. No shoulders in this area. Recommend widening to add the proper shoulders Medium Priority - New location-need and timing depends on the Big Jim Wash Section as identified in the Santa Maria to Wickenburg DCR Low Priority - New location Low Priority - New location Low Priority - New location Table 4.5: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Prescott District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 17 SB 239.61 237.01 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 NB 239.73 240.98 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 NB 244.71 251 CL Prescott High Priority - #1 for Divided 32 Table 4.5: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Prescott District (Continued) ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 17 NB 256.14 259.87 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 NB 269.68 274.9 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 NB 278.38 280 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 SB 287.97 281.26 CL Prescott I 17 NB 288.45 289.69 CL Prescott I-17 SB (281 - 283) has been constructed, need I-17 (283285) High Priority. Medium Priority I 17 NB 292.05 296.4 CL Prescott Medium Priority I 17 SB 293.94 291.7 CL Prescott Medium Priority S 169 EB 5 12 PL Prescott Low priority EB & WB S 260 EB 232.88 233.33 PL Prescott Low priority - connects other passing lanes S 87 S 87 S 87 S 87 S 87 S 87 S 87 S 89 S 89 S 89 S 89 S 89A SB NB SB SB NB NB SB NB SB SB NB SB 254.5 264 264 269 269 274 274 298 298 330 330 345 259.5 265 265 270.4 270.4 278.8 278.8 302 302 333 333 350 PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Low priority High Priority Low priority High Priority - #1 for SR 87 High Priority Medium Priority Medium Priority Low priority Low priority Low priority Table 4.6: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Safford District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 10 WB 304.71 302.8 CL Safford High Priority I 10 EB 309.8 312 CL Safford High Priority #1 for District. I 10 EB 316.01 317.26 CL Safford Medium Priority I 10 WB 323.96 320.86 CL Safford Medium Priority S 80 EB 335 337 PL Safford Low Priority - Near Bisbee, blasting will be required. S 80 WB 348 346.6 PL Safford U 191 NB 138.5 143.5 PL Safford U 70 WB 283.65 283.2 PL Safford U 70 WB 287.8 287 PL Safford Medium Priority Table 4.7: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Tucson District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I 10 EB 286.82 292.53 CL Tucson Low Priority S 77 NB 91.21 92.13 PL Tucson Medium Priority S 77 NB 94.13 95.35 PL Tucson Medium Priority 33 Table 4.7: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Tucson District (Continued) ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS S 79 NB 92.00 107.00 PL Tucson S 79 SB 92.00 107.00 PL Tucson S 83 WB 47.00 53.00 PL Tucson This stretch of highway has many horizontal curves (left/right) with very few passing zones in either NB or SB direction. This stretch of highway has many horizontal curves (left/right) with very few passing zones in either NB or SB direction. While this stretch also seems to have continuous horizontal curves (left/right) with some minor grade, there are very few passing opportunities throughout this stretch from MP 53 – MP 41. Focus on MP 47 – MP 53 S 83 EB 47.00 53.00 PL Tucson While this stretch also seems to have continuous horizontal curves (left/right) with some minor grade, there are very few passing opportunities throughout this stretch from MP 53 – MP 41. Focus on MP 47 – MP 53 S 86 WB 82.00 93.00 PL Tucson S 86 EB 82.00 93.00 PL Tucson This stretch of highway has continuous horizontal curves (left/right) and has very few passing zones in either the EB or WB direction. This stretch of highway has continuous horizontal curves (left/right) and has very few passing zones in either the EB or WB direction. Table 4.8: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Yuma District ROUTE DIR BMP EMP Type DISTRICT COMMENTS I8 EB 17.12 19.11 CL Yuma Medium Priority I8 WB 20.95 18.84 CL Yuma High Priority S 95 NB 133.00 138.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority S 95 SB 133.00 138.00 PL Yuma Low Priority U 95 NB 77.00 82.00 PL Yuma Low Priority U 95 SB 77.00 82.00 PL Yuma Low Priority U 95 NB 82.00 87.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority U 95 SB 82.00 87.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority U 95 NB 89.00 94.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority U 95 SB 89.00 94.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority U 95 NB 94.00 99.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority U 95 SB 94.00 99.00 PL Yuma Medium Priority 34 Figure 4.1: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Flagstaff District 35 Figure 4.2: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Globe District 36 Figure 4.3: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Holbrook District 37 Figure 4.4: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Kingman District 38 Figure 4.5: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Prescott District 39 Figure 4.6: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Safford District 40 Figure 4.7: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Tucson District 41 Figure 4.8: Passing/Climbing Lane Candidate Locations Suggested by Yuma District 42 5. IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY Based on lessons learned from the previous study, state-of-the-practice research, TAC feedback, and Districts recommendations, separate methodologies were developed for identifying and prioritizing:    Passing lanes on two-lane highways Climbing lanes on two-lane highways Climbing lanes on multilane highways METHODOLOGY FOR PASSING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS Figure 5.1 illustrates the steps utilized to identify potential candidate locations for passing lanes on two-lane highways and Figure 5.2 illustrates the steps for prioritization of the candidate locations. Once a preliminary list of potential candidates was identified, three different prioritization methods (Table 5.1) were evaluated:  Option 1 – Subjective Rating Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria was assigned a weight and a maximum number of points based on discussions with TAC and Districts.  Option 2 – Z Score Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria is given the same weight. However, the points/score are determined using a z score value that is based on each record’s relative distance from the mean of all records. This method is based solely on technical analysis.  Option 3 – Combined Method: This method represents a combination of subjective and technical analysis. In this method, the z score from Option 2 is multiplied by weights used in Option 1. Figure 5.1: Identification Process for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways 43 Figure 5.2: Prioritization Process for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways Table 5.1: Prioritization Criteria for Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways Criteria Option 1: Subjective Rating Method Points Mobility Existing LOS: PTSF – Percent Time Spent Following Existing LOS: PFFS – Percent of Free Flow Speed Proximity to Adjacent Passing/Climbing Lanes Future LOS: PTSF – Percent Time Spent Following Future LOS: PFFS – Percent of Free Flow Speed Safety Existing Crash Rate Existing Crash Severity (EPDO) Existing Passing Related Crash Rate Future Crash Severity (Future EPDO) Construction Feasibility Cost per Lane Mile (Low, Med, or High - Assessed Based on Physical Constraints) Bridge Widening Cost (Low, Medium, High - Assessed based on additional SQFT ) Total Points Overall Percent Option 2: Z Score Method Z Score (From Analysis) Option 3: Combined Method Z Score (From Analysis) Overall Percent 14 4 4 2 2 2 20 5 7 4 4 6 35% 10% 3 7.5% 3 7.5% 7.5% 40 100% 100% 10% 5% 5% 5% 50% 13% 18% 10% 10% 15% In this method, each prioritization criteria is given the same weight. However, the points/score are determined using a z score value that is based on each record’s relative distance from the mean of all records. 35% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 50% 13% 18% 10% 10% 15% 7.5% 44 METHODOLOGY FOR CLIMBING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS Figure 5.3 illustrates the steps utilized to identify potential candidate locations for climbing lanes on twolane highways. The prioritization process for climbing lanes is the same as that for passing lanes on twolane highways and illustrated in Figure 5.2. Once a preliminary list of potential candidates was identified, similar to passing lanes, three different prioritization methods (Table 5.1) were evaluated:  Option 1 – Subjective Rating Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria was assigned a weight and a maximum number of points based on discussions with TAC and Districts.  Option 2 – Z Score Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria is given the same weight. However, the points/score are determined using a z score value that is based on each record’s relative distance from the mean of all records. This method is based solely on technical analysis.  Option 3 – Combined Method: This method represents a combination of subjective and technical analysis. In this method, the z score from Option 2 is multiplied by weights used in Option 1. Figure 5.3: Identification Process for Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways 45 METHODOLOGY FOR CLIMBING LANES ON MULTILANE HIGHWAYS Figure 5.4 illustrates the steps utilized to identify potential candidate locations for climbing lanes on multilane highways and Figure 5.5 illustrates the steps for prioritization of the candidate locations. Once a preliminary list of potential candidates was identified, three different prioritization methods (Table 5.2) were evaluated:  Option 1 – Subjective Rating Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria was assigned a weight and a maximum number of points based on discussions with TAC and Districts.  Option 2 – Z Score Method: In this method, each prioritization criteria is given the same weight. However, the points/score are determined using a z score value that is based on each record’s relative distance from the mean of all records. This method is based solely on technical analysis.  Option 3 – Combined Method: This method represents a combination of subjective and technical analysis. In this method, the z score from Option 2 is multiplied by weights used in Option 1. Figure 5.4: Identification Process for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways 46 Figure 5.5: Prioritization Process for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways Table 5.2: Prioritization Criteria for Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways Option 1: Subjective Rating Method Criteria Mobility Existing LOS: Existing Density Proximity to Adjacent Passing/Climbing Lanes Future LOS: Future Density Safety Existing Crash Rate Existing Crash Severity (EPDO) Existing Passing Related Crash Rate Future Crash Severity (Future EPDO) Construction Feasibility Cost per Lane Mile (Low, Medium, or High - Assessed Based on Physical Constraints) Bridge Widening Cost (Low, Medium, High - Assessed based on additional SQFT ) Total Points Option 2: Z Score Method Z Score (From Analysis) Option 3: Combined Method Points Overall Percent Z Score (From Analysis) Overall Percent 14 8 2 4 20 5 7 4 4 6 35% 20% 5% 10% 50% 13% 18% 10% 10% 15% 35% 10% 5% 5% 50% 13% 18% 10% 10% 15% 3 7.5% 7.5% 3 7.5% 7.5% 40 100% 100% 47 ROUND TWO STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH Round two of stakeholder outreach included individual meetings with each ADOT District staff and email outreach to the COGs and MPOs. Meetings with the Districts were conducted between February 20 – 28, 2014. The primary purpose of these meetings was to review the analysis results and obtain feedback regarding the prioritization methodology and ranking of the candidate locations. TAC and the Districts felt that the results from Option 1 and Option 3 were reasonable, however, the overall consensus was to utilize results from Option 1 for the final recommendations. Once the TAC and Districts feedback was obtained, and email was sent to each COG/MPO requesting their feedback with respect to the study results. Very little feedback was received from the COGs and MPOs. 48 6. SUMMARY RESULTS – PASSING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS Table 6.1 presents the list of candidate locations for passing lanes on two-lane highways. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Figure 6.1 illustrates the statewide location of the passing lanes. Figures 6.2 to 6.9 illustrate the passing lane locations in each District followed by project summary sheets for the Tier 1 locations. Table A1 in Appendix A lists the candidate locations, ranking, tier level, and also includes detailed information about evaluation criteria and scoring. Locations identified for passing lanes in Table 6.1 represent only the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the passing lanes. Table 6.1: Prioritized List of Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ADOT DISTRICT Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Holbrook PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) SR 64 EB: MP223 - MP226 SR 67 NB: MP586 - MP583 US 180 EB: MP238 - MP236 SR 64 WB: MP220 - MP213 US 160 WB: MP343 - MP337 SR 64 EB: MP195 - MP204 SR 64 WB: MP204 - MP201 US 89 NB: MP463 - MP 466 US 160 EB: MP311 - MP320 US 89 SB: MP456 - MP453 US 89 SB: MP480 - MP477 US 89 NB: MP451 - MP460 US 89 NB: MP477 - MP480 US 89 NB: MP509 - MP512 SR 64 EB: MP211 - MP218 US 160 EB: MP335 - MP341 US 89 SB: MP502 - MP499 US 89 SB: MP512 - MP509 US 60 WB: MP348 - MP345 US 60 WB: MP294 - MP296 US 60 EB: MP345 - MP348 US 60 EB: MP357 - MP360 US 70 WB: MP288 - MP281 US 70 EB: MP267 - MP270 US 70 WB: MP270 - MP267 US 60 EB: MP304 - MP307 US 60 WB: MP266 - MP263 US 191 SB: MP442 - MP451 TOTAL POINTS 25.99 23.82 23.59 23.53 23.23 23.19 21.91 21.64 21.37 19.63 19.41 17.80 17.31 16.95 16.85 16.75 16.27 13.55 26.98 26.26 25.67 24.76 21.81 21.38 21.38 19.27 15.18 25.01 STATEWIDE RANK 14 31 33 34 36 37 47 50 53 62 63 71 77 81 83 85 89 98 6 9 15 20 48 51 51 64 95 17 DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 1 TIER LEVEL 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 49 Table 6.1: Prioritized List of Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways (Continued) ADOT DISTRICT Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) US 191 NB: MP448 - MP455 SR 264 EB: MP453 - MP460 US 160 WB: MP377 - MP381 US 191 SB: MP455 - MP452 SR 87 NB: MP293 - MP296 SR 87 NB: MP296 - MP293 US 160 EB: MP377 - MP383 US 160 EB: MP361 - MP367 US 160 WB: MP361 - MP367 SR 264 EB: MP376 - MP378 US 160 EB: MP385 - MP391 US 160 WB: MP458 - MP463 US 160 WB: MP369 - MP375 US 191 NB: MP422 - MP425 US 160 EB: MP369 - MP375 SR 264 EB: MP401 - MP404 SR 264 EB: MP387 - MP394 SR 264 WB: MP387 - MP394 US 93 NB: MP167 - MP165 SR 95 NB: MP194 - 201 US 93 SB: MP165 - MP172 SR 95 SB: MP166 - MP175 SR 89 NB: MP352 - MP358 SR 89 SB: MP358 - MP364 SR 95 NB: MP166 - MP173 SR 89 NB: MP360 - MP362 SR 87 SB: MP273 - MP279 SR 89 NB: MP302 - MP304 SR 89 NB: MP330 - MP334 SR 89 SB: MP330 - 335 SR 87 SB: MP264 - MP271 SR 89 SB: MP302 - 306 SR 89 NB: MP295 - MP302 SA 89 SB: MP344 - MP347 SR 89 SB: MP295 - MP302 SR 87 NB: MP262 - MP271 SR 87 NB: MP273 - MP279 SR 169 NB: MP4 - MP10 SR 87 NB: MP281 - MP287 TOTAL POINTS 24.96 23.92 21.36 20.70 18.60 18.03 17.65 17.41 17.00 16.29 16.25 15.89 15.80 15.43 14.58 13.36 12.83 12.14 24.78 23.27 23.06 23.00 18.18 17.52 17.17 16.40 30.73 30.00 28.66 28.12 26.64 26.45 26.20 26.17 25.43 24.59 24.46 24.44 24.01 STATEWIDE RANK 18 30 54 57 68 70 73 75 80 88 90 91 92 93 96 100 101 102 19 35 38 39 69 74 78 87 1 3 4 5 7 8 11 12 16 21 23 24 28 DISTRICT RANK 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TIER LEVEL 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 50 Table 6.1: Prioritized List of Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways (Continued) ADOT DISTRICT Prescott Prescott Prescott Safford Safford Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) SR 87 SB: MP258 - MP263 SR 87 SB: MP289 - MP291 SR 87 NB: MP289 - MP291 SR 80 WB: MP349 - MP346 US 191 NB: MP138 - MP145 SR 83 NB: MP43 - MP50 SR 86 EB: 161 - MP164 SR 86 WB: MP161 - MP164 SR 86 WB: MP153 - MP156 SR 77 NB: MP91 - MP94 SR 79 NB: MP93 - MP99 SR 79 SB: MP103 - MP97 SR 83 SB: MP45 - MP54 SR 287 NB: MP137 - MP140 SR 86 EB: MP153 - MP156 SR 87 SB: MP138 - MP140 SR 87 NB: MP152 - MP160 SR 87 SB: MP152 - MP160 SR 86 WB: MP85 - MP91 SR 79 NB: MP101 - MP107 SR 83 NB: MP49 - MP54 SR 287 NB: MP142 - MP139 SR 95 SB: MP95 - MP93 SR 87 NB: MP138 - MP141 SR 79 SB: MP107 - MP105 SR 86 EB: MP85 - MP91 SR 95 NB: MP158 - MP161 SR 95 NB: MP132 - MP139 SR 95 SB: MP132 - MP139 US 95 NB: MP88 - MP90 SR 95 NB: MP152 - MP155 US 95 NB: MP92 - MP98 US 95 SB: MP92 - MP98 US 95 SB: MP84 - MP90 US 95 NB: MP76 - MP82 US 95 SB: MP76 - MP82 TOTAL POINTS 23.96 19.75 17.67 22.13 20.06 30.11 26.24 26.12 24.51 24.40 24.12 24.04 23.78 22.51 22.42 22.25 22.11 21.95 20.91 20.80 20.21 20.16 19.27 18.96 17.33 15.38 22.45 21.74 18.98 17.10 16.89 16.79 16.74 14.57 13.40 12.05 STATEWIDE RANK 29 61 72 44 60 2 10 13 22 25 26 27 32 40 42 43 45 46 55 56 58 59 65 67 76 94 41 49 66 79 82 84 86 97 99 103 DISTRICT RANK 14 15 16 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TIER LEVEL 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note: Statewide Rank = Projects ranking statewide District Rank = Projects ranking within District only Tier Level = High, medium, and low priority 51 Figure 6.1: Statewide Ranking of Passing Lanes 52 Figure 6.2: Passing Lane Rankings - Flagstaff District 53 Figure 6.3: Passing Lane Rankings - Globe District 54 Figure 6.4: Passing Lane Rankings - Holbrook District 55 Figure 6.5: Passing Lane Rankings – Kingman District 56 Figure 6.6: Passing Lane Rankings - Prescott District 57 Figure 6.7: Passing Lane Rankings - Safford District 58 Figure 6.8: Passing Lane Rankings - Tucson District 59 Figure 6.9: Passing Lane Rankings – Yuma District 60 SR 87 SB: MP 273 - MP 279 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 1 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: SB BMP: 273 Candidate Passing Lane Location EMP: 279 District: Prescott Ranking: 1 County: Coconino Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.17 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 62/38 Existing AADT: 2,029 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 2,800 Future LOS: C Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:46 Number of Fatal Crashes:3 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:28 Non-Injury Crashes:15 Average Crash Rate:6.21 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:173 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The segment has turns which prevent vehicles Assessment: from passing. Passing areas are minimal Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Coconino National Forest; Coconino National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 1 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 5 Cultural Resource Density: Low 61 SR 83 NB: MP 43 - MP 50 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 2 Project Details Route: S 083 Direction: NB BMP: 43 EMP: 50 District: Tucson Ranking: 2 County: Pima Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.15 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 76/24 Existing AADT: 2,009 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 2,900 Future LOS: D Truck %: 7% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:35 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:23 Non-Injury Crashes:11 Average Crash Rate:4.77 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:125 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No physical constraints. Segment has many high speed turns (45mph) General Location Minor passing opportunities before segment. Assessment: High speed turns within segment, with no passing opportunities. Some passing opportunity after segment is available. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Coronado National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 36 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 20 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 59 Cultural Resource Density: High 62 SR 89 NB: MP 302 - MP 304 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 3 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: NB BMP: 302 EMP: 304 District: Prescott Ranking: 3 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Mountainou Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 59/41 Existing AADT: 1,054 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 1,600 Future LOS: B Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:42 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:21 Non-Injury Crashes:21 Average Crash Rate:10.92per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:121 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Rock formations at the side of the road and steep cliffs. General Location Many turns and elevation changes warrant a Assessment: passing lane. There is a short passing lane at the end of the segment which could be extended. High number of crashes. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Prescott National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: No environmental issues identified Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 1 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 4 Cultural Resource Density: Low 63 SR 89 NB: MP 330 - MP 334 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 4 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: NB BMP: 330 EMP: 334 District: Prescott Ranking: 4 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 61/39 Existing AADT: 7,879 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 11,500 Future LOS: D Truck %: 10% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:37 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:15 Non-Injury Crashes:22 Average Crash Rate:2.00 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:85 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location Segment is straight and flat with long passing Assessment: area through a populated area. High volumes and high crashes Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; Large Quantity Generator Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 5 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 64 SR 89 SB: MP 330 - MP 335 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 5 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: SB BMP: 330 EMP: 335 District: Prescott Ranking: 5 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 61/39 Existing AADT: 7,879 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 11,500 Future LOS: D Truck %: 10% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:18 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:5 Non-Injury Crashes:13 Average Crash Rate:0.97 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:37 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location Segment is straight and flat with long passing Assessment: area through a populated area. High volumes Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; Large Quantity Generator Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 5 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 65 US 60 WB: MP 348 - MP 345 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 6 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: WB BMP: 348 EMP: 345 District: Globe Ranking: 6 County: Navajo Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.11 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 61/40 Existing AADT: 5,361 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 9,150 Future LOS: D Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:23 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:9 Non-Injury Crashes:12 Average Crash Rate:1.18 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:71 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The road is straight and it is easy to see Assessment: oncoming traffic. However, high traffic volumes limit passing Number of Bridges: 1 Cost to Widen Bridges: $118,440.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: No environmental issues identified Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 3 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 7 Cultural Resource Density: Low 66 SR 87 SB: MP 264 - MP 271 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 7 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: SB BMP: 264 Candidate Passing Lane Location EMP: 271 District: Prescott Ranking: 7 County: Gila Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 54/46 Existing AADT: 3,888 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 6,300 Future LOS: C Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:36 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:15 Non-Injury Crashes:19 Average Crash Rate:2.54 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:91 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The segment has passing areas but also low Assessment: sight distance due to turns and grade. Because of adjacent PL within 5 miles, segment might get lower priority. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Tonto National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 9 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 4 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 3 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 18 Cultural Resource Density: Low 67 SR 89 SB: MP 302 - MP 306 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 8 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: SB BMP: 302 EMP: 306 District: Prescott Ranking: 8 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Mountainou Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 59/41 Existing AADT: 1,054 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 1,600 Future LOS: B Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:29 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:14 Non-Injury Crashes:15 Average Crash Rate:7.54 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:69 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Many rock formations at the side of the road. General Location Many turns and elevation changes warrant a Assessment: passing lane. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Prescott National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: No environmental issues identified Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 3 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 6 Cultural Resource Density: Low 68 US 60 WB: MP 294 - MP 296 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 9 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: WB BMP: 294 Candidate Passing Lane Location EMP: 296 District: Globe Ranking: 9 County: Gila Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.14 Terrain/Max Slope: Mountainou Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 57/43 Existing AADT: 2,365 Future AADT: 3,300 Existing LOS: B Future LOS: C Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:57 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:27 Non-Injury Crashes:29 Average Crash Rate:6.60 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:150 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: On Side of mountain, would require wall cuts General Location Passing areas are minimal Assessment: Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: Environmental Overview Land Ownership: White Mtn Apache Indian Res.; San Carlos Indian Res. Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Riparian Area - Flood Scoured; Riparian Area - Strand; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 0 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 0 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 2 Cultural Resource Density: Low 69 SR 86 EB: MP 161 - MP 164 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 10 Project Details Route: S 086 Direction: EB BMP: 161 EMP: 164 District: Tucson Ranking: 10 County: Pima Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.08 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 61/39 Existing AADT: 12,766 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 14,950 Future LOS: D Truck %: 6% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:62 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:32 Non-Injury Crashes:29 Average Crash Rate:1.33 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:158 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No physical constraints. General Location Plenty of passing opportunities and good sight Assessment: distance before segment. Segment is mostly straight with good sight distance. Conditions after the segment are similar. High volumes Number of Bridges: 3 Cost to Widen Bridges: $382,680.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; 100-Year Floodplain; CO Maintenance Area; BLM VRM Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 13 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 6 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 2 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 24 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 70 SR 89 NB: MP 295 - MP 302 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 11 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: NB BMP: 295 EMP: 302 District: Prescott Ranking: 11 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 59/41 Existing AADT: 1,054 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 1,600 Future LOS: B Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:29 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:17 Non-Injury Crashes:12 Average Crash Rate:7.54 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:75 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Rock formations present at the side of the road as well as steep drops. General Location No passing for the entire segment. There are Assessment: many turns and grade changes. High number of crashes, though low volumes. Existing PL within 0.5 miles. Number of Bridges: 1 Cost to Widen Bridges: $41,400.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Prescott National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 7 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 71 SA 89 SB: MP 344 - MP 347 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 12 Project Details Route: SA089 Direction: SB BMP: 344 EMP: 347 District: Prescott Ranking: 12 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Mountainou Speed Limit (MPH): 50 Directional Split: 58/42 Existing AADT: 3,517 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 4,250 Future LOS: C Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:20 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:12 Non-Injury Crashes:8 Average Crash Rate:1.56 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Rock formations throughout the segment built up infrastructure next to the road within Jerome. General Location There are no passing zones due to many turns Assessment: and low sight distance. The segment is also at an incline. However this segment leads into Jerome and a passing lane may not be needed due to low vehicle speed. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Jerome SHP Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 9 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 8 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 3 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 22 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 72 SR 86 WB: MP 161 - MP 164 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 13 Project Details Route: S 086 Direction: WB BMP: 161 EMP: 164 District: Tucson Ranking: 13 County: Pima Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.08 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 61/39 Existing AADT: 12,766 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 14,950 Future LOS: D Truck %: 6% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:54 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:30 Non-Injury Crashes:23 Average Crash Rate:1.16 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:158 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No physical constraints. Two bridges around MP 162.25 General Location Segment is straight and flat with good sight Assessment: distance all along. High volumes Number of Bridges: 3 Cost to Widen Bridges: $382,680.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; 100-Year Floodplain; CO Maintenance Area; BLM VRM Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 13 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 6 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 2 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 24 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 73 SR 64 EB: MP 223 - MP 226 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 14 Project Details Route: S 064 Direction: EB BMP: 223 Candidate Passing Lane Location EMP: 226 District: Flagstaff Ranking: 14 County: Coconino Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.14 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 54/46 Existing AADT: 4,594 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 6,200 Future LOS: D Truck %: 9% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:27 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:6 Non-Injury Crashes:21 Average Crash Rate:1.61 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:48 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. Passing Lane in Opposite Direction (~MP 225) General Location There was a passing lane three miles prior, but it Assessment: is very hard to see oncoming traffic Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: State Trust Land; Kaibab National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 9 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 8 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 19 Cultural Resource Density: Low 74 US 60 EB: MP 345 - MP 348 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 15 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: EB BMP: 345 EMP: 348 District: Globe Ranking: 15 County: Navajo Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.11 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 61/40 Existing AADT: 5,361 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 9,150 Future LOS: D Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:18 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:6 Non-Injury Crashes:11 Average Crash Rate:0.92 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:49 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The road is straight and it is easy to see Assessment: oncoming traffic. However, high traffic volumes limit passing Number of Bridges: 1 Cost to Widen Bridges: $118,440.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: No environmental issues identified Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 3 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 7 Cultural Resource Density: Low 75 SR 89 SB: MP 295 - MP 302 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 16 Project Details Route: S 089 Direction: SB BMP: 295 EMP: 302 District: Prescott Ranking: 16 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 59/41 Existing AADT: 1,054 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 1,600 Future LOS: B Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:28 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:15 Non-Injury Crashes:12 Average Crash Rate:7.28 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:96 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Rock formations present at the side of the road. General Location No passing for the entire segment. There are Assessment: many turns and grade changes. High number of crashes, though low volumes Number of Bridges: 1 Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Prescott National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 7 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 1 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 76 US 191 SB: MP 442 - MP 451 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 17 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: SB BMP: 442 EMP: 451 District: Holbrook Ranking: 17 County: Apache Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.09 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 75/25 Existing AADT: 4,659 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 4,800 Future LOS: B Truck %: 14% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:34 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:19 Non-Injury Crashes:13 Average Crash Rate:2.00 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:115 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The segment has a long passing area and is Assessment: straight and flat. At the end it enters a reduced speed area with 2 lanes. Goes through Chinle area. Looks like most traffic is local Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 0 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 0 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 1 Cultural Resource Density: Low 77 US 191 NB: MP 448 - MP 455 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 18 Project Details Route: U 191 Direction: NB BMP: 448 EMP: 455 District: Holbrook Ranking: 18 County: Apache Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.09 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 75/25 Existing AADT: 4,659 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 4,800 Future LOS: B Truck %: 14% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:44 Number of Fatal Crashes:4 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:24 Non-Injury Crashes:16 Average Crash Rate:2.59 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:170 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location Once the segment starts the road is straight and Assessment: flat with plenty of opportunity for passing. Goes through Chinle area. Looks like most traffic is local Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Navajo Indian Res. Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 0 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 0 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 1 Cultural Resource Density: Low 78 US 93 NB: MP 167 - MP 165 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 19 Project Details Route: U 093 Direction: NB BMP: 167 EMP: 165 District: Kingman Ranking: 19 County: Yavapai Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.11 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 57/43 Existing AADT: 5,759 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 6,700 Future LOS: C Truck %: 16% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:19 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:7 Non-Injury Crashes:11 Average Crash Rate:0.90 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:60 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. Bridge at MP 165.40 General Location The road is straight with good sight distance but Assessment: has high traffic volumes. Number of Bridges: 2 Cost to Widen Bridges: $48,240.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 10 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 8 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 21 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 79 US 60 EB: MP 357 - MP 360 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 20 Project Details Route: U 060 Direction: EB BMP: 357 EMP: 360 District: Globe Ranking: 20 County: Apache Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.11 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 60/40 Existing AADT: 2,137 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 3,100 Future LOS: C Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:33 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:8 Non-Injury Crashes:24 Average Crash Rate:4.23 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location The road is mostly straight and it is easy to see Assessment: oncoming traffic. High number of crashes (33) Number of Bridges: 1 Cost to Widen Bridges: $26,280.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; County Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 0 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 0 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 2 Cultural Resource Density: Low 80 SR 87 NB: MP 262 - MP 271 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 21 Project Details Route: S 087 Direction: NB BMP: 262 Candidate Passing Lane Location EMP: 271 District: Prescott Ranking: 21 County: Gila Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: Rolling Speed Limit (MPH): 55 Directional Split: 54/46 Existing AADT: 3,888 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 6,300 Future LOS: C Truck %: 12% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:28 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:8 Non-Injury Crashes:20 Average Crash Rate:1.97 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:40 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints. General Location No passing opportunities before the segment Assessment: due to turns. Segment has low sight distance due to turns, grade, and left turn pockets. Because of adjacent PL within 5 miles, segment might get lower priority. Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Tonto National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; Leaking Underground Storage Tank; PM10 Maintenance Area Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 20 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 6 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 3 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 31 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 81 SR 86 WB: MP 153 - MP 156 Statewide Passing Lane Rank: 22 Project Details Route: S 086 Direction: WB BMP: 153 EMP: 156 District: Tucson Ranking: 22 County: Pima Candidate Passing Lane Location Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.08 Terrain/Max Slope: Level Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 62/38 Existing AADT: 7,842 Existing LOS: D Future AADT: 9,900 Future LOS: D Truck %: 8% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:21 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:6 Non-Injury Crashes:15 Average Crash Rate:0.73 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:48 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No physical constraints. General Location Road is straight before and within the segment. Assessment: One small section at the end has a center left turn lane. High volumes Number of Bridges: 5 Cost to Widen Bridges: $253,800.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: 100-Year Floodplain; CO Maintenance Area; BLM VRM Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 4 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 82 7. SUMMARY RESULTS – CLIMBING LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS Table 7.1 presents the list of candidate locations for climbing lanes on two-lane highways. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Figure 7.1 illustrates the statewide location of the climbing lanes. Figures 7.2 to 7.8 illustrate the climbing lane locations in each District followed by project summary sheets for the Tier 1 locations. Table A2 in Appendix A lists the candidate locations, ranking, tier level, and also includes detailed information about evaluation criteria and scoring. Locations identified for climbing lanes in Table 7.1 represent only the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the climbing lanes. Table 7.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways ADOT DISTRICT Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Globe Globe Globe Globe Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Kingman Kingman Prescott CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) SR 67 NB: MP591 - MP589 SR 64 SB: MP199 - MP197 US 180 WB: MP219 - MP221 SA 89 NB: MP392- MP398 SR 64 EB: MP196 - MP198 US 160 WB: MP345 - MP343 UA 89 NB: MP566 - MP571 US 89 NB: MP550 - MP552 US 160 EB: MP312 - MP314 US 89 SB: MP557 - MP555 UA 89 NB: MP550 - MP551 US 60 EB: MP306 - MP307 US 70 WB: MP282 - MP288 US 70 EB: MP262 - MP264 US 60 WB: MP267 - MP266 SR 87 NB: MP295 - MP297 SR 264 EB: MP457 - MP461 SR 87 NB: MP290 - MP296 SR 87 SB: MP290 - MP296 US 160 WB: MP462 - MP460 US 160 EB: MP381 - MP384 US 191 SB: MP356 - MP354 US 191 SB: MP444 - MP442 SR 264 EB: MP377 - MP379 SR 264 EB: MP402 - MP404 US 93 SB: MP161 - MP163 SR 95 SB: MP177 - MP175 SA 89 SB: MP339 - MP343 TOTAL POINTS 24.25 23.44 22.96 22.93 22.66 22.65 19.97 18.44 18.13 17.29 13.67 23.02 22.00 19.06 14.20 23.38 23.19 21.38 19.81 17.25 16.65 16.52 15.58 15.46 12.66 25.03 23.53 30.73 STATEWIDE RANK 9 11 15 16 18 19 24 30 32 33 44 14 21 28 41 12 13 22 26 34 35 36 38 39 45 8 10 1 DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 1 TIER LEVEL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 83 Table 7.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways (Continued) ADOT DISTRICT Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Tucson Tucson Tucson CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) SA 89 NB: MP334 - MP336 SR 260 EB: MP288 - MP289 SR 89 NB: MP339 - MP341 SA 89 SB: MP348 - MP349 SR 89 NB: MP344 - MP345 SR 169 SB: MP9 - MP7 UX 191 NB: MP168 - MP171 UX 191 SB: MP169 - MP167 SR 90 WB: MP329 - MP327 SR 90 EB: MP335 - MP337 US 191 NB: MP139 - MP144 SR 80 EB: MP334 - MP338 SR 80 EB: MP314 - MP317 US 191 NB: MP147 - MP149 SR 83 NB: MP43 - MP49 SR 83 SB: MP54 - MP52 SR 83 NB: MP52 - MP54 TOTAL POINTS 27.80 25.40 22.84 19.75 14.07 13.68 28.23 26.54 25.93 22.46 20.08 18.14 15.75 15.40 30.56 19.90 19.04 STATEWIDE RANK 4 7 17 27 42 43 3 5 6 20 23 31 37 40 2 25 29 DISTRICT RANK 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 TIER LEVEL 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 Note: Statewide Rank = Projects ranking statewide District Rank = Projects ranking within District only Tier Level = High, medium, and low priority In some instances, need for a climbing and passing lane may have been identified in the same vicinity. The TAC recommended leaving the overlaps/duplicates in place to illustrate that those locations were deemed warranted in both analysis. 84 Figure 7.1: Statewide Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings 85 Figure 7.2: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Flagstaff District 86 Figure 7.3: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Globe District 87 Figure 7.4: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Holbrook District 88 Figure 7.5: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Kingman District 89 Figure 7.6: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Prescott District 90 Figure 7.7: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Safford District 91 Figure 7.8: Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Rankings – Tucson District 92 SA 89 SB: MP 339 - MP 343 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 1 Project Details Route: SA089 Direction: SB BMP: 339 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 343 District: Prescott County: Yavapai Ranking: 1 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 5.64 Speed Limit (MPH): 30 K-Factor: 0.1 Directional Split: 58/42 Existing AADT: 1,520 Future AADT: 2,100 Existing LOS: C Future LOS: D Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:37 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:17 Non-Injury Crashes:20 Average Crash Rate:8.89 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:96 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Major rockslide cliffs against road General Location Uphill, very curvy with very limited passing Assessment: opportunities before/during/after. High crashes Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Prescott N.F Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 3 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 9 Cultural Resource Density: Low 93 SR 83 NB: MP 43 - MP 49 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 2 Project Details Route: S 083 Direction: NB BMP: 43 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 49 District: Tucson County: Pima Ranking: 2 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 6.24 Speed Limit (MPH): 45 K-Factor: 0.15 Directional Split: 76/24 Existing AADT: 2,009 Future AADT: 2,900 Existing LOS: C Future LOS: C Truck %: 7% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:33 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:22 Non-Injury Crashes:10 Average Crash Rate:6.00 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:117 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Minor hillside cliffs that need to be cut into General Location Long, curvy incline that would benefit from Assessment: climbing lane Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Coronado N.F Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 32 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 17 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 53 Cultural Resource Density: High 94 UX 191 NB: MP 168 - MP 171 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 3 Project Details Route: UX191 Direction: NB BMP: 168 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 171 District: Safford County: Greenlee Ranking: 3 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 7.46 Speed Limit (MPH): 40 K-Factor: 0.18 Directional Split: 65/35 Existing AADT: 5,184 Future AADT: 3,425 Existing LOS: E Future LOS: E Truck %: 14% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:27 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:6 Non-Injury Crashes:19 Average Crash Rate:1.90 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:68 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Steep shoulder drop off, intersection General Location Passing areas are minimal Assessment: Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Leaking Underground Storage Tank; Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Area; Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 9 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 14 Cultural Resource Density: Low 95 SA 89 NB: MP 334 - MP 336 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 4 Project Details Route: SA089 Direction: NB BMP: 334 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 336 District: Prescott County: Yavapai Ranking: 4 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 6.13 Speed Limit (MPH): 30 K-Factor: 0.1 Directional Split: 58/42 Existing AADT: 1,520 Future AADT: 2,100 Existing LOS: D Future LOS: D Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:28 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:10 Non-Injury Crashes:17 Average Crash Rate:6.73 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:70 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: steep downhill slope off shoulder General Location Uphill, very curvy with very limited passing Assessment: opportunities before/during/after. High Crashes Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott N.F Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 3 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 7 Cultural Resource Density: Low 96 UX 191 SB: MP 169 - MP 167 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 5 Project Details Route: UX191 Direction: SB BMP: 169 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 167 District: Safford County: Greenlee Ranking: 5 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 5.71 Speed Limit (MPH): 40 K-Factor: 0.1 Directional Split: 71/30 Existing AADT: 7,753 Future AADT: 7,500 Existing LOS: E Future LOS: E Truck %: 14% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:20 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:3 Non-Injury Crashes:15 Average Crash Rate:0.94 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:50 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Intersections, adjacent buildings General Location Passing areas are minimal Assessment: Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Leaking Underground Storage Tank; Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Area; Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 6 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 3 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 11 Cultural Resource Density: Low 97 SR 90 WB: MP 329 - MP 327 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 6 Project Details Route: S 090 Direction: WB BMP: 329 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 327 District: Safford County: Cochise Ranking: 6 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 4.92 Speed Limit (MPH): 65 K-Factor: 0.1 Directional Split: 65/35 Existing AADT: 4,066 Future AADT: 5,600 Existing LOS: C Future LOS: D Truck %: 9% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:15 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:5 Non-Injury Crashes:9 Average Crash Rate:1.35 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:42 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints General Location Passing areas are minimal Assessment: Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: San Pedro Riparian NCA; Riparian Area - Cottonwood Willow; Riparian Area - Mesquite; San Pedro River impaired stream; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; BLM VRM Class I, Class II, and Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 14 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 6 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 22 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 98 SR 260 EB: MP 288 - MP 289 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 7 Project Details Route: S 260 Direction: EB BMP: 288 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 289 District: Prescott County: Coconino Ranking: 7 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 2.89 Speed Limit (MPH): 50 K-Factor: 0.1 Directional Split: 51/49 Existing AADT: 3,747 Future AADT: 6,900 Existing LOS: C Future LOS: C Truck %: 13% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:30 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:5 Non-Injury Crashes:24 Average Crash Rate:2.92 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:54 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints General Location Gradual incline, but very limited passing Assessment: opportunities before / during / after Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Apache-Sitgreaves N.F Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 2 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 2 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 7 Cultural Resource Density: Low 99 US 93 SB: MP 161 - MP 163 Climbing Lane (Two-Lane Highways) Statewide Rank: 8 Project Details Route: U 093 Direction: SB BMP: 161 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 163 District: Kingman County: Yavapai Ranking: 8 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics Terrain/Max Slope: 3.59 Speed Limit (MPH): 65 K-Factor: 0.11 Directional Split: 57/43 Existing AADT: 5,759 Future AADT: 6,700 Existing LOS: C Future LOS: C Truck %: 16% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:18 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:4 Non-Injury Crashes:13 Average Crash Rate:1.14 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:41 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: No major physical constraints General Location Large number of trucks and traffic along 93 Assessment: would benefit from additional passing lanes Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; State Trust Land; Bureau of Land Mgmt. Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available data, Environmental within a quarter-mile of the proposed project area the Constraints: following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Riparian Area - Cottonwood Willow; Wetlands; 100-Year Floodplain; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 5 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 4 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 3 Total Cultural Sites: 12 Cultural Resource Density: Low 100 8. SUMMARY RESULTS – CLIMBING LANES ON MULTILANE HIGHWAYS Table 8.1 presents the list of candidate locations for climbing lanes on multilane highways. The candidate locations are ranked at the statewide and district level and grouped into three tiers – high, medium, and low priority. Figure 8.1 illustrates the statewide location of the climbing lanes. Figures 8.2 to 8.7 illustrate the climbing lane locations in each District followed by project summary sheets for the Tier 1 locations. Table A3 in Appendix A lists the candidate locations, ranking, tier level, and also includes detailed information about evaluation criteria and scoring. Locations identified for climbing lanes in Table 8.1 represent only the general problem area and not the exact location and length of the climbing lanes. Table 8.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways DISTRICT Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Safford Safford Safford CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) I 40 EB: MP188 - MP190 I 17 NB: MP307 - MP311 I 17 SB: MP318 - MP316 I 17 NB: MP299 - MP305 I 40 WB: MP193 - MP191 I 40 EB: MP151 - MP152 I 15 NB: MP19 - MP25 I 15 SB: MP21 - MP19 I 40 EB: MP156 - MP159 I 40 WB: MP163 - MP162 I 40 EB: MP47 - MP49 I 40 WB: MP132 - MP136 I 40 EB: MP58 - MP60 I 40 EB: MP81 - MP83 I 40 EB: MP125 - MP128 I 40 EB: MP76 - MP77 I 40 WB: MP115 - MP114 I 40 EB: MP93 - MP97 I 17 NB: MP246 - MP250 I 17 SB: MP281 - MP285 I 17 NB: MP255 - MP256 I 17 SB: MP293 - MP295 I 17 SB: MP284 - MP286 I 17 NB: MP294 - MP298 I 17 SB: MP240 - MP238 I 17 NB: MP270 - MP275 I 10 WB: MP306 - MP302 I 10 EB: MP315 - MP317 I 10 EB: MP309 - MP311 TOTAL POINTS 32.45 27.84 24.15 24.01 20.43 19.08 18.59 16.65 14.19 13.81 25.35 18.56 17.30 17.24 16.32 14.07 12.09 11.48 33.07 30.12 27.27 21.08 20.19 19.06 17.86 14.09 29.51 17.55 12.10 STATEWIDE RANK 2 5 8 9 12 14 16 22 25 28 7 17 20 21 23 27 30 31 1 3 6 10 13 15 18 26 4 19 29 DISTRICT RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 TIER LEVEL 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 101 Table 8.1: Prioritized List of Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways (Continued) DISTRICT Tucson Yuma CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) I 10 EB: MP286 - MP291 I 8 EB: MP18 - MP20 TOTAL POINTS 21.01 15.70 STATEWIDE RANK 11 24 DISTRICT RANK 1 1 TIER LEVEL 2 3 Note: Statewide Rank = Projects ranking statewide District Rank = Projects ranking within District only Tier Level = High, medium, and low priority 102 Figure 8.1: Statewide Ranking of Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways 103 Figure 8.2: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Flagstaff District 104 Figure 8.3: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Kingman District 105 Figure 8.4: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Prescott District 106 Figure 8.5: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Safford District 107 Figure 8.6: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Tucson District 108 Figure 8.7: Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Rankings – Yuma District 109 I 17 NB: MP 246 - MP 250 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 1 Project Details Route: I 017 Direction: NB BMP: 246 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 250 District: Prescott County: Yavapai Ranking: 1 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: 6.1 Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 59/41 Existing AADT: 28,069 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 37,000 Future LOS: C Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:142 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:24 Non-Injury Crashes:118 Average Crash Rate:1.85 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:209 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Roadside cliffs that may need to be cut into General Location Long steady, curvy incline in which trucks need Assessment: to slow down. Slow trucks can cause major safety issues Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Agua Fria NM; Desert Tortoise Suitable Habitat; BLM VRM Class II and Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 20 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 11 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 34 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 110 I 40 EB: MP 188 - MP 190 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 2 Project Details Route: I 040 Direction: EB BMP: 188 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 190 District: Flagstaff County: Coconino Ranking: 2 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.21 Terrain/Max Slope: 3.22 Speed Limit (MPH): 75 Directional Split: 52/48 Existing AADT: 21,186 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 24,000 Future LOS: C Truck %: 31% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:111 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:35 Non-Injury Crashes:74 Average Crash Rate:1.91 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:224 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: no major physical constraints General Location Grade doesn't look that steep and then goes Assessment: into a downhill Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land; Coconino National Forest; Navajo Army Depot Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; Camp Navajo Superfund Site Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 2 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 2 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 1 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 5 Total Cultural Sites: 10 Cultural Resource Density: Low 111 I 17 SB: MP 281 - MP 285 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 3 Project Details Route: I 017 Direction: SB BMP: 281 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 285 District: Prescott County: Yavapai Ranking: 3 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.11 Terrain/Max Slope: 6.08 Speed Limit (MPH): 65 Directional Split: 62/38 Existing AADT: 26,171 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 40,000 Future LOS: D Truck %: 16% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:103 Number of Fatal Crashes:1 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:14 Non-Injury Crashes:88 Average Crash Rate:1.44 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:153 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Roadside cliffs that may need to be cut into General Location Can't tell what the grade is, but it starts to go Assessment: downhill at the end. Very curvy and would benefit from a passing lane Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Prescott National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Verde fault zone; Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 1 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 0 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 2 Cultural Resource Density: Low 112 I 10 WB: MP 306 - MP 302 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 4 Project Details Route: I 010 Direction: WB BMP: 306 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 302 District: Safford County: Cochise Ranking: 4 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.09 Terrain/Max Slope: 3.15 Speed Limit (MPH): 35 Directional Split: 56/44 Existing AADT: 29,608 Existing LOS: C Future AADT: 40,750 Future LOS: D Truck %: 22% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:51 Number of Fatal Crashes:5 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:19 Non-Injury Crashes:27 Average Crash Rate:0.63 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:159 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Bridge at 302.5 General Location Grade does not seem that steep. Appears they Assessment: may be widening segment that could be used to add a climbing lane Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Private Land Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Wetlands; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 14 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 7 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 3 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 2 Total Cultural Sites: 26 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 113 I 17 NB: MP 307 - MP 311 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 5 Project Details Route: I 017 Direction: NB BMP: 307 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 311 District: Flagstaff County: Yavapai Ranking: 5 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: 6 Speed Limit (MPH): 75 Directional Split: 58/42 Existing AADT: 16,050 Existing LOS: A Future AADT: 28,500 Future LOS: B Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:76 Number of Fatal Crashes:0 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:17 Non-Injury Crashes:59 Average Crash Rate:1.73 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:131 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: no major physical constraints General Location Winding, long uphill climb Assessment: Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Coconino National Forest Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 9 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 5 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 15 Cultural Resource Density: Low 114 I 17 NB: MP 255 - MP 256 Climbing Lane (Multilane Highways) Statewide Rank: 6 Project Details Route: I 017 Direction: NB BMP: 255 Candidate Climbing Lane Location EMP: 256 District: Prescott County: Yavapai Ranking: 6 Tier: 1 Roadway Characteristics K-Factor: 0.1 Terrain/Max Slope: 4.34 Speed Limit (MPH): 75 Directional Split: 60/40 Existing AADT: 27,973 Existing LOS: B Future AADT: 38,500 Future LOS: C Truck %: 11% Safety Analysis Total Number of Crashes:67 Number of Fatal Crashes:2 Injury & Possible Injury Crashes:28 Non-Injury Crashes:37 Average Crash Rate:0.87 per million vehicle miles traveled Equivalent Property Damage Value:162 Source: Accident Location Information and Surveillance System (ALISS) 2008-2013 Construction Constraints/Feasibility Constraints: Roadside cliffs that may need to be cut and a frontage rand turn off General Location Long steady, curvy incline in which trucks need Assessment: to slow down. Slow trucks can cause major safety issues Number of Bridges: Cost to Widen Bridges: $0.00 Environmental Overview Land Ownership: Bureau of Land Management Potential Based on a broad GIS analysis of readily available Environmental data, within a quarter-mile of the proposed project Constraints: area the following environmental constraints may be present: Agua Fria NM; Potential Wildlife Linkage; Wetlands; BLM VRM Class II and Class III Cultural Resources Number of Cultural Sites: 13 Eligible Sites (AZSITE): 10 Potential 4(f) Sites (AZSITE): 0 No. of Land Agencies (0.5 mile): 1 Total Cultural Sites: 24 Cultural Resource Density: Medium 115 APPENDIX A FUTURE EPDO* FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR FUTURE EPDO* POINTS COST PER LANE MILE COST PER LANE MILE POINTS BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 1 1 2 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS 1 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE 1 1 EXISTING EPDO POINTS 1 1 1 EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR 2 3 1 EXISTING EPDO* 1 3 EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS 1 EXISTING CRASH RATE D B B D C C C D D D D D D D C B D D D C D C C C C C C B B C C C A A C C C C C C B A C B A B C E FUTURE PFFS POINTS 6,200 1,400 1,800 6,200 5,500 4,100 4,100 8,050 8,300 8,000 8,200 7,900 8,200 5,000 5,150 5,500 5,000 5,000 9,150 3,300 9,150 3,100 3,700 6,300 6,300 3,300 3,300 4,800 4,800 5,500 6,200 4,800 1,300 1,300 6,200 5,100 5,100 3,100 6,200 4,000 5,500 3,300 5,500 1,800 2,400 2,400 6,700 12,000 FUTURE PFFS 1.61 4.99 4.38 0.89 0.61 1.12 0.91 0.54 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.26 0.67 0.32 0.47 0.67 0.50 1.18 6.60 0.92 4.23 1.81 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.58 2.00 2.59 1.10 0.59 0.76 3.69 3.02 0.49 0.51 0.58 0.38 0.11 0.67 0.39 0.33 0.26 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.90 0.36 FUTURE PTSF POINTS FUTURE OVERALL LOS 27 21 26 15 9 16 13 13 5 9 9 9 6 8 5 7 8 6 23 57 18 33 17 13 13 7 5 34 44 20 11 13 11 9 9 7 8 3 2 5 6 4 4 0 3 1 19 10 FUTURE PTSF FUTURE AADT D B B C C C C D C C C D C C C B C C D B D B C A A C C B B C C B A A C B B B C B B A B B A B C D PL PROXIMITY POINTS CRASH RATE 65 50 55 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 35 65 65 65 65 65 55 65 65 65 65 65 65 55 55 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 50 55 55 65 65 PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL: LENGTH (MI) TOTAL CRASHES 78% 75% 49% 25% 31% 68% 66% 100% 21% 32% 76% 100% 76% 100% 32% 4% 92% 100% 48% 100% 40% 35% 62% 0% 0% 64% 58% 9% 5% 15% 59% 11% 33% 28% 36% 23% 29% 47% 26% 44% 7% 0% 8% 67% 28% 37% 0% 95% EXISTING PFFS POINTS EXISTING OVERALL LOS 9% 16% 31% 9% 9% 16% 16% 15% 9% 14% 14% 15% 14% 11% 12% 9% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 12% 12% 9% 9% 11% 11% 14% 14% 16% 10% 14% 14% 14% 10% 13% 13% 15% 10% 14% 12% 11% 12% 15% 15% 15% 16% 31% EXISTING PFFS SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 54/46 65/35 55/45 54/46 51/49 58/42 58/42 55/46 53/47 52/48 54/46 55/45 54/46 57/43 56/44 51/49 57/43 57/43 61/40 57/43 61/40 60/40 58/42 59/41 59/41 57/43 57/43 75/25 75/25 60/40 52/48 75/25 58/42 58/42 51/49 56/44 56/44 58/42 53/47 57/43 55/45 63/37 55/45 58/42 58/42 58/42 57/43 56/44 EXISTING PTSF POINTS PERCENT NO-PASSING 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.09 EXISTING PTSF TRUCK PERCENT 4,594 1,154 1,626 4,594 4,066 3,909 3,909 6,642 5,173 6,171 6,264 7,019 6,264 3,272 4,252 4,066 3,272 3,272 5,361 2,365 5,361 2,137 2,576 3,578 3,578 2,365 2,365 4,659 4,659 5,001 5,144 4,659 817 817 5,078 3,777 3,777 2,169 5,210 2,059 4,162 3,278 4,162 1,780 2,247 2,247 5,759 7,693 BRIDGE WIDENING COST (000's) DIRECTIONAL SPLIT 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 8 5 8 8 7 8 8 5 5 8 8 5 4 5 1 5 5 5 5 8 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 5 5 10 1 5 5 5 2 5 1 4 3 5 8 NUMBER OF BRIDGES K-FACTOR Level Rolling Rolling Level Level Rolling Rolling Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Rolling Level Rolling Mountainous Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Mountainous Mountainous Level Level Rolling Level Level Rolling Rolling Level Level Level Mountainous Level Rolling Level Level Level Level Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling EXISTING AADT SR 64 EB: MP223 - MP226 SR 67 NB: MP586 - MP583 US 180 EB: MP238 - MP236 SR 64 WB: MP220 - MP213 US 160 WB: MP343 - MP337 SR 64 EB: MP195 - MP204 SR 64 WB: MP204 - MP201 US 89 NB: MP463 - MP 466 US 160 EB: MP311 - MP320 US 89 SB: MP456 - MP453 US 89 SB: MP480 - MP477 US 89 NB: MP451 - MP460 US 89 NB: MP477 - MP480 US 89 NB: MP509 - MP512 SR 64 EB: MP211 - MP218 US 160 EB: MP335 - MP341 US 89 SB: MP502 - MP499 US 89 SB: MP512 - MP509 US 60 WB: MP348 - MP345 US 60 WB: MP294 - MP296 US 60 EB: MP345 - MP348 US 60 EB: MP357 - MP360 US 70 WB: MP288 - MP281 US 70 EB: MP267 - MP270 US 70 WB: MP270 - MP267 US 60 EB: MP304 - MP307 US 60 WB: MP266 - MP263 US 191 SB: MP442 - MP451 US 191 NB: MP448 - MP455 SR 264 EB: MP453 - MP460 US 160 WB: MP377 - MP381 US 191 SB: MP455 - MP452 SR 87 NB: MP293 - MP296 SR 87 NB: MP296 - MP293 US 160 EB: MP377 - MP383 US 160 EB: MP361 - MP367 US 160 WB: MP361 - MP367 SR 264 EB: MP376 - MP378 US 160 EB: MP385 - MP391 US 160 WB: MP458 - MP463 US 160 WB: MP369 - MP375 US 191 NB: MP422 - MP425 US 160 EB: MP369 - MP375 SR 264 EB: MP401 - MP404 SR 264 EB: MP387 - MP394 SR 264 WB: MP387 - MP394 US 93 NB: MP167 - MP165 SR 95 NB: MP194 - 201 SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Kingman Kingman TERRAIN ADOT DISTRICT PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) Table A1: Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69 $0 $69 $105 $0 $0 $73 $105 $118 $0 $118 $26 $48 $0 $0 $38 $40 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $286 $286 $48 $0 67 45 42 61 52 61 61 67 55 63 65 67 65 57 60 40 56 57 67 57 65 42 50 35 35 55 55 49 46 55 61 50 29 28 57 48 50 43 56 39 41 34 42 44 38 41 51 70 3.09 1.36 1.11 2.64 1.93 2.66 2.65 3.06 2.14 2.75 2.95 3.08 2.95 2.30 2.52 0.95 2.27 2.30 3.07 2.32 2.96 1.17 1.77 0.56 0.56 2.19 2.13 1.65 1.42 2.13 2.64 1.76 0.14 0.00 2.28 1.61 1.73 1.23 2.24 0.91 1.05 0.49 1.12 1.27 0.85 1.08 1.88 3.33 87 91 89 88 90 86 87 87 90 88 88 87 88 90 89 91 89 90 86 83 86 92 90 91 91 89 90 92 92 88 88 92 95 95 89 91 91 93 90 92 91 93 91 92 92 91 87 83 2.50 1.32 1.77 2.04 1.52 2.64 2.58 2.33 1.57 2.20 2.24 2.34 2.24 1.47 1.85 1.30 2.01 1.47 2.75 3.51 2.67 1.08 1.51 1.37 1.37 1.97 1.53 0.95 0.95 2.26 2.08 0.95 0.13 0.00 1.79 1.16 1.24 0.75 1.66 0.87 1.23 0.65 1.23 1.05 0.99 1.17 2.51 3.54 2.16 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 1.49 >10mi 2.31 0.10 1.42 0.00 0.00 >10mi >10mi 0.00 0.00 >10mi 0.37 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 2.39 0.77 >10mi >10mi 4.85 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 3.69 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 2.44 0.86 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.59 2.00 0.92 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.15 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.96 0.31 2.00 2.00 1.94 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.47 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.97 61 33 31 57 46 50 50 56 55 58 57 55 57 50 51 38 53 50 68 49 67 38 43 43 43 47 46 39 37 46 51 40 23 22 48 43 44 36 48 40 38 24 39 30 28 30 47 69 1.40 0.39 0.32 1.27 0.87 1.01 1.01 1.21 1.19 1.27 1.23 1.18 1.23 1.01 1.04 0.58 1.11 1.01 1.64 0.95 1.61 0.57 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.91 0.87 0.62 0.53 0.88 1.04 0.66 0.04 0.00 0.92 0.75 0.79 0.49 0.92 0.63 0.59 0.08 0.61 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.89 1.67 85 90 89 86 89 86 86 86 86 86 86 87 86 88 88 89 86 88 82 80 83 89 88 88 88 87 89 92 92 87 87 92 94 94 88 90 90 91 89 88 90 93 90 92 92 91 86 80 0.93 1.55 1.38 1.07 1.37 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.05 1.10 1.17 1.10 1.31 1.30 1.45 1.11 1.31 0.65 0.42 0.67 1.46 1.28 1.26 1.26 1.16 1.37 1.76 1.76 1.21 1.23 1.76 1.95 2.00 1.33 1.52 1.50 1.64 1.39 1.36 1.50 1.90 1.50 1.74 1.72 1.65 1.07 0.39 1.61 4.99 4.38 0.89 0.61 1.12 0.91 0.54 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.26 0.67 0.32 0.47 0.67 0.50 1.18 6.60 0.92 4.23 1.81 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.58 2.00 2.59 1.10 0.59 0.76 3.69 3.02 0.49 0.51 0.58 0.38 0.11 0.67 0.39 0.33 0.26 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.90 0.36 0.74 2.28 2.01 0.41 0.28 0.51 0.42 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.31 0.15 0.22 0.31 0.23 0.54 3.02 0.42 1.94 0.83 0.46 0.46 0.37 0.27 0.92 1.19 0.50 0.27 0.35 1.69 1.38 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.17 0.05 0.30 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.17 0.06 0.41 0.16 48 38 53 42 66 34 20 43 21 23 29 22 23 14 5 26 10 7 71 150 49 68 52 50 50 18 5 115 170 49 28 28 28 24 17 24 26 12 2 9 8 17 6 0 4 1 60 42 2.40 1.90 2.65 2.10 3.30 1.70 1.00 2.15 1.58 1.15 1.45 1.10 1.15 0.70 0.25 1.30 0.50 0.35 3.55 0.20 2.45 3.40 0.00 0.75 0.65 0.90 0.25 3.05 3.75 0.35 1.40 0.70 1.40 1.20 0.85 1.20 1.30 0.60 0.10 0.45 0.40 0.85 0.30 0.00 0.20 0.05 3.00 2.10 6 5 6 5 7 4 3 6 5 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 2 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 7 5 0.24 0.47 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.46 0.10 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.11 0.46 0.91 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.27 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.26 0.17 0.30 0.17 0.32 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.88 0.20 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.65 0.65 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.21 4.12 3.17 3.58 2.29 1.38 1.90 1.55 1.78 1.36 1.32 1.33 1.14 0.89 1.39 0.68 1.07 1.39 1.04 4.44 9.03 3.47 5.43 2.77 2.59 2.59 1.11 0.79 3.98 5.15 2.49 1.50 1.52 2.18 1.78 1.24 1.07 1.22 0.49 0.27 1.10 0.90 0.46 0.60 0.00 0.40 0.13 2.50 1.76 4.12 3.17 3.58 2.29 1.38 1.90 1.55 1.78 1.36 1.32 1.33 1.14 0.89 1.39 0.68 1.07 1.39 1.04 4.44 9.03 3.47 5.43 2.77 2.59 2.59 1.11 0.79 3.98 5.15 2.49 1.50 1.52 2.18 1.78 1.24 1.07 1.22 0.49 0.27 1.10 0.90 0.46 0.60 0.00 0.40 0.13 2.50 1.76 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Low Low 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.49 3.00 2.49 2.23 3.00 3.00 2.46 2.23 2.13 3.00 2.13 2.81 2.65 3.00 3.00 2.72 2.70 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.81 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.90 0.90 2.65 3.00 25.99 23.82 23.59 23.53 23.23 23.19 21.91 21.64 21.37 19.63 19.41 17.80 17.31 16.95 16.85 16.75 16.27 13.55 26.98 26.26 25.67 24.76 21.81 21.38 21.38 19.27 15.18 25.01 24.96 23.92 21.36 20.70 18.60 18.03 17.65 17.41 17.00 16.29 16.25 15.89 15.80 15.43 14.58 13.36 12.83 12.14 24.78 23.27 14 31 33 34 36 37 47 50 53 62 63 71 77 81 83 85 89 98 6 9 15 20 48 51 51 64 95 17 18 30 54 57 68 70 73 75 80 88 90 91 92 93 96 100 101 102 19 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 A1 FUTURE EPDO* POINTS COST PER LANE MILE COST PER LANE MILE POINTS BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 1 FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR 1 3 FUTURE EPDO* 2 1 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS 1 5 1 1 1 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE 3 3 5 1 EXISTING EPDO POINTS 1 1 1 EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR 1 EXISTING EPDO* 1 EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS 1 EXISTING CRASH RATE 1 1 FUTURE PFFS POINTS C E C C E C C B D D C B B C B C C D B C B B D D D D D D D C C C D D D D D A C C D C D C A D D D FUTURE PFFS 6,700 7,700 3,800 3,800 7,700 3,800 2,800 1,600 11,500 11,500 6,300 1,600 1,600 4,250 1,600 6,300 2,600 7,250 2,400 6,300 1,850 1,850 6,350 4,500 2,900 14,950 14,950 9,900 10,000 3,200 3,200 2,900 15,500 9,900 10,250 9,400 9,400 1,000 3,200 2,900 15,500 3,200 10,250 3,200 1,000 6,600 6,900 6,900 FUTURE PTSF POINTS 0.70 0.48 0.90 1.00 0.48 0.70 6.21 10.92 2.00 0.97 2.54 7.54 7.54 1.56 7.28 1.97 3.36 1.04 5.89 2.75 3.22 1.98 1.14 0.80 4.77 1.33 1.16 0.73 0.59 1.98 2.08 1.91 0.36 0.59 0.66 0.67 0.72 2.62 1.66 1.09 0.23 1.14 0.35 0.62 0.24 0.89 0.46 0.36 FUTURE PTSF 11 9 9 10 9 7 46 42 37 18 36 29 29 20 28 28 21 21 30 39 13 8 20 9 35 62 54 21 17 19 20 14 14 17 17 12 13 11 16 8 9 11 9 6 1 17 9 7 PL PROXIMITY POINTS C D B C D B C B C C C B B C B C B C B C A A C C C D D D C C C C D D D D D B C C D C D C B D D D PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL: LENGTH (MI) 65 65 65 65 65 65 55 35 55 55 55 35 35 50 35 55 55 65 55 55 55 55 65 65 55 65 65 65 55 65 65 55 55 65 65 65 65 55 65 55 55 65 65 65 55 55 55 55 EXISTING PFFS POINTS FUTURE OVERALL LOS 0% 63% 26% 68% 55% 42% 75% 100% 0% 17% 87% 100% 100% 90% 100% 86% 89% 47% 83% 100% 75% 82% 86% 37% 96% 12% 11% 39% 49% 38% 39% 49% 46% 35% 48% 43% 40% 75% 50% 73% 17% 32% 48% 21% 78% 100% 69% 64% EXISTING PFFS FUTURE AADT 16% 20% 13% 13% 20% 13% 11% 12% 10% 10% 12% 12% 12% 11% 12% 12% 11% 12% 12% 12% 13% 13% 9% 16% 7% 6% 6% 8% 9% 6% 6% 7% 11% 8% 14% 14% 14% 4% 6% 7% 11% 6% 14% 6% 4% 19% 16% 16% EXISTING PTSF POINTS CRASH RATE 57/43 68/32 60/40 60/40 68/32 60/40 62/38 59/41 61/39 61/39 54/46 59/41 59/41 58/42 59/41 54/46 60/40 59/41 58/42 54/46 58/42 58/42 52/48 71/29 76/24 61/39 61/39 62/38 61/39 73/27 73/27 76/24 56/44 62/38 54/47 61/39 61/39 55/45 73/27 76/24 56/44 73/27 54/47 73/27 55/45 65/35 58/42 58/42 EXISTING PTSF TOTAL CRASHES 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 BRIDGE WIDENING COST (000's) EXISTING OVERALL LOS 5,759 5,173 2,734 2,734 5,173 2,734 2,029 1,054 7,879 7,879 3,888 1,054 1,054 3,517 1,054 3,888 1,713 5,544 1,396 3,888 1,107 1,107 4,804 3,073 2,009 12,766 12,766 7,842 7,906 2,634 2,634 2,009 10,642 7,842 7,091 6,632 6,632 1,149 2,634 2,009 10,642 2,634 7,091 2,634 1,149 5,224 5,311 5,311 NUMBER OF BRIDGES SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 4 8 2 5 7 3 3 2 8 8 2 6 7 2 3 2 8 3 2 3 2 6 5 6 PERCENT NO-PASSING 7 7 TRUCK PERCENT SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) 5 5 8 7 5 8 1 4 8 8 1 4 4 0 2 1 4 5 1 2 2 4 DIRECTIONAL SPLIT Rolling Rolling Rolling Level Rolling Level Rolling Mountainous Level Level Rolling Mountainous Rolling Mountainous Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Mountainous Mountainous Mountainous Mountainous Rolling Rolling Rolling Level Level Level Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Level Level Level Level Level Rolling Rolling Mountainous Level Rolling Level Rolling Rolling 6.00 Rolling Rolling K-FACTOR US 93 SB: MP165 - MP172 SR 95 SB: MP166 - MP175 SR 89 NB: MP352 - MP358 SR 89 SB: MP358 - MP364 SR 95 NB: MP166 - MP173 SR 89 NB: MP360 - MP362 SR 87 SB: MP273 - MP279 SR 89 NB: MP302 - MP304 SR 89 NB: MP330 - MP334 SR 89 SB: MP330 - 335 SR 87 SB: MP264 - MP271 SR 89 SB: MP302 - 306 SR 89 NB: MP295 - MP302 SA 89 SB: MP344 - MP347 SR 89 SB: MP295 - MP302 SR 87 NB: MP262 - MP271 SR 87 NB: MP273 - MP279 SR 169 NB: MP4 - MP10 SR 87 NB: MP281 - MP287 SR 87 SB: MP258 - MP263 SR 87 SB: MP289 - MP291 SR 87 NB: MP289 - MP291 SR 80 WB: MP349 - MP346 US 191 NB: MP138 - MP145 SR 83 NB: MP43 - MP50 SR 86 EB: 161 - MP164 SR 86 WB: MP161 - MP164 SR 86 WB: MP153 - MP156 SR 77 NB: MP91 - MP94 SR 79 NB: MP93 - MP99 SR 79 SB: MP103 - MP97 SR 83 SB: MP45 - MP54 SR 287 NB: MP137 - MP140 SR 86 EB: MP153 - MP156 SR 87 SB: MP138 - MP140 SR 87 NB: MP152 - MP160 SR 87 SB: MP152 - MP160 SR 86 WB: MP85 - MP91 SR 79 NB: MP101 - MP107 SR 83 NB: MP49 - MP54 SR 287 NB: MP142 - MP139 SR 95 SB: MP95 - MP93 SR 87 NB: MP138 - MP141 SR 79 SB: MP107 - MP105 SR 86 EB: MP85 - MP91 SR 95 NB: MP158 - MP161 SR 95 NB: MP132 - MP139 SR 95 SB: MP132 - MP139 EXISTING AADT Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Safford Safford Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Yuma Yuma Yuma TERRAIN ADOT DISTRICT PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) Table A1: Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details (Continued) $0 $0 $41 $72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75 $0 $0 $68 $68 $116 $0 $0 $383 $383 $254 $46 $0 $0 $0 $32 $254 $130 $54 $54 $0 $336 $48 $0 $0 $130 $165 $0 $408 $0 $0 51 78 45 55 78 50 59 40 61 68 58 40 40 58 40 58 51 61 42 59 40 40 61 57 63 74 74 67 68 56 57 58 76 66 65 68 67 41 60 62 72 55 65 51 41 74 72 72 1.88 4.00 1.38 2.14 3.94 1.73 2.48 1.00 2.62 3.15 2.39 1.00 1.00 2.42 1.00 2.39 1.84 2.64 1.17 2.44 0.96 0.98 2.65 2.30 2.78 3.68 3.64 3.06 3.17 2.26 2.30 2.41 3.78 3.01 2.97 3.14 3.10 1.07 2.55 2.73 3.47 2.12 2.97 1.86 1.08 3.62 3.48 3.46 87 83 91 91 83 92 86 91 85 85 84 91 91 86 90 84 89 87 92 86 93 93 86 90 89 85 84 88 85 91 91 90 82 88 87 87 87 91 90 90 83 92 87 92 91 86 82 82 2.51 3.62 1.16 1.24 3.57 0.94 2.64 1.18 3.12 3.12 3.28 1.18 1.42 2.74 1.50 3.27 1.91 2.46 1.05 2.65 0.75 0.72 2.61 1.50 1.89 3.17 3.34 2.28 3.17 1.26 1.30 1.56 3.87 2.14 2.51 2.38 2.35 1.26 1.44 1.54 3.63 1.13 2.51 0.89 1.27 2.88 4.00 3.85 3.15 1.79 >10mi >10mi 0.00 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 1.24 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 1.44 >10mi >10mi >10mi 0.00 >10mi >10mi 4.09 0.81 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 2.38 1.10 1.26 0.72 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.58 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.64 0.32 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.95 0.44 47 78 42 45 78 41 54 30 65 69 55 30 31 47 31 55 45 54 36 55 32 32 53 54 57 69 69 60 61 49 49 54 75 59 63 65 65 27 52 56 72 48 63 45 27 69 67 67 0.89 2.00 0.71 0.82 1.98 0.70 1.13 0.30 1.54 1.67 1.17 0.30 0.32 0.90 0.32 1.16 0.82 1.16 0.49 1.18 0.36 0.37 1.12 1.14 1.26 1.68 1.66 1.35 1.40 0.97 0.98 1.13 1.88 1.34 1.45 1.55 1.54 0.19 1.06 1.21 1.80 0.92 1.45 0.83 0.19 1.67 1.60 1.60 86 80 89 89 81 90 84 90 79 79 82 90 88 84 88 82 86 86 89 84 91 91 85 88 87 82 82 86 83 90 90 88 77 86 84 85 85 92 89 88 77 90 84 91 92 84 79 80 1.07 0.44 1.43 1.40 0.46 1.52 0.82 1.52 0.32 0.32 0.61 1.52 1.32 0.89 1.28 0.61 1.04 1.06 1.47 0.89 1.69 1.71 1.01 1.25 1.16 0.66 0.59 1.07 0.72 1.52 1.51 1.29 0.00 1.13 0.84 0.91 0.92 1.74 1.45 1.32 0.06 1.57 0.84 1.67 1.73 0.87 0.30 0.36 0.70 0.48 0.90 1.00 0.48 0.70 6.21 10.92 2.00 0.97 2.54 7.54 7.54 1.56 7.28 1.97 3.36 1.04 5.89 2.75 3.22 1.98 1.14 0.80 4.77 1.33 1.16 0.73 0.59 1.98 2.08 1.91 0.36 0.59 0.66 0.67 0.72 2.62 1.66 1.09 0.23 1.14 0.35 0.62 0.24 0.89 0.46 0.36 0.32 0.22 0.41 0.46 0.22 0.32 2.84 5.00 0.91 0.45 1.16 3.45 3.45 0.71 3.33 0.90 1.54 0.48 2.70 1.26 1.47 0.91 0.52 0.37 2.19 0.61 0.53 0.34 0.27 0.91 0.95 0.87 0.17 0.27 0.30 0.31 0.33 1.20 0.76 0.50 0.11 0.52 0.16 0.29 0.11 0.41 0.21 0.17 39 27 27 11 13 7 173 121 85 37 91 69 75 68 96 40 48 38 76 124 28 14 37 27 125 158 158 48 37 58 37 46 19 42 30 17 16 42 40 28 14 11 16 30 4 37 23 19 2.59 1.35 1.35 0.55 0.65 0.35 8.65 6.05 6.59 2.87 4.55 3.45 3.75 3.40 4.80 2.00 2.40 1.90 3.80 6.20 1.40 0.70 1.85 1.35 6.25 7.90 7.90 2.40 1.85 2.90 1.85 2.30 0.95 2.10 1.50 1.14 1.08 2.10 2.00 1.40 0.70 0.55 0.80 1.50 0.20 1.85 1.15 0.95 7 4 4 2 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 5 5 5 6 7 4 3 5 4 7 7 7 6 5 6 5 5 2 5 4 3 3 5 5 4 1 2 2 4 2 5 3 2 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.95 2.08 0.59 0.22 0.28 1.56 1.56 0.78 0.52 0.35 0.16 0.10 0.59 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.23 0.09 0.95 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.19 1.82 4.00 1.14 0.42 0.54 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.00 0.68 0.31 0.19 1.13 0.54 0.00 0.48 0.44 0.17 1.84 0.25 0.17 0.27 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.52 0.05 0.40 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.46 0.00 0.26 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.10 1.92 1.51 1.42 1.58 1.51 1.10 7.20 7.94 9.48 4.61 6.59 5.48 5.48 2.74 5.29 5.13 3.62 3.10 6.42 7.14 2.71 1.67 2.99 1.50 5.73 8.20 7.15 3.00 2.43 2.62 2.76 2.29 2.30 2.43 2.78 2.59 2.81 1.19 2.21 1.31 1.48 1.52 1.47 0.83 0.11 2.43 1.32 1.03 1.92 1.51 1.42 1.58 1.51 1.10 7.20 7.94 9.48 4.61 6.59 5.48 5.48 2.74 5.29 5.13 3.62 3.10 6.42 7.14 2.71 1.67 2.99 1.50 5.73 8.20 7.15 3.00 2.43 2.62 2.76 2.29 2.30 2.43 2.78 2.59 2.81 1.19 2.21 1.31 1.48 1.52 1.47 0.83 0.11 2.43 1.32 1.03 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 Low Low Med Med High Low Low High Low Low Low High High High Med Low Low Low High High Low Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Med Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 3.00 2.70 2.47 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.70 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.45 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.15 3.00 3.00 0.19 0.19 1.13 2.66 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.77 1.13 2.04 2.61 2.61 3.00 0.53 2.65 3.00 3.00 2.04 1.79 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 23.06 23.00 18.18 17.52 17.17 16.40 30.73 30.00 28.66 28.12 26.64 26.45 26.20 26.17 25.43 24.59 24.46 24.44 24.01 23.96 19.75 17.67 22.13 20.06 30.11 26.24 26.12 24.51 24.40 24.12 24.04 23.78 22.51 22.42 22.25 22.11 21.95 20.91 20.80 20.21 20.16 19.27 18.96 17.33 15.38 22.45 21.74 18.98 38 39 69 74 78 87 1 3 4 5 7 8 11 12 16 21 23 24 28 29 61 72 44 60 2 10 13 22 25 26 27 32 40 42 43 45 46 55 56 58 59 65 67 76 94 41 49 66 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 A2 EXISTING EPDO* EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR EXISTING EPDO POINTS EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS FUTURE EPDO* FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR FUTURE EPDO* POINTS COST PER LANE MILE COST PER LANE MILE POINTS BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 3 3 EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS 1 1 EXISTING CRASH RATE C D C C C C C FUTURE PFFS POINTS 4,100 7,350 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 FUTURE PFFS 0.84 0.28 0.84 0.84 0.34 0.34 0.17 FUTURE PTSF POINTS FUTURE OVERALL LOS 5 6 5 5 2 2 1 FUTURE PTSF FUTURE AADT A D A A A A A PL PROXIMITY POINTS CRASH RATE 65 55 65 65 65 65 65 PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL: LENGTH (MI) TOTAL CRASHES 5% 95% 0% 11% 5% 5% 0% EXISTING PFFS POINTS EXISTING OVERALL LOS 24% 16% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% EXISTING PFFS SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 54/46 74/27 54/46 54/46 54/46 54/46 54/46 EXISTING PTSF POINTS PERCENT NO-PASSING 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 EXISTING PTSF TRUCK PERCENT 1,634 5,770 1,634 1,634 1,634 1,634 1,634 BRIDGE WIDENING COST (000's) DIRECTIONAL SPLIT 2 6 6 2 4 6 6 NUMBER OF BRIDGES K-FACTOR Level Rolling Level Level Level Level Level EXISTING AADT US 95 NB: MP88 - MP90 SR 95 NB: MP152 - MP155 US 95 NB: MP92 - MP98 US 95 SB: MP92 - MP98 US 95 SB: MP84 - MP90 US 95 NB: MP76 - MP82 US 95 SB: MP76 - MP82 SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma TERRAIN ADOT DISTRICT PASSING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) Table A1: Passing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details (Continued) $0 $0 $47 $54 $0 $105 $105 31 72 28 35 31 31 28 0.27 3.52 0.03 0.55 0.29 0.26 0.03 93 85 93 93 93 93 93 0.72 2.99 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.67 0.63 >10mi 2.57 >10mi >10mi >10mi 4.95 >10mi 2.00 1.03 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.98 2.00 47 62 45 49 47 47 45 0.89 1.43 0.82 0.96 0.89 0.88 0.82 87 83 87 87 87 87 88 1.20 0.71 1.24 1.21 1.20 1.24 1.26 0.84 0.28 0.84 0.84 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.38 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.15 0.08 11 15 17 8 5 5 1 0.55 0.75 0.85 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.05 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 0.34 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.09 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.86 1.42 1.42 0.57 0.57 0.28 1.42 0.86 1.42 1.42 0.57 0.57 0.28 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 Low High Low Low Low Low Low 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 3.00 2.65 2.61 3.00 2.23 2.23 17.10 16.89 16.79 16.74 14.57 13.40 12.05 79 82 84 86 97 99 103 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 A3 SEGMENT LENGTH (MI) EXISTING AADT K-FACTOR DIRECTIONAL SPLIT TRUCK PERCENT PERCENT NO-PASSING SPEED LIMIT (MPH) EXISTING OVERALL LOS TOTAL CRASHES CRASH RATE FUTURE AADT FUTURE OVERALL LOS EXISTING PTSF EXISTING PTSF POINTS EXISTING PFFS EXISTING PFFS POINTS PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL: LENGTH (MI) PL PROXIMITY POINTS FUTURE PTSF FUTURE PTSF POINTS FUTURE PFFS FUTURE PFFS POINTS EXISTING CRASH RATE EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS EXISTING EPDO EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR EXISTING EPDO* POINTS EXISTING EQUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VALUE POINTS EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR FUTURE EPDO* POINTS COST PER LANE MILE POINTS BRIDGE WIDENING COST BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 3.36 2 1.00 1,154 0.12 65/35 16% 100% 50 B 14 4.43 1,400 B 46 1.67 90 0.71 >10mi 2.00 47.91 0.62 88.71 1.76 4.43 2.49 20 1.33 6.00 6 0.00 0.00 2.11 3 LOW 3 $0 3.00 24.25 9 1 2 Flagstaff SR 64 SB: MP199 - MP197 1 4.73 5 1.00 3,909 0.11 58/42 16% 59% 65 C 10 0.93 4,100 C 61 2.65 84 1.32 >10mi 2.00 61.98 1.20 83.17 1.40 0.93 0.53 31 2.07 5.00 5 0.19 0.35 1.19 3 LOW 3 $0 3.00 23.44 11 2 2 Flagstaff US 180 WB: MP219 - MP221 2 4.33 4 0.63 3,759 0.11 55/45 40% 75% 55 C 14 1.55 4,100 C 59 2.55 67 2.94 >10mi 2.00 61.28 1.17 65.32 0.22 1.55 0.87 18 1.37 3.00 3 0.11 0.21 1.98 4 LOW 3 $0 3.00 22.96 15 3 2 Flagstaff SA 89 NB: MP392- MP398 2 3.22 1 1.00 4,983 0.10 58/42 14% 58% 55 C 13 0.95 6,500 C 65 2.90 80 1.70 >10mi 2.00 68.47 1.46 78.02 1.06 0.95 0.54 25 1.67 4.00 4 0.15 0.27 1.92 3 LOW 3 $0 3.00 22.93 16 4 2 Flagstaff SR 64 NB: MP196 - MP198 1 3.32 5 1.00 3,909 0.11 58/42 16% 76% 65 C 12 1.12 4,100 C 62 2.72 83 1.34 >10mi 2.00 63.04 1.24 82.96 1.38 1.12 0.63 21 1.40 4.00 4 0.19 0.35 1.43 3 LOW 3 $0 3.00 22.66 18 5 2 Flagstaff US 160 WB: MP345 - MP343 1 5.47 6 1.00 3,392 0.10 57/43 14% 65% 65 C 9 0.97 4,700 C 56 2.35 86 1.05 >10mi 2.00 63.01 1.24 83.43 1.42 0.97 0.55 59 3.93 7.00 7 0.11 0.20 1.42 3 MEDIUM 2 $95,400 1.85 22.65 19 6 2 Flagstaff UA 89 NB: MP566 - MP571 2 5.49 0 1.00 306 0.16 63/37 15% 76% 55 A 5 5.97 1,300 B 37 1.09 92 0.47 >10mi 2.00 49.48 0.68 82.67 1.37 5.97 3.36 9 0.60 4.00 4 0.00 0.00 2.64 3 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 19.97 24 7 2 Flagstaff US 89 NB: MP550 - MP552 1 5.66 5 1.00 5,822 0.07 52/48 15% 59% 65 C 8 0.50 4,900 C 56 2.37 84 1.27 >10mi 2.00 53.44 0.85 85.39 1.54 0.50 0.28 8 0.53 3.00 3 0.06 0.12 0.76 2 MEDIUM 2 $0 3.00 18.44 30 8 3 Flagstaff US 160 EB: MP312 - MP314 1 6.04 5 1.00 5,173 0.10 53/47 9% 35% 65 C 7 0.49 8,300 D 58 2.47 81 1.55 3.08 1.00 69.14 1.49 78.28 1.08 0.49 0.28 26 1.73 4.00 4 0.14 0.26 1.27 2 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 18.13 32 9 3 Flagstaff US 89 SB: MP557 - MP555 1 3.43 5 1.00 5,822 0.07 52/48 15% 77% 65 C 4 0.25 4,900 C 57 2.44 84 1.29 >10mi 2.00 54.46 0.89 85.24 1.53 0.25 0.14 4 0.27 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.38 1 LOW 3 $0 3.00 17.29 33 10 3 Flagstaff UA 89 NB: MP550 - MP551 1 3.35 1 1.00 306 0.16 63/37 15% 14% 65 A 1 1.19 1,300 A 20 0.00 97 0.00 >10mi 2.00 32.96 0.00 92.31 2.00 1.19 0.67 1 0.07 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.53 1 LOW 3 $0 3.00 13.67 44 11 3 Globe US 60 EB: MP306 - MP307 2 5.24 5 1.00 2,365 0.14 57/43 11% 43% 55 B 11 1.70 3,300 C 51 2.03 80 1.65 1.99 0.43 58.85 1.07 75.40 0.89 1.70 0.96 22 1.47 6.00 6 0.00 0.00 1.74 4 LOW 3 $0 3.00 23.02 14 1 2 Globe US 70 WB: MP282 - MP288 1 3.91 5 1.00 2,576 0.10 58/42 12% 35% 65 B 12 1.70 3,700 C 1 44 1.54 90 0.66 >10mi 2.00 51.91 0.78 87.06 1.65 1.70 0.96 38 2.53 6.00 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 MEDIUM 2 $48,240 2.42 22.00 21 2 2 Globe US 70 EB: MP262 - MP264 1 3.43 5 1.00 3,578 0.10 59/41 9% 0% 65 A 9 0.92 6,300 C 1 35 0.96 90 0.73 >10mi 2.00 52.09 0.79 85.46 1.55 0.92 0.52 37 2.47 5.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.20 3 MEDIUM 2 $40,320 2.51 19.06 28 3 2 Globe US 60 WB: MP267 - MP266 1 3.26 8 1.00 2,365 0.14 57/43 11% 25% 65 B 3 0.46 3,300 C 46 1.71 89 0.76 3.02 0.97 54.70 0.90 86.38 1.61 0.46 0.26 3 0.20 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.48 1 MEDIUM 2 $0 3.00 14.20 41 4 3 Holbrook SR 87 NB: MP295 - MP297 2 5.97 2 1.00 817 0.11 58/42 14% 88% 55 A 14 6.26 1,300 B 38 1.17 90 0.72 >10mi 2.00 41.85 0.37 86.31 1.61 6.26 3.52 40 2.67 6.00 6 0.00 0.00 2.77 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 23.38 12 1 2 Holbrook SR 264 EB: MP457 - MP461 1 3.86 1 1.00 5,001 0.10 60/40 16% 38% 65 C 9 0.66 5,500 C 62 2.70 83 1.42 >10mi 2.00 63.47 1.26 81.68 1.30 0.66 0.37 40 2.67 6.00 6 0.07 0.14 0.50 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 23.19 13 2 2 Holbrook SR 87 NB: MP290 - MP296 2 5.75 2 1.00 817 0.11 58/42 14% 86% 55 A 10 4.47 1,300 B 38 1.17 92 0.47 >10mi 2.00 41.78 0.36 90.38 1.87 4.47 2.51 19 1.27 5.00 5 0.00 0.00 1.98 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 21.38 22 3 2 Holbrook SR 87 SB: MP290 - MP296 2 5.75 2 1.00 817 0.11 58/42 14% 70% 55 A 8 3.58 1,300 B 37 1.13 92 0.44 >10mi 2.00 41.22 0.34 90.63 1.89 3.58 2.01 12 0.80 4.00 4 0.00 0.00 1.58 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 19.81 26 4 2 Holbrook US 160 WB: MP462 - MP460 1 5.65 5 1.00 2,059 0.09 57/43 14% 35% 65 B 3 0.53 4,000 C 37 1.10 89 0.76 >10mi 2.00 50.97 0.74 82.32 1.34 0.53 0.30 17 1.13 5.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.66 2 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 17.25 34 5 3 Holbrook US 160 EB: MP381 - MP384 1 3.80 5 1.00 5,144 0.10 52/48 10% 48% 65 C 5 0.36 6,200 C 60 2.58 84 1.26 >10mi 2.00 63.12 1.24 82.80 1.37 0.36 0.20 15 1.00 3.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.68 1 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 16.65 35 6 3 Holbrook US 191 SB: MP356 - MP354 1 5.57 1 1.00 901 0.10 60/40 27% 58% 65 B 3 1.22 1,300 B 38 1.16 93 0.44 >10mi 2.00 40.86 0.33 90.90 1.91 1.22 0.68 3 0.20 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.54 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 16.52 36 7 3 Holbrook US 191 SB: MP444 - MP442 1 6.87 1 1.00 4,730 0.08 65/35 13% 31% 65 C 4 0.31 5,000 C 54 2.21 83 1.39 >10mi 2.00 55.21 0.92 82.06 1.32 0.31 0.17 10 0.67 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.36 2 HIGH 1 $36,360 2.56 15.58 38 8 3 Holbrook SR 264 EB: MP377 - MP379 2 5.85 1 1.00 2,169 0.10 58/42 15% 100% 55 B 2 0.34 3,100 C 48 1.84 82 1.51 >10mi 2.00 55.86 0.94 76.65 0.97 0.34 0.19 5 0.33 3.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.32 1 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 15.46 39 9 3 Holbrook SR 264 EB: MP402 - MP404 2 6.38 1 1.00 1,780 0.10 58/42 15% 87% 50 B 0 0.00 1,800 B 44 1.60 88 0.85 >10mi 2.00 44.61 0.48 88.24 1.73 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 12.66 45 10 3 Kingman US 93 SB: MP161 - MP163 1 3.59 5 1.00 5,759 0.11 57/43 16% 0% 65 C 18 1.14 6,700 C 51 2.05 83 1.42 >10mi 2.00 56.75 0.98 82.37 1.35 1.14 0.64 41 2.73 6.00 6 0.32 0.59 2.37 4 LOW 3 $0 3.00 25.03 8 1 1 Kingman SR 95 SB: MP177 - MP175 2 3.03 5 1.00 5,846 0.12 63/37 22% 50% 55 D 9 0.56 8,700 D 71 3.29 77 1.99 >10mi 2.00 81.44 2.00 72.70 0.71 0.56 0.32 36 2.40 5.00 5 0.12 0.23 1.51 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 23.53 10 2 2 Prescott SA 89 SB: MP339 - MP343 3 5.64 1 1.00 1,520 0.10 58/42 11% 100% 30 C 37 8.89 2,100 D 43 1.50 79 1.81 >10mi 2.00 47.68 0.61 74.27 0.81 8.89 5.00 96 6.40 7.00 7 2.16 4.00 6.36 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 30.73 1 1 1 Prescott SA 89 NB: MP334 - MP336 3 6.13 1 1.00 1,520 0.10 58/42 11% 100% 30 D 28 6.73 2,100 D 43 1.50 75 2.16 >10mi 2.00 47.68 0.61 69.91 0.52 6.73 3.78 70 4.67 7.00 7 1.20 2.22 4.82 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 27.80 4 2 1 Prescott SR 260 EB: MP288 - MP289 2 2.89 2 1.00 3,747 0.10 51/49 13% 100% 50 C 30 2.92 6,900 C 57 2.38 80 1.68 1.42 0.14 66.90 1.40 74.20 0.81 2.92 1.64 54 3.60 7.00 7 0.19 0.36 6.24 4 LOW 3 $0 3.00 25.40 7 3 1 Prescott SR 89 NB: MP339 - MP341 1 3.05 8 1.00 3,174 0.10 59/41 13% 54% 65 C 15 1.73 6,000 D 54 2.19 88 0.90 >10mi 2.00 67.35 1.42 82.76 1.37 1.73 0.97 42 2.80 6.00 6 0.00 0.00 3.20 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 22.84 17 4 2 Prescott SA 89 SB: MP348 - MP349 2 7.95 3 1.00 4,498 0.10 58/42 10% 55% 50 C 6 0.49 5,500 C 61 2.67 69 2.76 >10mi 2.00 65.79 1.35 65.57 0.24 0.49 0.27 18 1.20 3.00 3 0.24 0.45 0.83 1 LOW 3 $0 3.00 19.75 27 5 2 Prescott SR 89 NB: MP344 - MP345 1 2.95 8 1.00 3,174 0.10 59/41 13% 3% 65 A 5 0.58 6,000 C 1 34 0.90 90 0.69 >10mi 2.00 51.96 0.78 84.46 1.48 0.58 0.32 16 1.07 2.00 2 0.12 0.21 1.07 1 MEDIUM 2 $27,360 2.67 14.07 42 6 3 1 1 1 COST PER LANE MILE SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) 2 NUMBER OF BRIDGES MAX GRADE SR 67 NB: MP591 - MP589 CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) Flagstaff ADOT DISTRICT HIGHWAY CLASS Table A2: Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details Prescott SR 169 SB: MP9 - MP7 1 3.97 5 1.00 4,997 0.08 63/37 15% 0% 65 B 7 0.51 7,400 C 39 1.23 87 0.95 >10mi 2.00 51.17 0.75 84.16 1.46 0.51 0.29 11 0.73 2.00 2 0.00 0.00 1.17 2 LOW 3 $248,760 0.00 13.68 43 7 3 Safford UX 191 NB: MP168 - MP171 3 7.46 4 1.00 5,184 0.18 65/35 14% 100% 40 E 27 1.90 3,425 E 82 4.00 56 4.00 >10mi 2.00 72.74 1.64 63.89 0.13 1.90 1.07 68 4.53 7.00 7 0.21 0.39 2.02 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 28.23 3 1 1 Safford UX 191 SB: MP169 - MP167 3 5.71 5 1.00 7,753 0.10 71/30 14% 100% 40 E 20 0.94 7,500 E 79 3.81 61 3.52 3.99 1.48 77.73 1.85 61.95 0.00 0.94 0.53 50 3.33 7.00 7 0.19 0.35 2.19 4 HIGH 1 $0 3.00 26.54 5 2 1 Safford SR 90 WB: MP329 - MP327 1 4.92 5 1.00 4,066 0.10 65/35 9% 66% 65 C 15 1.35 5,600 D 63 2.81 86 1.04 >10mi 2.00 70.00 1.53 84.09 1.46 1.35 0.76 42 2.80 6.00 6 0.18 0.33 2.33 4 LOW 3 $0 3.00 25.93 6 3 1 Safford SR 90 EB: MP335 - MP337 1 3.71 5 1.00 4,066 0.10 65/35 9% 100% 65 C 13 1.17 5,600 D 65 2.91 86 1.09 4.57 1.78 71.68 1.60 83.58 1.43 1.17 0.66 37 2.47 5.00 5 0.00 0.00 2.02 3 MEDIUM 2 $0 3.00 22.46 20 4 2 Safford US 191 NB: MP139 - MP144 1 2.67 6 1.00 3,073 0.12 71/29 16% 39% 65 C 8 0.95 4,500 D 57 2.44 88 0.92 1.38 0.12 66.22 1.37 84.34 1.48 0.95 0.53 26 1.73 4.00 4 0.12 0.22 1.33 3 LOW 3 $0 3.00 20.08 23 5 2 A4 NUMBER OF BRIDGES EXISTING PTSF EXISTING PTSF POINTS EXISTING PFFS EXISTING PFFS POINTS PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL: LENGTH (MI) PL PROXIMITY POINTS FUTURE PTSF FUTURE PTSF POINTS FUTURE PFFS FUTURE PFFS POINTS EXISTING CRASH RATE EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS EXISTING EPDO EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR EXISTING EPDO* POINTS EXISTING EQUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VALUE POINTS EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR FUTURE EPDO* POINTS COST PER LANE MILE COST PER LANE MILE POINTS BRIDGE WIDENING COST BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 1.60 4.00 4 0.07 0.13 1.85 3 HIGH 1 $81,000 2.02 18.14 31 6 3 C 61 2.69 79 1.76 >10mi 2.00 66.15 1.37 75.41 0.89 0.07 0.04 1 0.07 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.14 1 MEDIUM 2 $0 3.00 15.75 37 7 3 D 65 2.92 84 1.26 1.15 0.00 72.91 1.65 80.36 1.21 0.24 0.13 3 0.20 1.00 1 0.12 0.22 0.33 1 LOW 3 $0 3.00 15.40 40 8 3 C 63 2.80 82 1.44 >10mi 2.00 70.69 1.56 77.74 1.04 6.00 3.37 117 7.80 7.00 7 1.27 2.35 5.41 4 MEDIUM 2 $0 3.00 30.56 2 1 1 C 50 1.92 91 0.57 >10mi 2.00 58.54 1.06 88.20 1.73 1.09 0.61 10 0.67 4.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.98 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 19.90 25 2 2 C 48 1.81 91 0.55 >10mi 2.00 56.85 0.99 88.39 1.74 1.09 0.61 6 0.40 3.00 3 0.18 0.34 0.98 2 LOW 3 $0 3.00 19.04 29 3 2 Safford SR 80 EB: MP334 - MP338 2 3.39 5 1.00 5,295 0.09 53/47 10% 93% 55 C 14 0.97 6,200 C Safford SR 80 EB: MP314 - MP317 2 4.02 1 1.00 5,150 0.07 63/37 12% 100% 55 C 1 0.07 6,400 Safford US 191 NB: MP147 - MP149 2 3.62 8 1.00 3,073 0.12 71/29 16% 100% 55 C 2 0.24 4,500 Tucson SR 83 NB: MP43 - MP49 3 6.24 5 1.00 2,009 0.15 76/24 7% 100% 45 C 33 6.00 2,900 Tucson SR 83 SB: MP54 - MP52 2 3.49 4 1.00 2,009 0.15 76/24 7% 22% 55 B 6 1.09 2,900 Tucson SR 83 NB: MP52 - MP54 2 3.49 4 1.00 2,009 0.15 76/24 7% 19% 55 B 6 1.09 2,900 ADOT DISTRICT FUTURE OVERALL LOS 24 FUTURE AADT 0.54 CRASH RATE 0.97 TOTAL CRASHES 1.21 EXISTING OVERALL LOS 80.38 SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 1.32 PERCENT NO-PASSING 64.97 TRUCK PERCENT 0.66 DIRECTIONAL SPLIT 2.43 K-FACTOR 1.51 EXISTING AADT 82 SEGMENT LENGTH (MI) 2.74 SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) 62 MAX GRADE 1 HIGHWAY CLASS CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) Table A2: Climbing Lanes on Two-Lane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details (Continued) A5 BRIDGE WIDENING COST POINTS TOTAL POINTS STATEWIDE RANK DISTRICT RANK TIER LEVEL 1 1 BRIDGE WIDENING COST 1 COST PER LANE MILE POINTS 1 COST PER LANE MILE 1 FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR POINTS 1 1 FUTURE EPDO/MILE/YEAR 1 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE POINTS 1 EXISTING PASSING RELATED CRASH RATE C B A B B B A B A A B A B B A A A A C D C B C B C B D A B C B EXISTING EQUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY VALUE POINTS 24,000 28,500 27,500 30,500 27,500 19,000 21,500 21,500 19,500 19,500 24,000 16,500 30,250 17,500 16,500 18,000 15,500 15,500 37,000 40,000 38,500 29,500 35,500 29,500 46,000 25,500 40,750 25,500 26,500 41,000 32,200 EXISTING EPDO/MILE/YEAR FUTURE LOS 224 131 127 98 66 73 90 42 46 57 128 84 88 63 69 47 31 44 209 153 162 82 75 65 97 50 159 108 29 155 62 EXISTING EPDO* FUTURE AADT 1.91 1.73 2.44 1.09 0.87 1.10 0.92 0.53 0.96 0.98 2.11 0.93 0.59 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.54 0.61 1.85 1.44 0.87 0.82 0.65 0.67 0.57 0.39 0.63 0.66 0.45 0.79 0.67 EXISTING CRASH RATE POINTS EQUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE VALUE 111 76 80 51 36 42 45 26 35 33 70 31 34 29 24 27 18 19 142 103 67 48 42 39 55 21 51 31 22 57 25 EXISTING CRASH RATE AVERAGE CRASH RATE C A A A A A A B A A A A A A A A A A B C B B B B B A C A A B A FUTURE DENSITY POINTS TOTAL CRASHES 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 55 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 65 65 75 75 65 75 75 75 35 75 75 75 55 FUTURE DENSITY EXIS LOS 31% 11% 17% 10% 45% 15% 23% 23% 16% 16% 42% 32% 28% 20% 32% 22% 24% 20% 11% 16% 11% 11% 15% 11% 11% 16% 22% 15% 15% 15% 16% PL PROXIMITY POINTS SPEED LIMIT (MPH) 52/48 58/42 56/44 60/40 54/46 57/43 58/42 58/42 58/42 58/42 59/41 56/44 57/44 58/42 56/44 58/42 58/42 58/42 59/41 62/38 60/40 63/37 60/40 63/37 58/42 65/35 56/44 60/40 59/41 60/40 52/48 PROXIMITY TO EXISTING PL OR CL: LENGTH (MI) TRUCK PERCENT 0.21 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08 Proximity to Passing Lane Value DIRECTIONAL SPLIT 21,186 16,050 11,975 17,146 18,113 13,902 17,912 17,912 13,361 12,242 12,104 12,234 21,073 12,981 12,234 13,875 12,273 11,420 28,069 26,171 27,973 21,353 23,729 21,353 35,035 19,774 29,608 17,166 17,720 26,483 13587 EXISTING DENSITY POINTS K-FACTOR 10 10 10 8 9 10 4 4 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 10 11 10 10 10 10 EXISTING DENSITY EXISTING AADT 3.22 6.00 3.81 5.97 3.97 4.95 2.93 5.17 3.88 4.44 6.03 2.93 3.70 5.36 4.05 4.11 4.63 3.15 6.10 6.08 4.34 3.25 4.68 3.47 3.74 3.00 3.15 4.69 5.21 2.96 6.28 NUMBER OF BRIDGES SHOULDER WIDTH (FT) I 40 EB: MP188 - MP190 I 17 NB: MP307 - MP311 I 17 SB: MP318 - MP316 I 17 NB: MP299 - MP305 I 40 WB: MP193 - MP191 I 40 EB: MP151 - MP152 I 15 NB: MP19 - MP25 I 15 SB: MP21 - MP19 I 40 EB: MP156 - MP159 I 40 WB: MP163 - MP162 I 40 EB: MP47 - MP49 I 40 WB: MP132 - MP136 I 40 EB: MP58 - MP60 I 40 EB: MP81 - MP83 I 40 EB: MP125 - MP128 I 40 EB: MP76 - MP77 I 40 WB: MP115 - MP114 I 40 EB: MP93 - MP97 I 17 NB: MP246 - MP250 I 17 SB: MP281 - MP285 I 17 NB: MP255 - MP256 I 17 SB: MP293 - MP295 I 17 SB: MP284 - MP286 I 17 NB: MP294 - MP298 I 17 SB: MP240 - MP238 I 17 NB: MP270 - MP275 I 10 WB: MP306 - MP302 I 10 EB: MP315 - MP317 I 10 EB: MP309 - MP311 I 10 EB: MP286 - MP291 I 8 EB: MP18 - MP20 MAX SEGMENT SLOPE Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Flagstaff Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Kingman Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Safford Safford Safford Tucson Yuma CLIMBING LANE LOCATION (VICINITY) DISTRICT Table A3: Climbing Lanes on Multilane Highways – Criteria and Ranking Details 19 9 4 10 10 8 8 15 7 6 6 6 10 9 7 8 7 6 18 20 15 12 16 12 15 11 22 7 8 12 7 6.46 2.09 0.00 2.42 2.44 1.92 1.81 4.74 1.38 0.83 0.79 0.67 2.85 1.99 1.10 1.68 1.30 0.66 6.07 7.28 5.00 3.71 5.48 3.71 4.91 2.97 8.00 1.31 1.69 3.47 1.51 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 1.29 10.00 10.00 2.06 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 3.25 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 1.29 >10mi >10mi 2.06 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 3.25 >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi >10mi 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.42 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.06 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 21.08 15.63 9.41 16.95 14.54 11.48 9.81 17.70 10.50 9.48 11.64 7.56 15.07 11.56 8.85 10.21 8.87 7.57 23.38 31.25 21.10 17.18 24.56 17.18 19.85 13.88 30.38 10.45 11.80 18.41 15.44 2.28 1.36 0.31 1.59 1.18 0.66 0.38 1.71 0.50 0.32 0.69 0.00 1.27 0.68 0.22 0.45 0.22 0.00 2.67 4.00 2.29 1.62 2.87 1.62 2.08 1.07 3.85 0.49 0.72 1.83 1.33 1.91 1.73 2.44 1.09 0.87 1.10 0.92 0.53 0.96 0.98 2.11 0.93 0.59 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.54 0.61 1.85 1.44 0.87 0.82 0.65 0.67 0.57 0.39 0.63 0.66 0.45 0.79 0.67 3.72 3.27 5.00 1.70 1.17 1.74 1.29 0.35 1.39 1.45 4.20 1.31 0.49 1.04 0.80 0.79 0.36 0.54 3.56 2.56 1.19 1.06 0.63 0.68 0.45 0.00 0.59 0.66 0.16 0.97 0.69 224 131 127 98 66 73 90 42 46 57 128 84 88 63 69 47 31 44 209 153 162 82 75 65 97 50 159 108 29 155 62 14.93 8.73 8.47 6.53 5.26 4.87 6.00 2.80 3.07 3.80 8.53 5.60 5.87 4.20 4.60 3.13 2.07 2.93 13.93 10.20 10.80 5.47 5.00 4.33 6.47 3.33 10.60 7.20 1.93 10.33 4.13 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 7.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.33 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 1.99 2.12 2.13 3.31 1.65 0.82 1.11 0.85 0.51 0.20 4.00 0.58 0.04 0.53 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.23 2.77 2.28 1.80 0.69 0.99 0.04 0.61 0.06 1.07 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.16 17.69 18.80 25.60 12.64 9.10 8.07 7.60 4.39 7.19 7.39 19.52 5.88 6.80 5.50 4.55 4.93 3.20 3.63 26.08 21.93 12.85 9.24 8.76 7.51 10.06 3.77 9.78 6.42 4.58 12.30 7.18 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 LOW LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW HIGH HIGH LOW LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW HIGH LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 $0 $0 $203,760 $0 $0 $94,320 $0 $0 $0 $267,480 $29,520 $0 $31,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $158,760 $0 $195,120 $0 $0 $0 $49,320 $23,040 $0 3.00 3.00 0.71 3.00 3.00 1.94 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 2.67 3.00 2.64 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.22 3.00 0.81 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.45 2.74 3.00 32.45 27.84 24.15 24.01 20.43 19.08 18.59 16.65 14.19 13.81 25.35 18.56 17.30 17.24 16.32 14.07 12.09 11.48 33.07 30.12 27.27 21.08 20.19 19.06 17.86 14.09 29.51 17.55 12.10 21.01 15.70 2 5 8 9 12 14 16 22 25 28 7 17 20 21 23 27 30 31 1 3 6 10 13 15 18 26 4 19 29 11 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 A6