Arizona Department of Transportation Pedestrian Safety Action Plan PGKG 3267 Contract # TO849U0001 Final Report ADOT Task Assignment MPD 04-08 Prepared by: Prepared for: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION June 2009 091374020 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Problem and Need Statement ............................................................................................... 7 Study Overview ..................................................................................................................... 7 Study Area and Scope of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ................................... 8 Tribal Coordination .............................................................................................................. 9 Purpose and Content of the Final Report............................................................................. 9 2.0 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GOALS AND EMPHASIS AREAS ................................................................. 11 3.0 STATE HIGHWAY HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS......................................................... 13 4.0 PRIORITIZATION OF HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS .................................................... 19 4.1 4.2 Segment Prioritization and Methodology ........................................................................... 19 Interchange Prioritization and Methodology ..................................................................... 24 5.0 POTENTIAL COUNTERMEASURES FOR HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH AND TRIBAL COMMUNITY LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 26 6.0 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS............................................................................... 69 6.1 Recommended Policies and Programs................................................................................ 69 6.2 Suggested Modifications to Policies and Practices for Consideration by ADOT .............. 79 6.2.1 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2000, Section 200 – Traffic Studies, Subsection 240 – Traffic Impact Analysis ................................................... 79 6.2.2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, March 2001, Section 600 – Traffic Signals, Subsection 621 – Signal Phase Change Intervals........................................ 79 6.2.3 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2003, Section 700 – Illumination........................................................................................................................ 79 6.2.4 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, November 2008, Section 900 – Pedestrians, Subsection 910 – Pedestrian Crosswalks ............................................ 79 6.2.5 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 107.2 – Pedestrian Facilities .................. 85 6.2.6 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 404 – Driveway and Turnout Access ...... 86 6.2.7 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 408.11 – Right-Turn Channelization....... 86 7.0 RESPONSES TO FHWA HOW TO DEVELOP A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................................ 88 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................... 88 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................ 89 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 90 Analyzing Information and Prioritizing Concerns ............................................................ 91 Providing Funding .............................................................................................................. 93 Creating the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ....................................................................... 95 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc i Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................... 96 Appendix A – Maps of High-crash Locations LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit E1–Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006 ........................... 1 Exhibit E-3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments ..................................................... 3 Exhibit E-4 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Interchanges ................................................ 5 Exhibit E-5 – Total Cost of Improvements for Tribal Community Locations ......................................... 5 Exhibit 1-1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System ......................... 8 Exhibit 1-2 – Arizona State Highway System ...................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 2-1 – Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highway System ........................................ 12 Exhibit 3-1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations ....................................... 13 Exhibit 3-2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations ................................................. 15 Exhibit 3-3 – Tribal Community Locations ......................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 4-1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix ........................................................................................ 22 Exhibit 4-2 – Interchange Prioritization Matrix ................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 5-1 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 1 ...................................................................... 27 Exhibit 5-2 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 2 ...................................................................... 28 Exhibit 5-3 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 3 ...................................................................... 29 Exhibit 5-4 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4A.................................................................... 30 Exhibit 5-5 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4B .................................................................... 31 Exhibit 5-6 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4C .................................................................... 32 Exhibit 5-7 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 5 ...................................................................... 33 Exhibit 5-8 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 6 ...................................................................... 34 Exhibit 5-9 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 7 ...................................................................... 35 Exhibit 5-10 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8A.................................................................. 36 Exhibit 5-11 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8B .................................................................. 37 Exhibit 5-12 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8C .................................................................. 38 Exhibit 5-13 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 11 .................................................................. 39 Exhibit 5-14 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 12 .................................................................. 40 Exhibit 5-15 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 13 .................................................................. 41 Exhibit 5-16 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 14 .................................................................. 42 Exhibit 5-17 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 15 .................................................................. 43 Exhibit 5-18 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 16 .................................................................. 44 Exhibit 5-19 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 17 .................................................................. 45 Exhibit 5-20 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 18 .................................................................. 46 Exhibit 5-21 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 20 .................................................................. 47 Exhibit 5-22 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 21 .................................................................. 48 Exhibit 5-23 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 1 ................................................................ 49 Exhibit 5-24 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 3 ................................................................ 50 Exhibit 5-25 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 4 ................................................................ 51 Exhibit 5-26 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 5 ................................................................ 52 Exhibit 5-27 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 9 ................................................................ 53 Exhibit 5-28 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 10 .............................................................. 54 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc ii Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit 5-29 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 11 .............................................................. 55 Exhibit 5-30 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 12 .............................................................. 56 Exhibit 5-31 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 13 .............................................................. 57 Exhibit 5-32 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 14 .............................................................. 58 Exhibit 5-33 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 18 .............................................................. 59 Exhibit 5-34 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 1 ....................................... 60 Exhibit 5-35 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 2 ....................................... 60 Exhibit 5-36 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 3 ....................................... 61 Exhibit 5-37 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 4 ....................................... 61 Exhibit 5-38 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 5 ....................................... 62 Exhibit 5-39 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 6 ....................................... 62 Exhibit 5-40 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 7 ....................................... 63 Exhibit 5-41 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 8 ....................................... 63 Exhibit 5-42 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 9 ....................................... 64 Exhibit 5-43 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 10 ..................................... 64 Exhibit 5-44 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 11 ..................................... 65 Exhibit 5-45 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 12 ..................................... 66 Exhibit 5-46 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 13 ..................................... 67 Exhibit 5-47 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 14 ..................................... 67 Exhibit 5-48 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 15 ..................................... 68 Exhibit 6-1 – Access Management Driveway Design .......................................................................... 78 Exhibit 6-2 – Proposed 2009 MUTCD Warrant Criteria for a Pedestrian Hybrid Signal ....................... 81 Exhibit 6-3 – Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks ..................................................... 84 Exhibit 6-4 – Improved Free Right Turn Lane Design ......................................................................... 87 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc iii Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In 2005, Arizona ranked 5th among states in pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents, with 164 pedestrian fatalities on Arizona’s roadways—a nearly 30 percent increase from 2003 levels. To reduce the number of pedestrian crashes in Arizona, the state of Arizona is participating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is leading the initiative in coordination with FHWA Arizona Division Office and the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. A key activity of the initiative is development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends actions that when funded and implemented will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Arizona State Highway System. The Plan recommends achievable strategies to improve pedestrian safety on the State Highway System. Elements of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan include: Identification and prioritization of high-crash segment locations Development of conceptual countermeasures and their estimated costs Recommendations for new or revisions to existing policies for consideration by ADOT Crash Statistics, 2002 - 2006 A review of Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary for the years 2002 through 2006 reveals that 8,033 pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes occurred in Arizona over the 5-year period. Exhibit E1 lists the number of pedestrian crashes and fatalities that have occurred each year from 2002 to 2006. Exhibit E1–Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006 Pedestrian Crashes (on all Arizona Roadways), 2002 - 2006 Pedestrian Crashes on the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006 Total Pedestrian Crashes Fatal Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Fatalities Total Pedestrian Crashes Fatal Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Fatalities 2002 1,608 147 158 139 30 33 2003 1,595 123 126 152 23 23 2004 1,631 132 135 161 35 35 2005 1,581 161 164 177 40 44 2006 1,618 163 170 142 45 45 TOTAL 8,033 726 753 771 173 180 Source: Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary, 2002 through 2006 The study area for the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is limited to roadways on the Arizona State Highway System. A review of crash data provided by the ADOT for the years 2002 through 2006 demonstrated that 771 pedestrian crashes occurred on roads within the Arizona State Highway System – representing less than 10% of the more than 8,000 pedestrian crashes that occurred on all Arizona roadways from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. The remaining 90% of crashes occurred on roads constructed and maintained by local agencies; city, county, and tribal governments. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 1 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 ADOT recognizes that the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan only addresses a small percentage of total pedestrian crashes in the state of Arizona. As such, development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is the first of many steps required to adequately address pedestrian safety in Arizona. It is envisioned that other agencies and jurisdictions in Arizona will develop individual pedestrian safety action plans to meet their respective needs, and that each of the individual pedestrian safety action plans will subsequently be incorporated into a Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Proposed Pedestrian Safety Goal for Arizona The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan proposed a goal to reduce pedestrian crashes (both fatal and non-fatal) by 20 percent by the year 2016. The reduction in pedestrian crashes will be measured by a five-year average (2012 to 2016). The five-year average for the years 2002 through 2006 will serve as the base years. Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas Review and analysis of crash data, coupled with stakeholder and technical advisory committee input lead to identification of pedestrian safety emphasis areas for Arizona. Identification of emphasis areas facilitates focusing of resources to areas where the largest benefits can be realized. Identified emphasis areas are: Reduce pedestrian crashes in urban areas at locations with high pedestrian activity Reduce pedestrian crashes at intersections involving turning vehicles (right and left) Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided (no median barrier) roadways Reduce pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking Reduce dart/dash / mid-block pedestrian crashes Reduce pedestrian crashes involving turning vehicles at interchanges Improve lighting conditions at high pedestrian activity locations High pedestrian Crash Locations, Potential Countermeasures, and Planning Level Cost Estimate Review of pedestrian crash data led to identification of state highway locations, including segments and interchanges, with the highest numbers of pedestrian crashes. Throughout the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, the study team recognized the challenges associated with pedestrian crashes on tribal communities: comprehensive crash data on tribal lands is not available in state crash databases; and where data for crashes on tribal lands is available in state databases, it is often incomplete. To ensure that pedestrian safety needs for tribal communities was not overlooked, tribal communities were provided the opportunity to identify specific locations on state highways in need of pedestrian safety improvements. A list of high pedestrian crash locations is provided in Exhibit E-3, and E-4. Locations identified by tribal communities are listed in Exhibit E-5. Potential countermeasures that could be considered were identified for each high pedestrian crash location. Potential countermeasures include: Crosswalk Striping Pedestrian Crossing Warning signs "Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians" signs 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 2 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 “No Right Turn on Red" signs Pedestrian Countdown Signals Lighting Curb Radii Reduction Pedestrian Hybrid Signals Pedestrian Refuge Islands Sidewalks Curb Ramps Raised Medians A planning-level cost estimate was subsequently developed for each segment. Conceptual costs of improvements for each segment, interchange, and tribal community location are presented in Exhibit E3, E-4, and E-5. The total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety projects for high pedestrian crash segments ranges between $30 million and $50 million. The lower range excludes construction of raised medians as a pedestrian safety countermeasure. The upper range of the cost estimate assumes that raised median islands are constructed on segments as appropriate. As presented in Exhibit E-4, the total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety projects for high pedestrian crash interchanges is approximately $500,000. As presented in Exhibit E-5, the total conceptual estimated cost of pedestrian safety improvements for locations identified by the Tribal communities is approximately $42 million. Exhibit E-3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments Segment Cost without Raised Median Segment Number Segment Cost with Raised Median Road Name 1 SR-95 & SR-68 North Oatman Rd (MP 243.5) Davis Dam Rd (MP 251.3) Bullhead City $14,237,840 $5,751,440 2 SR-95 Joy Ln (MP 236.4) Camp Mohave Rd (MP 238.4) Bullhead City N/A $2,800,920 3 SR-287 (Florence Blvd) SR-387 (MP 111.8) Arizola Rd (MP 114.3) Casa Grande $4,777,600 $2,347,600 4A SR-40B Riordan Rd (MP 195.3) Elden St (MP 196.6) Flagstaff $2,454,080 $1,257,800 4B SR-89A University Ave (MP 402.5) SR-40B (MP 216.1) Flagstaff $1,279,060 $723,100 4C US-180 SR-40B (MP 215.4) Birch Ave (MP 216.1) Flagstaff $269,920 $253,600 5 SR-40B Arrowhead Ave (MP 198.3) Postal Blvd (MP 199) Flagstaff $1,006,440 $139,200 From 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc To 3 City Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Segment Number Exhibit E-3 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Segments (continued) Road Name From To City Segment Cost with Raised Median Segment Cost without Raised Median 6 US-89 Snowflake Dr / Trailsend Dr (MP 420.1) Townsend Winona Rd (MP 420.7) Flagstaff $951,840 $382,800 7 SR-40B 5th Ave (MP 286.3) I-40 Exit 286 GRamp (MP 287.4) Holbrook $2,251,480 $1,052,800 8A SR-77 I-10 Frontage Rd (MP 68.1) Limberlost Dr (MP 71) Tucson N/A $2,231,200 8B SR-77 River Rd (MP 72) Sahuaro Vista (MP 75.1) Tucson N/A $4,269,206 8C SR-77 Magee Rd (MP 75.9) Mountain Vista Dr (MP 76.2) Tucson N/A $402,579 11 SR-90 SR-92 (MP 321.5) Giulio Cesare Ave (MP 322.5) Sierra Vista $1,933,310 $757,190 12 US-95 Alamo Dr (MP 25.2) Avenue 3E (MP 25.8) Yuma $1,442,675 $766,115 13 SR-8B 1st St (MP 0.3) 32nd St (MP 4) Yuma $5,476,080 $1,128,000 14 SR-89A Dry Creek Rd (MP 371) Soldier Pass Rd (MP 372.9) Sedona N/A N/A 15 SR-387/ Pinal Ave SR-287 (MP 0) Cottonwood Ln (MP 1) Casa Grande $1,419,080 $219,200 16 SR-86 La Cholla Blvd (MP 169.9) 16th Ave (MP 171.7) Tucson $3,077,400 $1,358,400 17 SR-87 / Arizona Blvd Martin Rd (MP 131.5) Vah Ki Inn Rd (MP 133.5) Coolidge $3,751,600 $1,615,600 18 US-95 SR-8B (MP 23.4) Redondo Center Dr (MP 24.2) Yuma $1,294,400 $584,000 20 US-60X/ Apache Trail Signal Butte Rd (MP 193) Meridian Rd (MP 194) Mesa $1,925,864 $737,864 21 US-60X/ Apache Trail Ellsworth Rd (MP 191) Crismon Rd (MP 192) Mesa $2,034,704 $846,704 $49,583,373 $29,625,318 Total 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 4 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit E-4 – Total Cost of Improvements for High Crash Interchanges Interchange Number City On Road Total Interchange Cost Related State Highway System 1 Phoenix Greenway Rd I-17 Interchange $93,200 3 Phoenix 7th Ave I-10 Interchange $6,800 4 Tempe Apache Blvd SR-101 / SB Price Rd Interchange $8,800 5 Phoenix Cactus Rd I-17 Interchange $93,200 9 Phoenix 32nd St SR-202 Interchange $46,800 10 Phoenix Bethany Home Rd I-17 Interchange $52,800 11 Phoenix Camelback Rd I-17 Interchange $12,800 12 Phoenix Dunlap Ave I-17 Interchange $52,800 13 Tempe University Dr SR-101 / SB Price Rd Interchange $22,800 14 Tempe / Mesa Baseline Rd I-10 Interchange $93,200 18 Phoenix Indian School Rd I-17 Interchange $13,200 Total $496,400 Exhibit E-5 – Total Cost of Improvements for Tribal Community Locations Location State Route # Tribal Community Name From To Total Location Cost 1 SR-587 Gila River Indian Community MP 220 -- $300,000 2 SR-87 Gila River Indian Community MP 135 MP 160 $11,272,400 3 US-89 Navajo Nation (Cameron) MP 464.7 MP 470 $610,000 4 US-160 Navajo Nation (Tuba City) MP 321.7 MP 323 $846,643 5 US-160 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) MP 393 MP 393.7 $444,032 6 US-163 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) MP 393.5 MP 395.4 $3,259,600 7 US-191 Navajo Nation (Chinle) MP 446.6 MP 448.2 $3,798,822 8 SR-264 Navajo Nation (Ganado) MP 446.3 MP 447.6 $1,070,843 9 SR-264 Navajo Nation (Window Rock) MP 474.7 MP 475.8 $1,992,400 10 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 74 MP 76 $1,450,000 11 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 90 MP 94 $2,670,000 12 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 111.1 MP 116.6 $1,755,000 13 SR-264 Hopi Tribe MP 385 MP 390 $3,250,000 14 SR-264 Hopi Tribe MP 367 MP 369 $766,864 15 SR-73 White Mountain Apache Tribe Fort Apache Road SR-260 $8,170,728 Total 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 5 $41,657,332 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends new policies and programs that upon their development and implementation will serve to reduce pedestrian crashes on the state highway system. In addition, the Plan recommends modifications to existing policies and practices that if adopted will improve pedestrian safety on the state highway system. High pedestrian Crash Locations, Potential Countermeasures, and Planning Level Cost Estimate The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan provides recommendations for the policies and programs that ADOT should consider to improve pedestrian safety on the state highway system. These are: Develop an ADOT internal pedestrian safety working group Develop and adopt an ADOT Pedestrian Policy Develop and adopt an ADOT Complete Streets Policy Develop traffic impact study agreements with local agencies Review all ADOT design and maintenance guidelines and manuals to identify effective measures for accommodating pedestrians on the State Highway System Develop partnerships with local law enforcement agencies Develop a mechanism to track the level of investment in pedestrian facilities Encourage implementation or expansion of educational programs Provide pedestrian facility training to state and local governments Review existing Arizona Revised Statutes related to pedestrians Develop transition plan for implementation of pedestrian countdown signals Develop transition plan for implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Adopt Access Management Plan Develop an evaluation program 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 6 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem and Need Statement In 2005, Arizona ranked 5th among states in pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 residents, with 164 pedestrian fatalities on Arizona’s roadways—a nearly 30 percent increase from 2003 levels. To reduce the number of pedestrian crashes throughout Arizona, the state of Arizona is participating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as one of fourteen “focus states 1” receiving technical assistance to reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is leading the initiative in coordination with FHWA Arizona Division Office and the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. 1.2 Study Overview The purpose of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan was to recommend actions that when funded and implemented will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Arizona State Highway System. The Plan established a framework and practical and achievable strategies to improve pedestrian safety on the State Highway System. The Plan has been developed consistent with the guidance provided in the FHWA Report entitled How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan2 and the Arizona Supplement3 that was completed in April 2007 by the ADOT Highway Enhancements for Safety Team. The Plan included stakeholder input, identification and prioritization of high-crash segment locations, development of conceptual countermeasures that could be implemented at each high-crash location, and their estimated costs. The Plan also identified new or revisions to existing policies that ADOT should consider that upon implementation will improve pedestrian safety in Arizona. The Plan included development of five working papers and a final report (http://mpd.azdot.gov/planning/PedSafety.php). Title Content Working Paper No. 1 Profile of Pedestrian Safety in Arizona Summary of existing pedestrian safety conditions on the state highways in Arizona; Working Paper No. 2 Goals and Emphasis Areas to Improve Pedestrian Safety in Arizona Pedestrian safety goals and emphasis areas for ADOT Working Paper No. 3 Prioritization of Crash Locations and Identification of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures Prioritization system to rank locations and recommendations of potential countermeasures, policies, and programs to meet pedestrian safety goals for emphasis areas 1 States for FY2008 are Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The 14 “focus states” were selected if they had at least 150 pedestrian fatalities in 2005, or a pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population of greater than 2.5. 2 How to Develop a Pedestrian http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=229 Safety Action Plan, available at: 3 A Guide to Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, An Arizona Supplement to the National “How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Enhancements for Safety (HES), April 9, 2007, available at: http://www.gtsac.org/GTSAC/Studies_Reports/PDF/Guide_to_Developing_a_Pedestrian_Safety_Action_Plan.pdf 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 7 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Working Paper No. 4 Funding Assessment Cost estimates for high-crash locations and potential funding sources and collaborative funding alternatives for pedestrian infrastructure on Arizona’s highways Working Paper No. 5 Recommendations and Implementation Steps Process for selecting and implementing pedestrian safety countermeasures Throughout the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, six Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings were held to solicit input and review of the plan and the content of each Working Paper. Attendees of the TAC meetings included the agencies and organizations listed below. ADOT Flagstaff District ADOT Roadway Design City of Flagstaff ADOT Highway Enhancements for Safety ADOT Safford District Inter Tribal Council of Arizona ADOT Holbrook District ADOT Traffic Engineering City of Phoenix ADOT Kingman District ADOT Tucson District Federal Highway Administration ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Arizona Department of Public Safety Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Maricopa Association of Governments 1.3 Study Area and Scope of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan A review of Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary for the years 2002 through 2006 identifies a total of 8,033 pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes in Arizona over the 5-year period4. Exhibit 1-1 lists the number of pedestrian crashes and fatalities that have occurred each year from 2002 to 2006. The Arizona State Highway System is depicted in Exhibit 1-2. The Arizona Department of Transportation is responsible for maintenance and construction of the Arizona State Highway System. The study area for the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is limited to roadways on the Arizona State Highway System. A review of crash data provided by the ADOT for the years 2002 through 2006 demonstrated that 771 pedestrian crashes occurred on roads within the Arizona State Highway System, as listed in Exhibit 1-1, representing less than 10% of the more than 8,000 pedestrian crashes that occurred on all Arizona roadways from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. The remaining 90% of crashes occurred on roads constructed and maintained by local city, county, and tribal governments. Exhibit 1-1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System Pedestrian Crashes (on all Arizona Roadways), 2002 - 2006 4 Pedestrian Crashes on the State Highway System, 2002 - 2006 Total Pedestrian Crashes Fatal Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Fatalities Total Pedestrian Crashes Fatal Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Fatalities 2002 1,608 147 158 139 30 33 2003 1,595 123 126 152 23 23 2004 1,631 132 135 161 35 35 2005 1,581 161 164 177 40 44 Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, available at: http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/statistics/crash/index.asp 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 8 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 1-1 – Summary of Pedestrian Crashes on and off of the State Highway System (continued) 2006 1,618 163 170 142 45 45 TOTAL 8,033 726 753 771 173 180 Source: Arizona Motor Crash Facts Summary, 2002 through 2006 ADOT recognizes that the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan does not address all pedestrian safety needs on all roads in the state of Arizona, as demonstrated by the crash statistics, but that the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan only addresses a small percentage of total pedestrian crashes in the state of Arizona. As such, development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is the first of many steps required to adequately address pedestrian safety in Arizona. It is envisioned that other agencies and jurisdictions in Arizona will develop individual pedestrian safety action plans to meet their respective needs, and that each of the individual pedestrian safety action plans will subsequently be incorporated into a Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. As the large majority of pedestrian crashes and safety issues occur on roadways outside of ADOT control, they need to be addressed by local and regional agencies. The City of Phoenix has already taken the initiative to develop a pedestrian safety action plan. 1.4 Tribal Coordination Coordination with tribal communities was an important element of development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Tribal communities comprise a significant percentage of the land area of Arizona. Tribal input to the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan was solicited and received through coordination with Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. All references to local agencies within the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan are inclusive of tribal agencies and governments. Continued coordination with tribal communities is important as the recommendations of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan are implemented. The impacts of recommendations on tribal communities should be considered. 1.5 Purpose and Content of the Final Report The objective of the Final Report is to summarize the findings and recommendations of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The Final Report includes key findings from each of the five Working Papers. The Final Report is organized into the following sections: 1. Introduction 2. Pedestrian Safety Goals and Emphasis Areas 3. High Pedestrian Crash Locations 4. Prioritization System for High Pedestrian Crash Locations 5. Recommended Countermeasures for High Pedestrian Crash and Tribal Community Locations 6. Recommended Policies and Programs 7. FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Questionnaire 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 9 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 1-2 – Arizona State Highway System 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 10 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 2.0 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GOALS AND EMPHASIS AREAS The FHWA and the State of Arizona have each established goals to improve pedestrian safety. In support of the Arizona safety vision and goal and the FHWA goals, the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan established a goal to reduce pedestrian crashes (both fatal and non-fatal) by 20 percent by the year 2016. The reduction in pedestrian crashes will be measured by a five-year average (2012 to 2016). The five-year average for the years 2002 through 2006 will serve as the base years. This equates to 31 fewer pedestrian crashes per year by the year 2016. Vision Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Safety Vision and Goal “Zero fatalities on Arizona roads, your life depends on it.”5 Goal The vision is supported by a state “stretch” goal designed to bring about clear progress towards the vision. The goal requires a reduction in the number of fatalities on Arizona’s roadways of approximately 12 percent by the year 2012. The base year of comparison will be 2007. Federal Highway Administration Reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries by 10 percent by the year 2011, and by 20 percent in ten years (2005 serves as the baseline year)6 ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Goal Reduce the number of pedestrian crashes on Arizona state highways by 20 percent by 2016. This will be measured by the average annual number of pedestrian crashes from 2012 to 2016, compared to the average annual number of pedestrian crashes from 2002 to 2006. From 2002 to 2006, the average annual pedestrian crashes on state highways in Arizona were 154 pedestrian crashes. The 2016 goal is to have fewer than 123 pedestrian crashes on state highways (fatal and non-fatal) per year. Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highways in Arizona Crash data for the years 2002 to 2006 was provided to the project team. At the time of the data collection and analysis stage of the project, crash data beyond December 2006 was not yet available. Analysis of the data demonstrated that more than 700 pedestrian crashes occurred on state highways in Arizona from 2002 to 2006. Ideally, countermeasures could be identified for each contributing factor for each pedestrian crash location. In reality, this is not practical. Identification of emphasis areas facilitates focusing of resources to areas where the largest benefits can be realized, and the identification of specific action items to improve pedestrian safety on Arizona’s state highways. Identified pedestrian safety emphasis areas are presented in Exhibit 2-1. 5 Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan, available at: http://www.gtsac.org/GTSAC/Studies_Reports/ Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, Pedestrian and Bicycle http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ 6 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 11 Safety, Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 2-1 – Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for State Highway System Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Area Description and Justification Reduce pedestrian crashes in urban areas at locations with high pedestrian activity Statewide, approximately 90 percent of pedestrian crashes occurred in urban areas. 65 percent of pedestrian crashes on state highways occurred in urban areas. Reduce pedestrian crashes at intersections involving turning vehicles (right and left) Turning vehicle type crashes make up 26 percent of pedestrian crashes on high-crash segments in focus urban areas. Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided (no median barrier) roadways Pedestrian crashes occurring on two-way roadways without a raised median account for approximately 64 percent of statewide pedestrian crashes. Reduce pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking On high-crash segments, crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking total 27 percent of crashes along segments and 22 percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges. Alcohol consumption by pedestrians has also been expressed as a concern by local jurisdiction staff and by tribal communities. Reduce dart/dash / mid-block pedestrian crashes Crash data for the study areas shows that dart/dash crashes make up 50 percent of the pedestrian crashes along segments and 43 percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges. Targeting these types of crashes can help to reduce a significant amount of pedestrian crashes. Dart/dash crashes include crashes when the pedestrian walked or ran into the roadway at an intersection or mid-block location and was struck by a vehicle. Reduce pedestrian crashes involving turning vehicles at interchanges At interchanges 46 percent of pedestrian crashes are turning vehicle crashes with the majority being right-turning vehicles. Focusing on these types of pedestrian crashes may help to make crossing safer for pedestrians at interchanges. Turning vehicle crashes are crashes where the pedestrian was attempting to cross at an interchange and was struck by a vehicle that was turning right or left. Improve lighting conditions at high pedestrian activity locations 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Approximately 50 percent of pedestrian crashes in high-crash segments occurred in dark conditions. This is significant since exposure is considerably less during the nighttime and early morning hours. A majority of pedestrian fatalities occur in dark conditions. 12 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 3.0 STATE HIGHWAY HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS 771 pedestrian crashes were reported on state highways in Arizona between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006. State highway locations, including segments and interchanges, with the highest numbers of pedestrian crashes were identified based on density analysis using geographic information system tools and a visual review of crash locations. Crash records for high pedestrian crash locations were subsequently obtained and reviewed. Crash records were reviewed for 283 segment crashes and 37 interchange crashes. The crash type and contributing factors were identified for each reviewed crash. A summary of crash statistics is presented in Exhibit 3-1. Crash types listed in Exhibit 3-1 are based on definitions in the Pedestrian Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) 7 and Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE)8. The definitions for each crash type are listed in Exhibit 3-1. Exhibit 3-2 lists each high pedestrian crash location. A map of each high-crash location is included in Appendix A. Throughout the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, the study team recognized the challenges associated with pedestrian crashes on tribal communities: comprehensive crash data on tribal lands is not available in state crash databases; and where data for crashes on tribal lands is available in state databases, it is often incomplete. To ensure that pedestrian safety needs for tribal communities was not overlooked, tribal communities were provided the opportunity to identify specific locations on state highways in need of pedestrian safety improvements. Locations identified by tribal communities are displayed in Exhibit 3-3. Exhibit 3-3 lists the state highway location, existing pedestrian facilities, and concerns as expressed by tribal communities. Maps showing each location are included in Appendix A. Exhibit 3-1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations Total Crashes Fatalities Incapacitating Injuries Segments Crash Type Pedestrian Failed to Yield: Pedestrian was crossing the road in a non-crossing area and failed to yield to the motorist. Walking in Roadway: Pedestrian was walking in the roadway prior to the crash, but the crash cannot be further classified. Standing in Roadway: Pedestrian was standing in the roadway prior to the crash, but the crash cannot be further classified. Motorist Left Turn - Parallel Paths: Motorist was initially traveling on a parallel path with the pedestrian before making a left turn and striking the individual. 7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm 8 Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/ 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 13 125 44% 23 74% 38 57% 10 4% 4 13% 3 4% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 32 11% 0 0% 3 4% Tool Selection (PBCAT), System, available available at: at: Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 3-1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations (continued) Total Crashes Fatalities 5 2% 0 0% 1 1% 15 5% 0 0% 3 4% 27 10% 0 0% 4 6% 28 10% 1 3% 6 9% 9 3% 1 3% 5 7% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1% 3 1% 1 3% 1 1% 19 7% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 2% 1 3% 1 1% Incapacitating Injuries Segments (continued) Crash Type Motorist Left Turn - Perpendicular Paths: Motorist was initially traveling on a crossing path with the pedestrian before making a left turn and striking the individual. Motorist Right Turn - Parallel Paths: Motorist was initially travelling on a parallel path with the pedestrian before making a right turn and striking the individual. Motorist Right Turn - Perpendicular Paths: Motorist was initially travelling on a crossing path with the pedestrian before making a right turn and striking the individual. Through Vehicle at Signalized Location: Pedestrian was struck at a signalized intersection or midblock location by a vehicle that was traveling straight ahead. Through Vehicle at Unsignalized Location: Pedestrian was struck at an unsignalized intersection or midblock location. Either the motorist or the pedestrian may have failed to yield . Multiple Threat/Trapped: Pedestrian entered the roadway in front of stopped or slowed traffic and was struck by a multiple-threat vehicle in an adjacent lane after becoming trapped in the middle of the roadway. Walking Along Roadway: Pedestrian was standing or walking along the roadway on the edge of a travel lane, or on a shoulder or sidewalk. Non-Roadway: Pedestrian was standing or walking near the roadway edge, on the sidewalk, in a driveway or alley, or in a parking lot, when struck by a vehicle. Unique Midblock: Pedestrian was struck while crossing the road to/from a mailbox, newspaper box, or ice-cream truck, or while getting into or out of a stopped vehicle. Miscellaneous: Other pedestrian crash types such as intentional crashes, driverless vehicle incidents, a pedestrian struck after a vehicle/vehicle collision, a pedestrian struck by falling cargo, or an emergency vehicle striking a pedestrian. Total Segment Crashes 283 31 67 Interchanges Pedestrian Failed to Yield: Pedestrian was crossing the road in a non-crossing area and failed to yield to the motorist. Motorist Left Turn - Parallel Paths: Motorist was initially traveling on a parallel path with the pedestrian before making a left turn and striking the individual. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 14 19 36% 3 75% 6 40% 2 4% 0 0% 1 7% Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 3-1 – Summary Statistics of Higher Crash State Highway Locations (continued) Total Crashes Fatalities Incapacitating Injuries Interchanges (continued) Motorist Left Turn - Perpendicular Paths: Motorist was initially traveling on a crossing path with the pedestrian before making a left turn and striking the individual. Motorist Right Turn - Parallel Paths: Motorist was initially travelling on a parallel path with the pedestrian before making a right turn and striking the individual. Motorist Right Turn - Perpendicular Paths: Motorist was initially travelling on a crossing path with the pedestrian before making a right turn and striking the individual. 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 7 13% 0 0% 2 13% 9 17% 0 0% 2 13% 9 17% 0 0% 3 20% 5 9% 1 25% 1 7% Through Vehicle at Unsignalized Location: Pedestrian was struck at an unsignalized intersection or midblock location. Either the motorist or the pedestrian may have failed to yield. Miscellaneous Other pedestrian crash types such as intentional crashes, driverless vehicle incidents, pedestrian struck after a vehicle/vehicle collision, pedestrian struck by falling cargo, or an emergency vehicle striking a pedestrian. Total 53 4 15 Exhibit 3-2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations City Location Total Crashes Fatal and Incapacitating Crashes Segments 1A Bullhead City SR-95, North Oatman Rd to SR-68 24 12 1B Bullhead City SR-68, SR-95 to Davis Dam Rd 2 2 2 Bullhead City SR-95, Joy Ln to Camp Mohave Rd 7 4 3 Casa Grande SR-287, SR-387 to Arizola Rd 24 5 4A Flagstaff SR-40B, Riordan Rd to Elden St 28 10 4B Flagstaff SR-89A, University Ave to SR-40B 15 4 4C Flagstaff US-180, SR-40B to Birch Ave 4 1 5 Flagstaff SR-40B, Arrowhead Ave to Postal Blvd 11 3 6 Flagstaff US-89, Snowflake Dr / Trailsend Dr to Townsend Winona Rd 5 2 7 Holbrook SR-40B, 5th Ave to I-40 Exit 286 G-Ramp 17 3 8A Tucson SR-77, I-10 Frontage Rd to Limberlost Dr 23 9 8B Tucson SR-77, River Rd to Sahuaro Vista 21 10 8C Tucson SR-77, Magee Rd to Mountain Vista Dr 6 3 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 15 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 3-2 – List of High Pedestrian Crash State Highway Locations (continued) City Location Total Crashes Fatal and Incapacitating Crashes Segments (continued) 11 Sierra Vista SR-90, SR-92 to Giulio Cesare Ave 7 3 12 Yuma US-95, Alamo Dr to Avenue 3E 5 3 13 Yuma SR-8B, 1st St to 32rd St 29 11 14 Sedona SR-89A, Dry Creek Rd to Soldier Pass Rd 14 4 15 Casa Grande SR-387, SR-287 to Cottonwood Ln 7 0 16 Tucson SR-86, La Cholla Blvd to 16th Ave 12 4 17 Coolidge SR-87, Vah Ki Inn Rd to Martin Rd 10 2 18 Yuma US-95, SR-8B to Redondo Center Dr 4 2 20 Mesa US-60X / Apache Trail, Signal Butte Rd to Meridian Rd 4 0 21 Mesa US-60X / Apache Trail, Ellsworth Rd to Crismon Rd 4 3 Interchanges 1 Phoenix Greenway Rd / I-17 Interchange 3 2 3 Phoenix 7th Ave / I-10 Interchange 2 2 4 Tempe Apache Blvd / SR-101 Interchange 3 2 5 Phoenix Cactus Rd / I-17 Interchange 4 2 9 Phoenix 32nd St / SR-202 Interchange 5 2 10 Phoenix Bethany Home Rd / I-17 Interchange 5 2 11 Phoenix Camelback Rd / I-17 Interchange 6 1 12 Phoenix Dunlap Ave / I-17 Interchange 7 2 13 Tempe University Dr / SR-101 Interchange 9 4 14 Tempe Baseline Rd / I-10 Interchange 5 0 18 Phoenix Indian School Rd / I-17 Interchange 4 1 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 16 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 3-3 – Tribal Community Locations Location ID State Route # Tribal Community Name Beginning Ending Existing Pedestrian Facilities Tribal Community Concerns 1 SR-587 Gila River Indian Community MP 220 2 SR-87 Gila River Indian Community* MP 135 MP 160 3 US-89 Navajo Nation (Cameron) MP 464.7 MP 470 Paved shoulders Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lighting 4 US-160 Navajo Nation (Tuba City) MP 321.7 MP 323 Narrow paved shoulders Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lighting 5 US-160 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) MP 393 MP 393.7 Narrow paved shoulders Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lights 6 US-163 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) MP 393.5 MP 395.4 Narrow paved shoulders Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing 7 US-191 Navajo Nation (Chinle) MP 446.6 MP 448.2 Narrow paved shoulders, sidewalks Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing 8 SR-264 Navajo Nation (Ganado) MP 446.3 MP 447.6 Narrow paved shoulders Lack of sidewalks Needs pedestrian crossing 9 SR-264 Navajo Nation (Window Rock) MP 474.7 MP 475.8 Sidewalks Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing 10 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 74 MP 76 Unpaved shoulders No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Vegetation is overgrown Lack of lighting 11 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 90 MP 94 Unpaved shoulders No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Overgrown Vegetation Lack of lighting 12 SR-86 Tohono O’odham Nation MP 111.1 MP 116.6 Unpaved shoulders No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Vegetation is overgrown Lack of lighting 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc -- 17 Paved shoulders Need for improved shoulders Need for wider shoulders and lighting in residential areas Need signage alerting drivers entering residential areas Need better enforcement of speed Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 3-3 – Tribal Community Locations (continued) Location ID State Route # Tribal Community Name Beginning Ending Existing Pedestrian Facilities Tribal Community Concerns 13 SR-264 Hopi Tribe MP 385 MP 390 Narrow paved shoulders No crosswalks near Second Mesa Elementary School No sidewalks, bus stop provisions, or turn lanes 14 SR-264 Hopi Tribe MP 367 MP 369 Narrow paved shoulders Need of pedestrian/ bicycle walkway, school bus stop areas, and turn-out lanes 15 SR-73 White Mountain Apache Tribe Fort Apache Road SR-260 Paved shoulders, sidewalks Incomplete sidewalks Vegetation growing on sidewalks 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 18 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 4.0 PRIORITIZATION OF HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH LOCATIONS Chapter 4 summarizes prioritization of each of the high-crash locations identified in Chapter 3. Prioritization of high-crash locations serves as a tool for allocating resources to improve pedestrian safety. The prioritization methodology is described below for both segments and interchanges. A detailed explanation of the scoring methods can be found in Working Paper No. 3 (http://mpd.azdot.gov/planning/PedSafety.php). It should be noted that the segment prioritization methodology described in chapter 4 is more applicable to urban or small urban areas. As such, the methodology was not applied to high pedestrian crash locations on tribal lands. The assessment of needs on tribal lands was more heavily reliant on direct tribal input. 4.1 Segment Prioritization and Methodology A prioritization scoring system was developed by the study team to be applied to each high pedestrian crash location. The prioritization scoring system consists of criteria that quantify the need for pedestrian safety improvements at each high-crash location. The four categories (described below) include: Pedestrian Demand Index Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Stakeholder Input, and Crash Severity Index Each high-crash segment was scored for each criterion. An overall composite score was subsequently calculated to represent the overall priority score for each segment, according to the equation below. Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score Note: Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score was weighted by one sixth to account for the fact that this index score is comprised of six deficiency factor sub-scores. Prioritization Criterion Description Pedestrian Demand Index9 Reflects the propensity for pedestrian facilities to be utilized if they were provided; comprised of four sub-indices that are developed on a census tract basis: 1. Activity Balance Index (ABI): Measure of relationship between population and employment; computed by dividing employment by population. The results are subsequently divided into five quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 3 where: - 1 = results in outer quintiles; (the most imbalance between employment and population) 2 = zones in second and fourth quintile 3 = zones in the middle quintile 9 Pedestrian Demand Index adapted from methodology published by: Matley, T., Goldman, L., Fineman, B., Pedestrian Travel Potential in Northern New Jersey. A Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Approach to Identifying Investment Priorities. In Transportation Research Record 1705, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000; available at: http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1705-001.pdf 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 19 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 GIS data required: (1) population data, and (2) employment data by census tract. 2. Pedestrian Facilities Index (PFI): Measure of the urbanization and population density; computed by calculating population divided by land area for each census tract. The results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 5 where: - 1 = lowest results, or least relative index value; and 5 = highest relative index value (most urban or densest population). GIS data required: (1) population data, and (2) land area of census tract. 3. Road Density Index (RDI): Measure of urbanization computed as the total number of miles of non-limited access highway roads and streets in a census tract to the total land area of that tract. The results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 5, where: - 1 = lowest results, or least relative index value; and 5 = highest relative index value. GIS data required: (1) total number of miles of non-limited access highway facilities, per census tract (available through HPMS database), and (2) land area of census tract. 4. Journey to Work (JTW) – Based on the U.S. Census Journey to Work data; computed as the percentage of total workers (16 years and over) who travel to work by walking at the census tract level. The results are divided into quintiles and assigned a score of 1 to 5, where: - 1 = lowest results, or least index value; and 5 = highest relative index value (highest percentage of workers travel to work by walking). GIS data required: (1) number of workers 16 years and over and number of workers who travel to work by walking. Each sub-index is summed to calculate a total Pedestrian Demand Index (PDI) score for each highway segment. The overall PDI scores were normalized from 0 to 100. Roadway segments within urbanized area boundaries (U.S. Census definition) were given an additional 10 points to their score, and the overall score was renormalized from 0 to 100. To incorporate the overall PDI score into segment prioritization for the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, the state highway segments were assigned points consistent with the following scale: 1 point for lowest PDI scores (less than 30), 2 points for moderate PDI scores (between 31 and 51), or 3 points for highest PDI scores (between 52 and 100). Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Quantifies the relative magnitude of pedestrian safety deficiencies of each segment by rating six factors: 1. Sidewalk Availability – Assesses sidewalk accessibility to pedestrians: - 2. 0 points for maintained 8' shoulder (rural) or existing sidewalks (urban), 1 point for damaged 8' shoulder (rural) or existing sidewalks (urban), 2 points for no sidewalks, or 3 points for discontinuous sidewalks. Crossing Risk – Measures the roadway crossing risk associated with the roadway cross section: - 0 points for roadway segments with one lane in each direction, 1 point for a multi-lane roadway with a center median, 2 points for a multi-lane roadway with a two-way center left-turn lane, or 3 points for a multi-lane roadway with no median or two-way center left-turn lane. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 20 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 3. Crossing Opportunities – Assesses frequency of opportunities for pedestrians to cross at signalized intersections or mid-block: - 4. Pedestrian Crashes – Assesses pedestrian crash history of segment: - 5. 1 point for speed limit < 25 mph, 2 points for speed limit < 35 mph, or 3 points for speed limit > 45 mph. Traffic Volume – Measures the average daily traffic along a segment - Stakeholder Input, and 1 point for segments with 1-5 crashes per mile, 2 points for segments with 6-10 crashes per mile, 3 points for segments with 11-15 crashes per mile, 4 points for segments with 16-20 crashes per mile, 5 points for segments with 21-25 crashes per mile, or 6 points for segments with 26-30 crashes per mile. Traffic Speed – Based on the speed limit of each segment; each segment scored from 1 to 3 and points: - 6. 0 points for segments with average signal spacing of less than 1,000 feet, or 2 points for segments with average signal spacing greater than 1,000 feet. 1 point for volume > 2,500 vpd and < 7,500 vpd, 2 points for volume > 7,500 vpd and < 12,500 vpd, 3 points for volume > 12,500 vpd and < 17,500 vpd, 4 points for volume > 17,500 vpd and < 25,000 vpd, or 5 points for volume > 25,000 vpd. Based on concerns expressed by jurisdictional stakeholders as documented in Working Paper No. 1. 1 point for concern expressed about pedestrians crossing at unmarked locations, 1 point for concern expressed about discontinuous sidewalks, 1 point for concern expressed about adequate lighting, 1 point for concern expressed about crossing improvements, 1 point for concern expressed about school crossings, and 1 point for a request for a raised median or barrier. Crash Severity Index The Crash Severity Index quantifies the severity of injuries along the segment. The type and number of injuries or fatalities were taken into account and scores were assigned as follows: 0 points for segments with no incapacitating injury crashes or fatal crashes, 1 point for segments with incapacitating injury crashes but no fatal crashes, 2 points for segments with one fatal crash, or 3 points for segments with multiple fatal crashes. Each segment score was normalized to 100. Each state highway segment was assigned a priority level based on the normalized score with the following scale: Highest Priority: Normalized score between 85 and 100 Moderate Priority: Normalized score from 72 to 84 Lowest Priority: Normalized score below 72 Exhibit 4-1 shows the prioritization of each segment for all four categories and the overall prioritization score. Highest priority segments are depicted by a solid circle ( ), medium priority segments are depicted by a half-circle ( ), and lowest priority segments are depicted by a hollow circle ( ). 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 21 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Segment # Exhibit 4-1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix Road Name From To City = Lowest Priority, Pedestrian Demand = Moderate Priority, = Highest Priority Deficiency Stakeholder Input Crash Severity Overall 1 Score Normalized 2 Score 1A SR-95 North Oatman Rd (MP 243.5) SR-68 (MP 249.7) Bullhead City 2 3 2 3 10 100 1B SR-68 SR-95 (MP 249.7) Davis Dam Rd (MP 251.3) Bullhead City 2 2 1 3 8 84 2 SR-95 Joy Ln (MP 236.4) Camp Mohave Rd (MP 238.4) Bullhead City 2 3 2 3 10 100 3 SR-287 (Florence Blvd) SR-387 (MP 111.8) Arizola Rd (MP 114.3) Casa Grande 2 2 2 3 9 96 4A SR-40B Riordan Rd (MP 195.3) Elden St (MP 196.6) Flagstaff 3 3 2 1 9 91 4B SR-89A University Ave (MP 402.5) SR-40B (MP 216.1) Flagstaff 2 3 2 2 9 88 4C US-180 SR-40B (MP 215.4) Birch Ave (MP 216.1) Flagstaff 3 2 2 1 8 81 5 SR-40B Arrowhead Ave (MP 198.3) Postal Blvd (MP 199) Flagstaff 2 2 2 2 8 84 6 US-89 Snowflake Dr / Trailsend Dr (MP 420.1) Townsend Winona Rd (MP 420.7) Flagstaff 2 2 2 3 9 94 7 SR-40B 5th Ave (MP 286.3) I-40 Exit 286 G-Ramp (MP 287.4) Holbrook 2 3 1 2 8 77 8A SR-77 I-10 Frontage Rd (MP 68.1) Limberlost Dr (MP 71) Tucson 3 2 0 2 7 72 8B SR-77 River Rd (MP 72) Sahuaro Vista (MP 75.1) Tucson 3 3 0 3 9 88 1. 2. Overall Priority Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score Normalized Score = 10.3*(Overall Score) 091374020 2009 06 24 Final Report.doc 22 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Segment # Exhibit 4-1 – Segment Prioritization Matrix (continued) Road Name From To City = Lowest Priority, Pedestrian Demand = Moderate Priority, = Highest Priority Deficiency Stakeholder Input Crash Severity Overall (1) Score Normalized (2) Score 8C SR-77 Magee Rd (MP 75.9) Mountain Vista Dr (MP 76.2) Tucson 3 3 0 1 7 72 11 SR-90 SR-92 (MP 321.5) Giulio Cesare Ave (MP 322.5) Sierra Vista 2 3 0 2 7 67 12 US-95 Alamo Dr (MP 25.2) Avenue 3E (MP 25.8) Yuma 2 2 1 3 8 86 13 SR-8B 1st St (MP 0.3) 32nd St (MP 4) Yuma 3 2 1 2 8 81 14 SR-89A Dry Creek Rd (MP 371) Soldier Pass Rd (MP 372.9) Sedona 2 2 2 3 9 93 15 SR-387 (Pinal Ave) SR-287 (MP 0) Cottonwood Ln (MP 1) Casa Grande 3 3 1 0 7 67 16 SR-86 La Cholla Blvd (MP 169.9) 16th Ave (MP 171.7) Tucson 3 3 0 1 7 70 17 SR-87 (Arizona Blvd) Martin Rd (MP 131.5) Vah Ki Inn Rd (MP 133.5) Coolidge 2 2 2 1 7 69 18 US-95 SR-8B (MP 23.4) Redondo Center Dr (MP 24.2) Yuma 3 2 1 1 7 72 20 US-60X/ Apache Trail Signal Butte Rd (MP 193) Meridian Rd (MP 194) Mesa 3 2 0 0 5 53 21 US-60X/ Apache Trail Ellsworth Rd (MP 191) Crismon Rd (MP 192) Mesa 3 2 0 3 8 84 1. 2. Overall Priority Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Stakeholder Input Score + Crash Severity Index Score Normalized Score = 10.3*(Overall Score) 091374020 2009 06 24 Final Report.doc 23 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 4.2 Interchange Prioritization and Methodology Interchange prioritization utilized three of the indices described in Section 4.1: Pedestrian Demand Index, a Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index, and Crash Severity Index. An overall priority score was calculated using the scores from all three categories. The overall priority score was computed for each interchange by summing each of the sub indices: Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Crash Severity Index Score Exhibit 4-2 shows the index score for each interchange, the overall normalized score, and the prioritization of each interchange consistent with the following scale: Highest Priority: Normalized score between 85 and 100 Moderate Priority: Normalized score from 72 to 84 Lowest Priority: Normalized score below 72 091374020 2009 06 24 Final Report.doc 24 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 4-2 – Interchange Prioritization Matrix Interchange Number = Lowest Priority, = Moderate Priority, = Highest Priority Interchange Location Pedestrian Demand Deficiency Crash Severity (1) Overall Score Normalized (2) Score 1 I-17 Greenway Rd 3 1 1 5 63 3 I-10 7th Ave 3 1 1 5 63 4 SR-101 / SB Price Rd Apache Blvd 3 1 2 6 75 5 I-17 Cactus Rd 3 2 1 6 75 9 SR-202 32nd St 3 2 1 6 75 10 I-17 Bethany Home Rd 3 2 2 7 88 11 I-17 Camelback Rd 3 2 2 7 88 12 I-17 Dunlap Ave 3 3 1 7 88 13 SR-101 / SB Price Rd University Dr 3 3 2 8 100 14 I-10 Baseline Rd 3 2 0 5 63 18 I-17 Indian School Rd 3 2 2 7 88 1. 2. Overall Priority Overall Score = Pedestrian Demand Index Score + Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index Score + Crash Severity Index Score Normalized Score = 12.5*(Overall Score) 091374020 2009 06 24 Final Report.doc 25 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 5.0 POTENTIAL COUNTERMEASURES FOR HIGH PEDESTRIAN CRASH AND TRIBAL COMMUNITY LOCATIONS Chapter 5 presents potential countermeasures that may be considered for implementation at each high pedestrian crash location. It must be emphasized that additional site-specific engineering analysis is required for each pedestrian crash location prior to final countermeasure selection. Potential countermeasures are presented in Exhibit 5-1. Potential countermeasures were identified considering crash typing, field review, and stakeholder input. Exhibit 5-1 through 5-33 list key characteristics of each high pedestrian crash location, field review observations, stakeholder input, potential countermeasures for each location, and estimated conceptual costs. Potential countermeasures for implementation on state highways located within tribal lands are also identified. Potential countermeasures and estimated conceptual costs are shown in Exhibit 5-34 through 5-46. 091374020 2009 06 24 Final Report.doc 26 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-1 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 1 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 1, SR-95, North Oatman Road to SR-68, Bullhead City This segment is a 7.8-mile-long 4-lane state highway in urban area from North Oatman Road to Davis Dam Road (MP 243.5 to MP 251.3). The segment can be separated into two subsegments, which are continuous. The AADT is approximately 32,600 vehicles per day (vpd) on SR-95 and 13,000 vpd on SR-68. Other key features include: The City had the following comments: SR-95 Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Illumination – poor Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial, open space in middle of segment Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none HAWK signals may work in highly concentrated areas Installing a raised median would be best for pedestrians Recent road safety assessment (RSA) suggested a median Alternating lighting but most of segment is lit Pedestrian walk time may need to be extended (discussed in RSA) Countdown pedestrian signals would be helpful Photo radar enforcement could be considered, as suggested in Road Safety Assessment Countermeasures identified for consideration in SR-95 Road Safety Assessment, MP 242 to 250, Bullhead City, October 20-22, 2008: SR-68 Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – only for a short segment Median – majority raised median, a small segment of TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Illumination – poor Adjacent Land Use – open space Building Setback – N/A Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none Improve lighting between 3rd Street and 6th Street, particularly near 5th Street, to increase pedestrian visibility at night Consider one of the following signal/crosswalk recommendations: a. Conduct a signal warrants analysis to determine the need for a traffic signal at 5th Street b. Install an In-Road Warning Light System with a high visibility crosswalk and LED pedestrian crossing signs at 5th Street c. Install 2-stage pedestrian crosswalks near 5th Street d. Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Signal, similar to the HAWK that the City of Tucson uses, near 5th Street Provide additional advanced warning of pedestrian crossing areas with oversized pedestrian crossing signs on both sides of SR-95, in both directions, with “Next xx Feet” plaque Long term, consider eliminating the crest curve near 5th Street Improve lighting between Thunderstruck Drive and Ramar Road Provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval phase at Thunderstruck Drive 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Crosswalk Improvements Pedestrian traffic crosses mid-block SR-95 has no median $130,000 SR 95 Milepost 242 to 250, Bullhead City, Road Safety Assessment, October 20-22, 2008, recommended consideration of installation of an In-Road Warning Light System with high visibility crosswalk(s) and LED pedestrian crossing signs as well as additional advanced warning of pedestrian crossing areas with oversized signs. SR-68 is not well lit The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: 27 $52,000 Enhance Pedestrian Signals Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Provide Lead Pedestrian Interval -- Provide leading pedestrian interval signal phase on SR-95 to allow pedestrians to enter and occupy the crosswalk before turning motorists enter it. -- Increased Enforcement Plans Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. $220,000 Improve Roadway Lighting Evaluate lighting to determine appropriate lighting improvements. Design and construct lighting improvements at intersections and along the roadway. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $4,280,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Sidewalk Improvements $1,069,440 Install and improve sidewalks along SR-68 to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Construct Raised Median on SR-95 $9,266,400 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $14,237,840 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $5,751,440 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-2 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 2 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 2, SR-95, Joy Lane to Camp Mohave Road, Bullhead City This segment is a 2-mile-long 4-lane state highway in transitioning area from Joy Lane to Camp Mohave Road (MP 236.4 to MP 238.4). The AADT along this segment is approximately 30,200 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – none Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Illumination – poor Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none Crosswalk Improvements The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: No roadway lighting or sidewalks are present A raised median would be a good option Raised median may be more feasible on Segment 2 as compared to Segment 1, because of business access considerations, etc. May be difficult to have sidewalks installed $8,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Roadway geometry and field conditions must be analyzed. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $16,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Roadway Lighting $65,000 Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,240,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Sidewalk Improvements $1,471,920 Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 28 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $2,800,920 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-3 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 3 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 3, SR-287, SR-387 to Arizola Road, Casa Grande This 2.5-mile-long 4-lane segment of state highway is a main street in urban area from SR-387 to Arizola Road (MP 111.8 to MP 114.3). The AADT along this segment is approximately 25,100 vpd. Other key features of this segment include: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – majority TWLT median, a short segment of raised median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph and 45 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none Activity centers on both sides of the street Wide multi-lane roadway Consider a median This segment scheduled for turn-back to the City of Casa Grande in 2009 Crosswalk Improvements $18,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $3,600 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $36,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,790,000 Install dual-stage pedestrian crossings at selected locations between signalized intersections. The pedestrian crossings should include pedestrian refuges. Driveway Improvements $500,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, reducing turning radius. $2,970,000 Construct Raised Median Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 29 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $4,777,600 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $2,347,600 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-4 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4A Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 4A, SR-40B, Riordan Road to Elden Street, Flagstaff Segment 4A is along SR-40B (4), also known as Route 66, and extends from Riordan Road to Elden Street (MP 195.3 to MP 196.6). This segment is a 4-lane state highway with an estimated AADT of 38,300 vpd. Other key features of this segment include: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 30 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial, some open space Building Setback – majority < 10 feet, next to sidewalk on westbound Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – yes Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that are activated when the pedestrian phase is called. High volume roadway, with no defined areas for pedestrian crossings. Consider raised median and pedestrian scale lighting. Consider two-stage pedestrian cross walks. City indicated that having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big issues. City indicated that linear improvements, e.g. sidewalks are good, but crossing improvements are lacking. City indicated that it is difficult to find a common place to build a crosswalk on Milton Avenue because there are no concentrated places where pedestrians cross the street. City indicated that there are not obvious places for a HAWK installation as there are so many driveways on the road. The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Lighting is primarily from adjacent businesses causing light pollution but lighting uniformity needs to be addressed Median would be opposed by district due to problems related to snow removal Pedestrian crossings are random therefore it may be difficult to get pedestrians to use HAWK signal Study needed for pedestrian traffic to determine locations for HAWK signals Prohibiting right-turn on red may be considered, however, may cause queuing problems Crosswalk Improvements $12,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. A study of pedestrian activity should be completed to determine suitable pedestrian crossings locations. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $800 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $24,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $230,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at large intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius reduces pedestrian crossing distance and improves visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $860,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. A study of pedestrian activity should be conducted to determine ideal locations of pedestrian crossings. Construct Shoulder $131,000 Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be used as a designated bicycle lane. Construct Raised Median $1,556,280 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 30 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $2,454,080 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $1,257,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-5 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4B Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 4B, SR-89A, University Avenue to SR-40B, Flagstaff Segment 402.5 to segment AADT of include: 4B spans from University Avenue to SR-40B (MP MP 403.2) along SR-89A (Milton Road). This is also a 4-lane state highway with an estimated 35,000 vpd. Other key features of this segment Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – yes Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that are activated when the pedestrian phase is called. High volume roadway, with no defined areas for pedestrian crossings. Consider raised median and pedestrian scale lighting. Consider two-stage pedestrian cross walks. City indicated that having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big issues. City indicated that linear improvements, e.g. sidewalks are good, but crossing improvements are lacking. City indicated that it is difficult to find a common place to build a crosswalk on Milton Avenue because there are no concentrated places where pedestrians cross the street. City indicated that there are not obvious places for a HAWK installation as there are so many driveways on the road. The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Pedestrian crossings are random therefore it may be difficult to get pedestrians to use HAWK signal Study needed for pedestrian traffic to determine locations for HAWK signals Prohibiting right-turn on red may be considered, however, may cause queuing problems Crosswalk Improvements $8,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,600 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $500 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $16,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $80,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $490,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Driveway Improvements $60,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Construct Shoulder $67,000 Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be used as a designated bicycle lane. $795,960 Construct Raised Median Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 31 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,279,060 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $723,100 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-6 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 4C Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 4C, US-180, SR-40B to Birch Avenue, Flagstaff Segment 4C is along US-180 (Humphreys Street) from SR40B to Birch Avenue (MP 215.4 to MP 216.1). This segment is a 2-lane state highway with an estimated AADT of 15,000 vpd. Other key features of these segments include: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 25 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – mostly residential Building Setback – majority > 15 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none Install no right turn on red signs at selected intersections that are activated when the pedestrian phase is called. City indicated that linear improvements, e.g. sidewalks are good, but crossing improvements are lacking. The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: A multi-use path was recently installed, making access to crossings easier Midblock crossings may be well received Lighting is not continuous along the segment Crosswalk Improvements $6,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,200 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $12,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $50,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $150,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Driveway Improvements $20,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. $14,000 Construct Shoulder Construct a shoulder to provide additional separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Shoulder may also be used as a designated bicycle lane. $166,320 Construct Raised Median Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with leftturning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 32 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $269,920 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $253,600 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-7 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 5 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 5, SR-40B, Arrowhead Avenue to Postal Boulevard, Flagstaff This segment is a 0.7-mile-long 4-lane state highway in urban area from Arrowhead Avenue to Postal Boulevard (MP 198.3 to MP 199). The AADT along this segment is approximately 27,400 vpd. The segment has other key features including: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – commercial on westbound, open space on eastbound Building Setback – some at 20 feet, some next to sidewalk Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none The City had the following comments: Crosswalk Improvements Having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big issues Linear improvements, e.g. sidewalks are good, but crossing improvements are lacking The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. There is a residential area to the north and a possible retail development to the south of the segment Large distance between signals Afraid that pedestrian problem will worsen once the retail development is in place A new traffic signal may be possible at 1st Street Efforts should be coordinated with the new development Roadway lighting needs improvement $6,000 Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,200 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $12,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $80,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Driveway Improvements $40,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. $867,240 Construct Raised Median Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 33 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,006,440 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $139,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-8 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 6 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 6, US-89, Snowflake Drive / Trailsend Drive to Townsend Winona Road, Flagstaff This segment is a 0.6-mile-long 4-lane state highway in a transitioning area from Snowflake Drive / Trailsend Drive to Townsend-Winona Road (MP 420.1 to MP 420.7). The AADT along this segment is approximately 26,400 vpd. Other key features include: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none The City had the following comments: Crosswalk Improvements Having no place to cross and high speeds are the two big issues Linear improvements, e.g. sidewalks are good, but crossing improvements are lacking The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. There are no sidewalks on either side of the roadway for half of the segment, however there is a well worn footpath Installing sidewalks may be difficult since the county won’t maintain the sidewalks Roadway lighting is present Alcohol related accidents are a major problem in this area $4,000 Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $800 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $370,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Construct Raised Median $689,040 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 34 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $951,840 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $382,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-9 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 7 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 7, SR-40B (8), 5th Avenue to I-40 Exit 286 G-Ramp, Holbrook This segment is a 1.1-mile-long 4-lane state highway from SR40B to 5th Avenue (MP 286.3 to MP 287.4). The AADT on this segment is approximately 11,100 vpd. Other key features include: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – majority TWLT median, one segment without median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space Building Setback – next to sidewalk in downtown, others > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none The City is trying to increase enforcement along SR-77 and I-40 to reduce the number of intoxicated pedestrian crashes. The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Alcohol related accidents account for most of the pedestrian crashes on this segment Sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and benches have been recently installed Buildings are very close to the road - installed handrails to direct pedestrians to side streets Crosswalk Improvements $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $800 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $200,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $620,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Driveway Improvements $220,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Construct Raised Median $1,318,680 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 35 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $2,251,480 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $1,052,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-10 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8A Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 8A, SR-77, I-10 Frontage Road to Limberlost Drive, Tucson From the I-10 Frontage Road to Limberlost Drive, Segment 8A of SR-77 is a 2.9-mile-long state highway. It has 4 lanes from I-10 to Oracle Road and 6 lanes from Miracle Mile to Limberlost Drive (MP 68.1 to MP 71). The AADT on Segment 8A is approximately 40,200 vpd. Other features of this segment include: Bicycle Lane – yes Sidewalks – yes Median – raised median Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph Illumination – good Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none At Oracle Road and Fort Lowell Road, move bus stop closer to the intersection to encourage pedestrians to cross at the intersection. Install crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection at Oracle Road and Fort Lowell Road. At Oracle Road and Miracle Mile, provide a railing to prevent crossings on the north leg of the intersection and direct pedestrians to cross on the south leg. City of Tucson indicated that on Oracle Road, a number of changes were implemented: Signal timings were changed from 90 to 120 seconds to allow full pedestrian crossings. Slowed the assumption on walking speeds between River Road and Grant Road to 4 feet per second. All school crossings assumed 3.5 feet per seconds. Oracle Road is now fully illuminated. On Oracle Road, there are living areas on the east side of the street and shopping on the west side of the street, leading to more pedestrian crossings. There are socioeconomic factors regarding some of the pedestrian activities, such as alcohol and drug use. Crosswalk Improvements $16,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $3,200 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $32,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $280,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,500,000 Install dual-stage pedestrian crossings. Driveway Improvements $400,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 36 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $2,231,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-11 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8B Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 8B, SR-77, River Road to Sahuaro Vista, Tucson Segment 8B of SR-77 is from River Road to Sahuaro Vista (MP 72 to MP 75.1), and is about 3.1 miles long. It has 6 lanes with an estimated AADT of 52,100 vpd. Other features of this segment include: Crosswalk Improvements Refer to Segment 8A $8,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs Bicycle Lane – yes Sidewalks – none Median – raised median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Illumination – only at intersections Adjacent Land Use – commercial, open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – Oracle Road $1,600 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $16,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Roadway Lighting $100,000 Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $270,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,500,000 Install dual-stage pedestrian crossings. Driveway Improvements $100,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Sidewalk Improvements $2,273,606 Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 37 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $4,269,206 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-12 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 8C Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 8C, SR-77, Magee Road to Mountain Vista Drive, Tucson Segment 8C of SR-77, from Magee Road to Mountain Vista Drive (MP 75.9 to MP 76.2), is a 0.3-mile-long 6-lane state highway. The AADT on this segment is approximately 55,100 vpd. Other key features include: Crosswalk Improvements None $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs Bicycle Lane – yes Sidewalks – none Median – raised median Posted Speed Limit – 50 mph Illumination – only at intersections Adjacent Land Use – commercial on southbound Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Bus Stop Locations – none $400 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $4,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Roadway Lighting $15,000 Install lighting at intersections and along the roadway to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $40,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $135,000 Install dual-stage pedestrian crossings. Sidewalk Improvements $206,479 Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 38 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $402,579 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-13 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 11 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 11, SR-90, SR-92 to Giulio Cesare Avenue, Sierra Vista This segment is a 0.99-mile-long 4-lane state highway from SR-92 to Giulio Cesare Avenue (MP 321.5 to MP 322.5). The AADT along this segment is approximately 17,000 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes from SR-92 to Tree Top Avenue, none from Tree Top Avenue to Giulio Cesare Avenue Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 45 mph Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections A multi-use trail is located on the north side of SR-90 There is a long wait to cross at SR-92 Large curb radii at SR-92 Heavy commercial use toward SR-92 No median on SR-90 and wide cross section Distance between crossings is minimal toward SR-92 Discontinuous sidewalks and narrow shoulders east of Tree Top Avenue Poor roadway lighting toward the east end of the segment Crosswalk Improvements $6,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,200 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $12,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Sidewalk Improvements $737,990 Install and improve sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Construct Raised Median $1,176,120 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 39 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,933,310 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $757,190 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-14 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 12 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 12, US-95, Alamo Drive to Avenue 3E, Yuma This segment is a 0.62-mile-long 4-lane state highway from Alamo Drive to Avenue 3E (MP 25.2 to MP 25.8). The AADT along this segment is approximately 15,100 vpd. It should be noted that this route will be turned over to the City of Yuma in September 2009. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – none Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 55 mph Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections The City uses channelized right turn lanes to shorten pedestrian crossing distances (using pork chop islands). At SR 95 and Ave. 3E, an area with two fatal crashes, there is a bar in the vicinity; people park on opposite side of street. Raised medians have been recommended in past studies Roadway lighting is only present at Avenue 3E and not the rest of the segment This segment is scheduled for turn back in 2009. Crosswalk Improvements $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $4,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $310,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Sidewalk Improvements $450,115 Install sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Construct Raised Median $736,560 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 40 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,442,675 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $766,115 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-15 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 13 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 13, SR-8B, 1st Street to 32rd Street, Yuma This segment is a 3.66-mile-long 4-lane state highway from 1st Street , extending south to Catalina Drive at the “Big Curve”, and the intersection of 4th Avenue/SR-8B and 32nd Street (MP 0.3 to MP 4). The AADT along this segment is approximately 16,500 vpd. It should be noted that this route will be turned over to the City of Yuma in September 2009. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority < 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections There are more pedestrians on 4th Avenue (Business SR-8B), north of 16th Street. There are more homeless persons there and the library is near there. The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: Lighting is present now There are several signals along the corridor therefore, pedestrian crossings are not needed Enhance Pedestrian Signals $48,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $480,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Driveway Improvements $600,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Construct Raised Median $4,348,080 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 41 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $5,476,080 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $1,128,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-16 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 14 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 14, SR-89A, Dry Creek Road to Soldier Pass Road, Sedona This segment is a 1.88-mile-long 4-lane state highway from Dry Creek Road to Soldier Pass Road (MP 371 to MP 372.9). The AADT along this segment is approximately 24,700 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: SR89A MP 371-373 has an ongoing safety project managed by ADOT-HES and funded by FHWA through the Highway Safety Improvement Program grants. The project scope includes continuous highway lighting, traffic signal at Andante Drive, and a right-turn lane on SR89A turning east onto Andante Drive. -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median -- Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median -- Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 40 mph Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 42 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-17 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 15 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 15, SR-387 (Pinal Avenue), SR-287 to Cottonwood Lane, Casa Grande This segment is a 1.01-mile-long 4-lane state highway from SR-287 to Cottonwood Lane (MP 0 to MP 1). The AADT along this segment is approximately 18,400 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: City of Casa Grande indicated that this area has activity centers, including - stores and residences. This is a wide roadway with large signal spacing. Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes, break on west side, south of Ocotillo Street Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – commercial / open space Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Crosswalk Improvements $6,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,200 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $12,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Driveway Improvements $200,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Construct Raised Median $1,199,880 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 43 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,419,080 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $219,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-18 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 16 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 16, SR-86, La Cholla Boulevard to 16th Avenue, Tucson This segment is a 1.75-mile-long 4-lane state highway from La Cholla Boulevard to 16th Avenue (MP 169.9 to MP 171.7). The AADT along this segment is approximately 31,000 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – yes Sidewalks – yes, break on north near I-19 Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 / 45 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections At Mission Road, there is high pedestrian and vehicular activity There is not enough time to cross SR-86 at Mission Road and the median is too narrow to be used as a refuge Countdown pedestrian signals are located are located at Mission Road in the north and south directions At 16th Avenue, there is no crosswalk on the east leg and use crosswalk signs are present A bus stop is located west of the SR-86 and 16th Avenue intersection Lynn/Urquides Elementary School is located at Freedom Drive Four City of Tucson representatives indicated that on SR 86, some pedestrian crashes were at school crossings. At Freedom Drive there is a HAWK crossing now. Crosswalk Improvements $12,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $2,400 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $24,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $210,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,110,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Construct Raised Median $2,079,000 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 44 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $3,077,400 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $1,358,400 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-19 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 17 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 17, SR-87 (Arizona Boulevard), Vah Ki Inn Road to Martin Road, Coolidge This segment is a 2.0-mile-long 4-lane state highway from Martin Road to Vah Ki Inn Road (MP 131.5 to MP 133.5).The AADT along this segment is approximately 14,700 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections There is no traffic signal from Martin Road to Coolidge Avenue Speed limit quickly changes from 65 mph to 35 mph when travelling north toward Martin Road More pedestrian activity and heavy commercial use toward the northern end of the corridor Rough pavement and bumps at the end of sidewalk ramps may make crossing difficult for wheelchairs The Coolidge High School is located on Northern Avenue west of SR-87 The City of Coolidge representative indicated that: On Arizona Boulevard (SR 87), in the vicinity of Northern Avenue, there are a number of schools, and school children cross in this area, particularly to a convenience store on the east side of the road. On Arizona Boulevard (SR 87) north of Martin Avenue, there is a mobile home park on the east side of the street and a grocery store on the west side of the street, so there are pedestrians crossing. At the south end of Arizona Boulevard, the speed limits transitions quickly. There have been requests for mid-block crosswalks. Crosswalk Improvements $8,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs $1,600 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $16,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $350,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $1,240,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Construct Raised Median $2,376,000 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 45 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $3,751,600 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $1,615,600 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-20 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 18 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 18, US-95, SR-8B to Redondo Center Drive, Yuma This segment is a 0.8-mile-long 4-lane state highway from SR8B to Redondo Center Drive (MP 23.4 to MP 24.2). The AADT along this segment is approximately 31,200 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – yes Median – TWLT median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections Crosswalk Improvements The regional traffic engineer had the following comments: A raised median would be helpful Roadway widening is planned next year – 6-lane highway with median Bikes lanes should be installed on project Medians would have to be terminated at intersections Countdown pedestrian signals would be helpful The area is over signed $8,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $16,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii at Intersections $70,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii at intersections along the corridor. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Improve Pedestrian Crossings $490,000 Install pedestrian hybrid signal crossings, with pedestrian refuges. Construct Raised Median $950,400 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 46 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,294,400 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $584,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-21 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 20 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 20, US-60X (Apache Trail), Signal Butte Road to Meridian Road, Mesa This segment is a 1.0-mile-long 6-lane state highway from Signal Butte Road to Meridian Road (MP 193 to MP 194). The AADT along this segment is approximately 21,900 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Crosswalk Improvements None $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – some Median – earthen median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections $800 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Driveway Improvements $60,000 Evaluate and improve driveways along the corridor. Improvements may include narrowing or closing driveways, or reducing turning radius. Sidewalk Improvements $665,064 Install and improve sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. $1,188,000 Construct Raised Median Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 47 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $1,925,864 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $737,864 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-22 – Potential Countermeasures for Segment 21 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Segment 21, US-60X (Apache Trail), Ellsworth Road to Crismon Road, Mesa This segment is a 1.0-mile-long 6-lane state highway from Ellsworth Road to Crismon Road (MP 191 to MP 192). The AADT along this segment is approximately 20,500 vpd. The segment consists of other key features as below: Crosswalk Improvements None $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks along the corridor. Install Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs Bicycle Lane – none Sidewalks – some Median – earthen median Posted Speed Limit – 35 mph Adjacent Land Use – mostly commercial Building Setback – majority > 25 feet Crosswalk Locations – only at intersections $800 Install Pedestrian Crossing warning signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching intersections or mid-block crossings. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals along the corridor. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Evaluate Sight Obstructions -- Evaluate sight obstructions alongside the roadway, such as vegetation, etc. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Sidewalk Improvements $833,904 Install and improve sidewalks to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Construct Raised Median $1,188,000 Construct a raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve safety by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 48 Planning Level Total Segment Cost with Raised Median $2,034,704 Planning Level Total Segment Cost without Raised Median $846,704 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-23 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 1 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 1, Greenway Road / I-17, Phoenix Greenway Road and I-17 interchange is a diamond interchange. The crossing street of Greenway Road has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and a single right-turn lane. Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii $80,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 49 $93,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-24 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 3 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 3, 7th Avenue / I-10, Phoenix 7th Avenue and I-10 interchange is a Single Point Urban Interchange. The crossing street of 7th Avenue has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes. There is a pedestrian overpass crossing 7th Avenue north of the I-10 interchange. Current location of crosswalk on the southeast corner makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic - roadway is curved and shrubs are obstructing view Pedestrian signal button arrow is pointing the wrong way to cross the northbound left-turn exit ramp Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $400 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $4,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 50 $6,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-25 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 4 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 4, Apache Boulevard / SR-101, Tempe The crossing street of Apache Boulevard at the SR 101 interchange has 3 through lanes in each direction. This intersection is wide, resulting in long pedestrian crossing distances. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 51 $8,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-26 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 5 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 5, Cactus Road / I-17, Phoenix Cactus Road and I-17 interchange is a diamond interchange. The crossing street of Cactus Road has 2 through lanes in each direction with single left-turn lanes. Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii $80,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 52 $93,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-27 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 9 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 9, 32nd Street / SR-202, Phoenix 32nd Street and SR-202 interchange is a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). The segment of 32nd Street crossing SR202 has 5 through lanes with 3 lanes going northbound and 2 lanes southbound. Dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane are present for both directions. Crosswalk Improvements Realign right-turn exit ramp to a right angle Move crosswalk back about 20 feet $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $400 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $4,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii $40,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 53 $46,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-28 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 10 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 10, Bethany Home Road / I-17, Phoenix Bethany Home Road and I-17 interchange is a Single Point Urban Interchange. The crossing street of Bethany Home Road has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane. No refuge area for pedestrians on Bethany Home Road No walk phase provided for northbound and southbound pedestrians Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $400 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $10,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Evaluate Sight Distance -- Evaluate driver sight distance for pedestrians. Many interchanges have concrete barriers separating the pedestrian from the travel lane; many of these can introduce sight distance concerns. Reduce Curb Radii $40,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 54 $52,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-29 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 11 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 11, Camelback Road / I-17, Phoenix Camelback Road and I-17 interchange is a Single Point Urban Interchange. The crossing street of Camelback Road has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane. Narrow median does not provide a refuge for pedestrians Bus stop east of interchange should be moved to nearest signalized intersection – current location may encourage pedestrians to cross midblock Worn crosswalks striping Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $400 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $10,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Evaluate Sight Distance -- Evaluate driver sight distance for pedestrians. Many interchanges have concrete barriers separating the pedestrian from the travel lane; many of these can introduce sight distance concerns. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 55 $12,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-30 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 12 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 12, Dunlap Avenue / I-17, Phoenix Dunlap Avenue and I-17 interchange is a Single Point Urban Interchange. The crossing street of Dunlap Avenue has 3 through lanes in westbound direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane, and 4 through lanes in eastbound direction with dual left-turn and right-turn lanes. Double right-turns may be problematic for pedestrians Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Not enough walk time is provided to cross exit and entrance ramps Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $2,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $400 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $10,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii $40,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 56 $52,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-31 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 13 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 13, University Drive / SR-101, Tempe University Drive and SR-101 Interchange is a Diamond Interchange. The crossing street of University Drive has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane. Crosswalk Improvements None $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Improve Roadway Lighting $10,000 Install lighting at interchange to ensure safe pedestrian crossing at night. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 57 $22,800 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-32 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 14 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 14, Baseline Road / I-10, Tempe / Mesa Baseline Road and I-10 Interchange is a Diamond Interchange. The crossing street of Baseline Road has 3 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane. Post may be blocking sight for pedestrians and drivers from westbound to I-10 NB entrance ramp Double right-turns may be problematic for pedestrians Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due to sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Walk time is only long enough to get to median; Walk phase is only about 3 seconds before flashing don’t walk; pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle Crosswalk Improvements $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Reduce Curb Radii $80,000 Develop a plan to evaluate and reduce curb radii. Reducing the curb radius should reduce pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility between drivers and pedestrians. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 58 $93,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-33 – Potential Countermeasures for Interchange 18 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Interchange 18, Indian School Road / I-17, Phoenix Indian School Road and I-17 interchange is a diamond interchange. The crossing street Indian School Road has 4 through lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes and single right-turn lane. Double right-turn on northbound exit ramp conflicts with pedestrians crossing on walk signal Exiting right-turn vehicles enter crosswalks to turn due sight obstructions High speed right-turns – provide “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” signs Pedestrian signal is out near southbound exit ramp Pedestrians do not wait for walk signal since time between phases are so long – have multiple phases during one cycle City of Phoenix staff indicated that : Indian School Road between Central and I-17 is in a heavily populated area. Indian School Road is an 8-lane roadway with sidewalks adjacent to the road. The City wishes to put in bike lanes to separate the sidewalks from the road and to decrease the crossing distance. I-17 intersection is extremely wide, and pedestrian timing might be inadequate. The west side of I-17 is more economically depressed than the east, and it also has more destinations. Crosswalk Improvements $4,000 Evaluate and improve crosswalks at the interchange. Install “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Signs $800 Install yield to pedestrian signs to provide regulation, warning, and information to motorists as to what to expect and how to behave when approaching the interchange. Install “No Right Turn on Red” Signs $400 Install “No Right Turn on Red” signs to provide a safer crossing for pedestrians, when conditions meet engineering warrants per MUTCD Section 2B.45. Also provide a lead pedestrian interval to address concerns over increased right-turn-on-red conflicts. Enhance Pedestrian Signals $8,000 Install pedestrian countdown signals at the interchange. Evaluate existing signal timing and modify pedestrian crossing time if needed. Increased Enforcement Plans -- Develop an enforcement plan that will help to deter careless and reckless driving and increase motorists’ awareness to share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enforcement should be focused on speeding and pedestrians crossing illegally. Planning Level Total Interchange Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 59 $13,200 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-34 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 1 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 1, SR-587, MP 220, Gila River Indian Community This location is near MP 220 on SR-587. At this location, SR587 is a 2-lane state highway in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that no sidewalks are present; however, there are paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Evaluate Paved Shoulder Widths Need for improved shoulders $300,000 Evaluate paved shoulder width near MP 220 to determine if the shoulder is wide enough for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway safely. Planning Level Total Location Cost $300,000 Exhibit 5-35 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 2 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 2, SR-87, MP 135 to 160, Gila River Indian Community This location is a 25.0-mile-long 2-lane segment of state highway from MP 135 to MP 160 on SR-87. SR-87 transitions from a rural area to a residential area at this location. The highway video log showed that paved shoulders are on both sides of the roadway; however in some areas the shoulder is too narrow for pedestrian use. Need for wider shoulders and lighting in residential areas Need signage alerting drivers entering residential areas Need better enforcement of speed Evaluate Roadway Lighting on SR-87 $130,000 Evaluate lighting between MP 135 and MP 160, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $3,502,800 Evaluate the need to install sidewalks/walkways near commercial development and bus stop locations to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Evaluate Paved Shoulder Widths $7,500,000 Evaluate paved shoulder width between MP 135 and MP 160 to determine if the shoulder is wide enough for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway safely. Bus Stop Improvements $139,600 Provide school bus stop areas and turnout lanes along SR-87 between MP 135 and MP 160. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 60 $7,630,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-36 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 3 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 3, US-89, MP 464.7 to 470, Navajo Nation This segment is a 5.3-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 464.7 to MP 470 in a rural area. The speed limit along this segment ranges from 50 mph to 65 mph. From the highway video log, it was found that paved shoulders are present on both sides of the roadway. From MP 465 to MP 469, the shoulder appears to be in a maintained condition. From MP 469 to MP 470, the shoulder is narrow and may be difficult for pedestrians to use. Evaluate Roadway Lighting on US-89 Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lighting $10,000 Evaluate lighting between MP 465 and MP 470, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Evaluate Paved Shoulder Widths $600,000 Evaluate paved shoulder width between MP 465 and MP 470 to determine if the shoulder is wide enough for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway safely. Planning Level Total Location Cost $610,000 Exhibit 5-37 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 4 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 4, US-160, MP 321.7 to MP 323, Navajo Nation This location is a 1.3-mile-long 2-lane segment of state highway from MP 321.7 to MP 323 on US-160. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that paved shoulders are present. Near the intersection of SR264 and US-160, there is some commercial development. Street lights are present but sidewalks are not. Evaluate Roadway Lighting Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lighting $15,000 Evaluate lighting on US-160, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $831,643 Evaluate the need to install sidewalks/walkways along US-160 near commercial development to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 61 $846,643 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-38 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 5 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 5, US-160, MP 393 to MP 393.7, Navajo Nation This location is a 0.7-mile-long 2-lane segment of state highway from MP 393 to MP 393.7 on US-160. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that on US-160 much of the paved shoulder is too narrow for pedestrians and the vegetation along the side of the road is overgrown. There is some commercial development near US163, where street lights are present but sidewalks are not. Evaluate Roadway Lighting Lack of sidewalks Lack of street lighting $5,000 Evaluate lighting on US-160, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $319,032 Evaluate the need to install sidewalks/walkways along US-160 near US-163 to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths $120,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along US-160 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Planning Level Total Location Cost $444,032 Exhibit 5-39 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 6 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 6, US-163, MP 393.5 to MP 395.4, Navajo Nation This location is a 1.9-mile-long 5-lane highway from MP 393.5 to MP 395.4 segment is in a rural area. There is development near US-160 and sidewalks entire segment of US-163. In this area, crossing opportunities for pedestrians. segment of state on US-163. The some commercial are present on the there are very few Evaluate Crossing Opportunities Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized crossings should be installed. Evaluate Need for a Raised Median $3,009,600 Evaluate the need for a continuous raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve overall safety and access management by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 62 $3,259,600 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-40 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 7 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 7, US-191, MP 446.6 to MP 448.2, Navajo Nation This segment transitions from a 4-lane state highway to a 5lane roadway from MP 446.6 to MP 448.2 on US-191. The highway video log showed that there is commercial development, and lighting and sidewalks are provided. In this area, there are very few crossing opportunities for pedestrians. The highway video log also showed that there was vegetation overgrown alongside the roadway and sidewalks. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized crossings should be installed. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road and sidewalks to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $1,014,422 Evaluate the need to improve sidewalks/walkways along US-191 to improve mobility for pedestrians. Evaluate Need for a Raised Median $2,534,400 Evaluate the need for a continuous raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve overall safety and access management by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. Planning Level Total Location Cost $3,798,822 Exhibit 5-41 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 8 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 8, SR-264, MP 446.3 to MP 447.6, Navajo Nation This segment is a 1.3-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 446.3 to MP 447.6 on SR-264. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that paved shoulders are present on both sides of the roadway, however much of the shoulder is too narrow for pedestrians. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities Lack of sidewalks Needs pedestrian crossing $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized crossings should be installed. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $820,843 Evaluate the need to install sidewalks/walkways along SR-264 to separate pedestrians from roadway vehicles and improve mobility for pedestrians. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 63 $1,070,843 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-42 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 9 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 9, SR-264, MP 474.7 to MP 475.8, Navajo Nation This segment is a 1.1-mile-long 5-lane state highway from MP 474.7 to MP 475.8 on SR-264. At this location, the highway video log showed that sidewalks are present. In this area, there are very few crossing opportunities for pedestrians to cross the 5-lane roadway. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities Needs raised median Needs pedestrian crossing $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized crossings should be installed. Evaluate Need for a Raised Median $1,742,400 Evaluate the need for a continuous raised median to provide a refuge for pedestrians and improve overall safety and access management by reducing conflicts with left-turning vehicles. Total Location Cost $1,992,400 Exhibit 5-43 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 10 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 10, SR-86, MP 74 to MP 76, Tohono O’odham Nation This segment is a 2.0-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 74 to MP 76 on SR-86. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that only unpaved shoulders are present and much of the shoulder is overgrown with vegetation. It should be noted that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – ADOT Approved Projects (March 13, 2009) includes shoulder widening on SR 86, between milepost 73.9 and 74.9. $250,000 Evaluate Crossing Opportunities No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Vegetation is overgrown Lack of lighting Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized midblock crossings should be installed, especially near schools. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths $1,200,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along SR-86 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 64 $1,450,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-44 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 11 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 11, SR-86, MP 90to MP 94, Tohono O’odham Nation This segment is a 4.0-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 90 to MP 94 on SR-86. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that only unpaved shoulders are present and much of the shoulder is overgrown with vegetation. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Vegetation is overgrown Lack of lighting $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized midblock crossings should be installed, especially near schools. Evaluate Roadway Lighting $20,000 Evaluate lighting between MP 90 and MP 94, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Evaluate Sight Distance -- Evaluate the need to improve sight distance along the roadway in ways such as cutting away from the hill side and reducing the slope of the road. If engineering studies identify a need for slope reduction of the road, alignment and grade modifications are complex countermeasures. Install Signs -- Install signs to indicate business areas and reduce speed limit. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths $2,400,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along SR-86 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 65 $2,670,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-45 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 12 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 12, SR-86, MP 111.1 to MP 116.6, Tohono O’odham Nation This segment is a 5.5-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 111.1 to MP 116.6 on SR-86. The segment is in a rural area. From the highway video log, it was found that only unpaved shoulders are present and much of the shoulder is overgrown with vegetation. A construction project between MP 112.59 and 115.76 is nearly complete. Upon completion, this section will have eight foot shoulders. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities No shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists Roads are narrow Vegetation is overgrown Lack of lighting $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized midblock crossings should be installed, especially near schools. Evaluate Roadway Lighting $5,000 Evaluate lighting between MP 111.1 and MP 116.6, especially at intersections and near commercial and residential developments. Evaluate Sight Distance -- Evaluate the need to improve sight distance along the roadway in ways such as cutting away from the hill side and reducing the slope of the road. If engineering studies identify a need for slope reduction of the road, alignment and grade modifications are complex countermeasures. Install Signs -- Install signs to indicate business areas and reduce speed limit. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths $1,500,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along SR-86 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 66 $1,755,000 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-46 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 13 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 13, SR-264, MP 385 to MP 390, Hopi Tribe This segment is a 5.0-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 385 to MP 390 on SR-264. The segment is in a rural area. The highway video log showed that much of the paved shoulder is too narrow for pedestrians. In this area, there are no crossing opportunities for pedestrians to cross the roadway. Evaluate Crossing Opportunities No crosswalks near Second Mesa Elementary School No sidewalks, bus stop provisions, or turn lanes $250,000 Crossing opportunities should be evaluated to determine if signalized midblock crossings should be installed, especially near Second Mesa Elementary School. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths $3,000,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along SR-264 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Total Location Cost $3,250,000 Exhibit 5-47 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 14 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Engineering analysis and scoping are required for countermeasures selection. The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 14, SR-264, MP 367 to MP 369, Hopi Tribe This segment is a 2.5-mile-long 2-lane state highway from MP 367 to MP 369 on SR-264. The segment is in a rural area. The highway video log showed that much of the paved shoulder is too narrow for pedestrians. Need of pedestrian/ bicycle walkway, school bus stop areas, and turn-out lanes Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements $627,264 Evaluate the need to install sidewalks/walkways along SR-264 between MP 367 and MP 369 to improve mobility for pedestrians and bicycles. Particular consideration should be given to constructing a 10’ multiuse path through this segment. Bus Stop Improvements $139,600 Provide school bus stop areas and turnout lanes along SR-264 between MP 367 and MP 369. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 67 $766,864 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 5-48 – Potential Countermeasures for Tribal Community Location 15 Potential Countermeasures for Consideration Location Description Field Review Observations / Stakeholder Comments The following is a list of potential countermeasures that could be implemented at this location. The list is not intended to be a final list of countermeasures. Actual implementation will depend on further investigations, engineering evaluation, project development, and availability of funding The list is provided to estimate the magnitude of costs that may be required to improve pedestrian safety at this location. Estimated Conceptual Cost Location 15, SR-73, Fort Apache Road to SR-260, White Mountain Apache Tribe This segment is a 23.0-mile-long state highway from Fort Apache Road to SR-260. Through the segment, the roadway cross section varies between 2 lanes, 3 lanes, and 5 lanes. From the highway video log, it was found that a combination of paved shoulders and sidewalks were provided along the state highway. The highway video log also showed that there was vegetation overgrown alongside the roadway and sidewalks in several areas. Evaluate Need for Sidewalk / Walkway Improvements Incomplete sidewalks Vegetation growing on sidewalks $1,270,728 Evaluate sidewalks to determine if sidewalks are well maintained and to determine if additional sidewalks should be installed for continuity. Remove Vegetation Overgrowth -- Remove the vegetation overgrown along the side of the road and sidewalks to allow pedestrians to walk on the shoulder more easily. Extend Paved Shoulder Widths Input from the White Mountain Apache Tribe is that all state highways that pass through the White Mountain Apache Tribe are in need of improvements for pedestrian safety, including US 60, SR 260, SR 73, SR 273, and SR 473. The primary routes on the reservation are US 60, SR 73, and SR 260. These primary routes are utilized by a high number of tribal members as they travel by foot along sections of these three state highways. Concerns identified by the White Mountain Apache Tribe are: high vehicle traffic, uncontrolled vegetation, narrow shoulders, lack of sidewalk maintenance, and lack of pedestrian crossing locations. $6,900,000 Extend the paved shoulder width to 8 feet along SR-73 to provide an area for pedestrians to walk alongside the roadway. Tribal staff also identified a need for funding education: seatbelt use, child safety, and underage, young and older drivers. It is recommended that a Roadway Safety Assessment be conducted for roadways on the White Mountain Apache Tribe. Planning Level Total Location Cost 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 68 $8,170,728 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 6.0 RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends new policies and programs that upon their development and implementation will serve to reduce pedestrian crashes on the state highway system. In addition, the Plan recommends modifications to existing policies and practices that if adopted will improve pedestrian safety on the state highway system. 6.1 Recommended Policies and Programs Section 6.1 identifies the policies and programs that ADOT should consider developing and implementing to improve pedestrian safety on the state highway system, including the following: Develop an ADOT internal pedestrian safety working group Develop and adopt an ADOT Pedestrian Policy Develop and adopt an ADOT Complete Streets Policy Develop traffic impact study agreements with local agencies Review all ADOT design and maintenance guidelines and manuals to identify effective measures for accommodating pedestrians on the State Highway System Develop partnerships with local law enforcement agencies Develop a mechanism to track the level of investment in pedestrian facilities Encourage implementation or expansion of educational programs Provide pedestrian facility training to state and local governments Review existing Arizona Revised Statutes related to pedestrians Develop transition plan for implementation of pedestrian countdown signals Develop transition plan for implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Adopt Access Management Plan Develop an evaluation program 1. Develop an ADOT Pedestrian Safety Working Group It is recommended that ADOT establish an internal Pedestrian Safety Working Group. The Pedestrian Safety Working Group will champion progress of the recommendations of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The internal working group would work towards development of an ADOT Pedestrian Policy, and lay the foundation for development of an ADOT Complete Streets Policy. The group should be comprised of representatives from Traffic Design, Safety (HES), Roadway Design, Multimodal Planning, and the Districts. While the working group would be internal to ADOT, the group should collaborate and coordinate with outside stakeholders. 2. Develop and Adopt an ADOT Pedestrian Policy Development and adoption of an ADOT Pedestrian Policy should be a high priority of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program and the Pedestrian Safety Working Group. An ADOT Pedestrian Policy should be developed collaboratively with representatives from all pertinent ADOT divisions and groups, including Traffic Engineering, Roadway Design, Safety, Multimodal Planning, and the Districts. As the policy is developed, consideration should be given to the following: Recognize and emphasize that ADOT is a partner with local jurisdictions and tribal communities to provide pedestrian facilities on state highways. Develop specific criteria for provision of pedestrian facilities on state highways. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 69 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Require a pedestrian facility criteria assessment to be completed for all new major reconstruction or new construction of state highways. The pedestrian criteria assessment, to be completed during the project scoping process, should document why pedestrian facilities will, or will not, be provided as part of the project. Potential pedestrian facility criteria include: - Sidewalks will be provided on state highways when there are origins and destinations within 0.5 miles walking distance from one another, and the state highway is anticipated to be a route used by pedestrians to access the origin / destination. Transit stops are considered a destination. - If the project is planned on a state highway that is within 2 miles of an elementary or middle school, the pedestrian facilities criteria assessment should include a review by the State Safe Routes to School Coordinator. If pedestrian facilities are not included in the project when the project is within 2 miles of a school, the specific reasoning behind the decision will need to be documented. - If the project is planned on a state highway that is a barrier to walking because of the difficulty of crossing the state highway, the most appropriate and effective crossing techniques shall be evaluated. Establish equitable cost sharing policies with local jurisdictions for both the construction and maintenance of sidewalks. State that sidewalks, when provided, will typically be placed on both sides of a highway. Exceptions could include commercial strips entirely on one side with no possible destinations on the other side (e.g. railroad tracks). Specifically endorse and allow construction of pedestrian crossing facilities on state highways that are adopted in the 2009 MUTCD, including the pedestrian hybrid signal. Specifically, allow for provision of two-stage pedestrian crossings on divided state highways. Encourage consideration of raised medians as pedestrian refuge areas. The FHWA Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures Memo (July 10, 2008) states that “raised medians (or refuge areas) should be considered in curbed sections of multi-lane roadways in urban and suburban areas, particularly in areas where there are mixtures of a significant number of pedestrians, high volumes of traffic (more than 12,000 ADT) and intermediate or high travel speeds.” Installing raised medians can help to reduce pedestrian crashes and improve pedestrian safety. State that ADOT will comply with pedestrian and accessibility requirements set forth within the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Adopt the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines as ADOT’s accessibility standard. 3. Develop and Adopt an ADOT Complete Streets Policy The Complete Streets concept recognizes that the safety, interests, and convenience of all users – drivers, bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities – should be considered in the design and construction of transportation projects. Detailed information about Complete Streets can be found at http://www.completestreets.org. Design elements typically found on a Complete Street include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent pedestrian crossing opportunities, median islands, and accessible pedestrian signals. A Complete Street recognizes the context of the surrounding environments. For example, a Complete Street in a rural area is different from a Complete Street in an urban area. However, both streets are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 70 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 The Pedestrian Safety Working Group should consider ways to incrementally work towards implementing Complete Streets on state highways in the following ways: a. Recommend revisions to the State Transportation Board Policies to include language that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist. Policies should define the exceptional circumstances in which facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians will NOT be required in all transportation projects. b. Recommend adoption of new manuals, or amendments to existing manuals, covering the geometric design of streets, the development of roadside safety facilities, and design of bridges and their approaches so they comprehensively address the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral element of the design of all new and reconstructed roadways. c. Recommend adoption of stand-alone pedestrian facility design manuals as an interim step towards the adoption of new typical sections or manuals covering the design of streets and highways. d. Initiate an intensive education of transportation planners and engineers to make them conversant with the new information required to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Training should be made available for, if not required of, agency traffic engineers and consultants who perform work in this field. Education of local city, county, and tribal staff is also important to successful development and implementation of Complete Streets. 4. Develop Traffic Impact Study Agreements with Local Agencies Local jurisdictions and agencies typically require developers to submit traffic impact studies for new developments that desire access to the roadway. The purpose of the traffic impact studies is to evaluate the future traffic impacts of the development on the local roadway. It is recommended that ADOT consider developing a policy or practice to request that traffic studies completed for local jurisdictions and tribal agencies for developments within ½ mile of a state highway be provided to ADOT for review. It is recommended ADOT encourage the local jurisdictions and tribal agencies to require a pedestrian assessment as part of the traffic impact analysis. The purpose of the pedestrian assessment is to identify potential pedestrian safety deficiencies and opportunities. ADOT currently employs what is referred to as the Red Letter process. The Red Letter process is a means by which local jurisdictions and tribal agencies notify ADOT of new developments that are being planned for locations off of the state highway system, but that may affect state highways. For example, if a new subdivision is planned on a local road, but the state highway will serve as a route to access the local road, the city/county/tribal staff notifies ADOT so that any required improvements to the state highway system may be identified. Consideration should be given to modification of the ADOT Red Letter process to identify pedestrian needs. 5. Review all ADOT design and maintenance guidelines and manuals to identify effective measures for accommodating pedestrians on the State Highway System The recommended Pedestrian Safety Working Group should consider commencing a review of all relevant design guidelines and manuals (including Roadway Design Guidelines, and Standards) to ensure that they adequately address pedestrian mobility and safety. These include areas of expertise that at first glance may not appear to be as relevant, such as interchange design guidelines; many pedestrian crashes on the ADOT system occur at interchanges. Potential revisions to design and maintenance guidelines include: 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 71 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Require advance stop lines on all crosswalks on multi-lane highways. Revise vegetation management guidelines to emphasize the influence of proper vegetation on pedestrian safety. Proper vegetation management can improve sight distance, and allow pedestrians to utilize roadway shoulders more safely when alternative facilities are not available. 6. Develop Partnerships with Local Law Enforcement Agencies Enforcement activities are a critical component of a comprehensive effort to improve pedestrian safety. The primary purpose of enforcement activities, combined with education activities, is to teach motorists and pedestrians about traffic safety and the laws that govern their rights and responsibilities. Cooperation and collaboration with local public safety and law enforcement agencies is critical to improving pedestrian safety throughout Arizona. A high percentage of pedestrian crashes throughout the state are recorded as “pedestrian failed to yield right of way” or “driver failed to yield right of way.” Enforcement activities can play a major role in reducing these crash types. Potential enforcement activities may include spot enforcement of driversyield-to-pedestrian laws. It is recommended that ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program develop partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies to improve pedestrian and motorist enforcement of laws pertaining to pedestrian safety. The following enforcement pedestrian safety enforcement activities are recommended: The Arizona Department of Public Safety has law enforcement jurisdiction over all state highways. Local police departments, tribal, and BIA law enforcement agencies also have enforcement jurisdiction on state highways within their respective communities. The ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program should meet with police departments and tribal law enforcement agencies that have enforcement jurisdiction on high-crash state highway segments and tribal community locations, including the following: - Arizona Department of Public Safety - Bullhead City Police Department - City of Coolidge Police Department - City of Casa Grande Police Department - City of Mesa Police Department - City of Sierra Vista Police Department - City of Tucson Police Department - City of Yuma Police Department - Tribal and BIA Law Enforcement Agencies The purpose of the meetings will be to inform the agency of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, discuss the high segment locations and types of crashes that have occurred on the segments, and discuss potential enforcement activities that could be implemented. Potential enforcement activities include the following: - Mobile Radar Speed Trailers (relay vehicle speed back to vehicle) Increased alcohol enforcement. High pedestrian crash segments on which alcohol was determined to be a contributing factor are: Segment 1 (Bullhead City) Segment 4A (Flagstaff) Segment 5 (Flagstaff) Segment 6 (Flagstaff) 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 72 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Segment 7 (Holbrook) Segment 12 (Yuma) Segment 14 (Sedona) Segment 21 (Mesa) Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations (enforce pedestrian laws, such as vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians). - Radar Speed Photo Enforcement Vehicle - Red-light Running Photo Enforcement - Cooperative submission of funding proposals to the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety for funding for targeted pedestrian enforcement activities as identified above. Identify opportunities to improve police officer training of pedestrian safety laws. Police officer training is a critical to an effective enforcement campaign. The ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program should meet with Arizona POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) to identify opportunities to improve training of police officers with respect to pedestrian safety. - 7. Encourage Implementation or Expansion of Educational Programs Education is an important element of a comprehensive effort to reduce pedestrian crashes, and to improve pedestrian safety throughout the State. A key role of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program and the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Working Group will be to encourage the expansion of educational programs to support pedestrian safety. Safe Routes to School Program The Safe Routes to School Program was created by the U.S. Congress as part of SAFETEA-LU. Safe Routes was created to accomplish three goals: 1. To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities to walk and bicycle to school; 2. To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and 3. To facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption and air pollution near schools. The Safe Routes program provides funds for schools and communities to implement infrastructure projects (such as sidewalk improvements and 'traffic calming') and non-infrastructure programs (such as education campaigns, law enforcement efforts, and prize giveaways). Two main criteria must be satisfied in order for a school area to be eligible to receive Safe Routes to School funding: Program funding is only for elementary and middle schools Programs and projects must be within a 2-mile radius of the school As previously recommended, if a project is planned for a state highway within 2 miles of a middle school or elementary school, a pedestrian facilities criteria assessment should include a review by the State Safe Routes to School Coordinator. If pedestrian facilities are not included in the project, the specific reasoning behind the decision should be documented. It is recommended that schools that are located within 1 mile of a state highway be identified. For each of these schools, ADOT should consider conducting a Safe Routes to School review of the state 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 73 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 highway segments that is located within 1 mile of the school. The purpose of the review will be to identify state highway segment pedestrian facility deficiencies. For each state highway that is utilized by children as a school route, or would potentially be utilized by children as a school route if pedestrian facilities were provided, it is recommended that the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program initiate and encourage Safe Routes to School funding applications from the respective elementary or middle schools to improve pedestrian conditions on the state highway. ADOT / Governor’s Office of Highway Safety “Be a Roll Model” Program The ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian program, through a grant provided by the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, developed and implemented a bicycle and pedestrian safety awareness campaign in the Verde Valley area (Sedona, Clarkdale, and Cottonwood, Arizona). The campaign included a message of “Be a Roll Model”. The purpose of the campaign was to encourage motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians to obey the rules of the road. It is the intent of the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program to gradually implement the “Be a Roll Model” campaign statewide as funding becomes available. It is recommended that the following jurisdictions be high-priority locations in which to implement the safety awareness campaign: Sedona (implemented in July 2008) Flagstaff Casa Grande / Coolidge Sierra Vista Yuma Bullhead City FHWA Pedestrian Safety Campaign Another pedestrian safety education resource that is available is the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Campaign. The campaign has extensive ready-made outreach materials that states and communities may customize for local use. The threefold purpose of the campaign is to (1) sensitize drivers to the fact that pedestrians are legitimate road users and should always be expected on or near the roadway, (2) educate pedestrians about minimizing risks to their safety, and (3) develop program materials to explain or enhance the operation of pedestrian facilities, such as crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Campaign resource material can be accessed at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_program/pedcampaign/. The website includes materials designed for use in television, radio, and print advertising. A Campaign Planning Step by Step Guide that explains in detail how to implement the campaign successfully at the local level is also provided. FHWA Safer Journey Interactive CD Safer Journey is an interactive CD that guides the user through various pedestrian safety scenarios that are commonly encountered. The CD has been developed to improve pedestrian knowledge of all road users and safety practitioners. The CD-ROM can be included in state/local community pedestrian safety awareness materials kit and/or used at seminars, and conferences (driver education classes, policy 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 74 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 officer training courses, etc.). The CD can be ordered through http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ PED_BIKE/ped/saferjourney.htm. 8. Provide Pedestrian Facility Training to State and Local Governments In January 2006, FHWA Focus State training was held in Phoenix and Tucson for developing a pedestrian safety action plan. In February 2007, pedestrian safety design training was held in Phoenix and Flagstaff in February of 2007. In April 2008, ADOT conducted bicycle facility design training courses in Flagstaff and Phoenix. The purpose of the courses was to improve education of engineers and planners with respect to bicycle facilities design. A Complete Streets training course was held in May 2009. ADOT should continue to seek after opportunities for education opportunities to improve planning and design of bicycle and pedestrian design faculties. The education courses should be open to ADOT staff, as well as representatives from local city, county, and MPOs/COGs. Training courses will be most effective when they are held consistently. National organizations such as the Complete Streets Coalition and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals serve as potential resources for the training courses. Future courses could address the following: Pedestrian Crossings Warrants and Designs: - Marked Crosswalks - Crosswalks in School Zones - Two-Stage Signalized Pedestrian Crossings - Pedestrian Hybrid Signals Improved Intersection Design for Pedestrians Context Sensitive Design (consistent with ITE Recommended Practice for Building Walkable Communities) FHWA Pedestrian Safety Training and Workshops 9. Review existing Arizona Revised Statutes related to pedestrians The ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, in collaboration with the Pedestrian Safety Working Group, and the Arizona Department of Public Safety, should review existing laws pertaining to pedestrian safety, compare them to model ordinances, and make necessary recommendations for changes to existing pedestrian laws. The review should ensure that existing laws are current and understood by the public and by law enforcement personnel. It is better to make sure existing laws are understood and applied correctly, rather than enact new laws. Arizona’s pedestrian laws are comparable to those from across the U.S. 10. Develop a mechanism to track the level of investment in pedestrian facilities It is recommended that ADOT develop a mechanism through which investment in pedestrian facilities can be documented and tracked. Potential opportunities through which this may be accomplished include: As previously recommended, all new construction or reconstruction projects should include a pedestrian facility criteria assessment to be completed during the project-scoping phase. The ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program should develop a database to document the results of the assessment and a summary of recommendations. As projects are developed and implemented, the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program should ensure that project managers document the status of the improvements in the database. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator should be notified of any changes to the recommendations of the pedestrian facilities criteria assessment. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 75 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Identify modifications that could be made to the ADOT Highway Performance Monitoring System dataset. The dataset is currently updated on an annual basis. Current data fields that relate to pedestrian safety include right and left shoulder widths. Other fields include type of access control, vehicle speed and volume, and number of traffic signals on a given segment. It is recommended that the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program collaborate with the HPMS data team to incorporate a sidewalk field; the data set could also include a pedestrian crossing field (crosswalks, hybrid signals, median islands etc.). The HPMS data team has recently procured a new data collection van that enables a 360-degree view of the environment surrounding the state highway. This new data collection van will enable the presence of sidewalks to be reviewed. 11. Develop Transition Plan for Implementation of Pedestrian Countdown Signals The proposed 2009 MUTCD may require a transition to pedestrian countdown signals. The proposed 2009 MUTCD includes language requiring addition of pedestrian change interval countdown displays to all existing pedestrian signal heads, except those being used for crosswalks that are so short that the duration of the pedestrian change interval is 3 seconds or less, within the 10-year compliance period specified in the Introduction of the Manual. Pedestrian countdown signals provide the pedestrian with information about the amount of time remaining in a crossing interval. Countdown signals may be designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the walk phase or at the beginning of the clearance (flashing DON’T WALK) interval. Upon ADOT adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, a transition plan should be developed for conversion of existing pedestrian signals to pedestrian countdown signals for all signals on the state highway system. 12. Develop Transition Plan for Implementation of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) The ADA requires public agencies with more than 50 employees to develop a transition plan to ensure that pedestrian facilities become accessible (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/ada_qa.htm). It is recommended that ADOT develop an ADA transition plan that identifies and integrates system needs into the state’s planning process. FHWA recommends that the transition plan accomplish the following tasks: Identify physical obstacles on pedestrian facilities that limit the accessibility for activities to individuals with disabilities Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to upgrade pedestrian access to meet ADA requirements in each year following the transition plan Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan The transition plan should be fully integrated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 13. Adopt ADOT Access Management Plan ADOT is currently developing a Statewide Access Management Plan in accordance with the policies of the State Transportation Board. The Plan will result in an access management classification system for the state highways and a comprehensive access management manual to guide the uniform application of access management throughout the state. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 76 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Access management can be an effective tool to improve pedestrian safety. Consolidation of driveways, minimizing access points, and construction of median islands, all have a positive benefit on pedestrian safety. Working documents can be accessed at azaccessmanagement.org. Working documents include several considerations with respect to pedestrians and improving pedestrian safety, including: Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Proposed DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ACCESS APPROACH PERMITTING, Draft August 25, 2008 General Criteria Bullet 4: This section relies on general design techniques. The use of more exact geometric engineering standards and methods are permissible provided the design is consistent with the purposes and standards of this section and is based upon desirable nationally accepted engineering techniques and are determined acceptable to the Department. Section D. Approach Width Bullet 10: Channelization of an approach using pavement markings or raised curbing may be required to accommodate the predominant approach traffic movement, to control angles of intersection, to provide refuge areas for pedestrians, to provide space for traffic control devices, to provide for vehicle auxiliary turns and to control prohibited turning movements. Section E. Approach Radii Bullet 8: To minimize pedestrian conflict and minimize total approach width at the roadway edge, radii will not be constructed larger than required to accommodate the volume and types of vehicles using the approach on a regular basis. Section H: Auxiliary Turn Lanes Bullet 1.c.: Criteria for Auxiliary Turn Lanes Where there are three or more through lanes in the direction of travel, the Department will not require a right turn acceleration lane unless it is determined to be necessary due to high right turn traffic volumes in excess of 300 vehicles per hour (VPH) or when a significant roadway capacity, operational or geometric safety problem will exist. Each case will be reviewed independently and a decision made based upon site specific conditions. Strong consideration will be given to the opinion of the local authority and their concerns regarding the anticipated and desirable future cross section of the highway. In urban areas where pedestrians are expected, a raised highway median providing pedestrian refuge may be required. Bullet 6.a: Median Design for Turn Lane Installation Where a single left turn lane is necessary the median area will normally consist of a 12-foot turn lane and a four-foot painted separator or four-foot inside shoulder. Where a median area does not exist or where the painted median area is less than 16-feet in width and a left turn lane is required, the roadway will be widened sufficiently in order to provide a median of at least 16 feet in width to accommodate the left turn lane. If a raised median is necessary, the median area should consist of a 12-foot lane exclusive of gutter, and a minimum six-foot raised median 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 77 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 separator. If a pedestrian refuge area is required with signal push button, the median island shall be a minimum of six-feet in width. Existing raised or other non-traversable medians will not have new openings unless a study analyzing all related traffic and safety issues is completed to the satisfaction of the Department and the Department issues a written determination why the median opening is acceptable. Section I: Other Design Elements Bullet 12: Approach design will provide for the safe and convenient movement of all highway right-ofway users and modes of transportation, including but not limited to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and the physically challenged. Sidewalks may be required where deemed appropriate by the Department or when required by the local authority. Bike paths and a local commitment to maintain the facility, may be included in the approach permit requirements upon request by the local authority or Department. Bullet 13: Sidewalks may be required where deemed appropriate by the Department or when required by the local authority. When a sidewalk is required it will normally be placed at least five feet from the back of curb and be five feet wide unless local standards require a greater width. At the driveway the sidewalk will be constructed at the back of the driveway slope with transitions to the normal sidewalk. Sidewalk design and transitions may not be inconsistent with Department standards or the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bullet 13 above requires that sidewalks be constructed at the back of the driveway slope with transitions to the normal sidewalk. It is recommended that ADOT consider re-emphasizing that driveways should be designed to look like driveways, and not roadway intersections in areas of pedestrian activity. Exhibit 3-1 depicts a design of a driveway as an intersection (on the left) and the design of a driveway where the sidewalk continues straight through the driveway (on the right). The sidewalk should be maintained through the driveway, and the driveway should be sloped so that the driver must go over the sidewalk (similar to a speed hump). Exhibit 6-1 – Access Management Driveway Design Source: http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/pdps/collateral/PSAP%20Template%20v1.0CA%20long.doc 14. Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Evaluation Program In order for the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan to be successful, the plan must be implemented and continually evaluated. It is recommended that the recommended Pedestrian Safety Working Group 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 78 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 develop a program to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The program should assess if the overall goals of the plan have been met and measure the overall effectiveness of implemented countermeasures. 6.2 Suggested Modifications to Policies and Practices for Consideration by ADOT Suggested modifications to existing policies and practices for consideration by ADOT are identified in Section 5.2. 6.2.1 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2000, Section 200 – Traffic Studies, Subsection 240 – Traffic Impact Analysis Access to the State highway system is managed through the encroachment permit process. The permit process requires those desiring access to the State highway system to apply for an encroachment permit. Since access to a State highway for a development may impact traffic on the highway, ADOT requires preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis “for developments which desire an encroachment permit.” ADOT defines two categories of traffic impact analyses. The category, and level of analysis required, is dependent upon the amount of traffic anticipated to be generated by the development. It is recommended that ADOT consider modifying traffic impact analysis guidelines to require assessment of pedestrians and pedestrian facilities. The pedestrian assessment could require development pedestrian trips estimation, evaluation of pedestrian connectivity to and from the development, and ways that the development can be made pedestrian friendly to encourage more pedestrian trips. 6.2.2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, March 2001, Section 600 – Traffic Signals, Subsection 621 – Signal Phase Change Intervals ADOT PGP Subsection 621 includes guidance for yellow and all-red clearance intervals. It is recommended that ADOT consider modifying ADOT PGP Subsection 621 to allow for a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), as part of the all-red interval, where conflicts exist between turning vehicles and pedestrians. 6.2.3 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, January 2003, Section 700 – Illumination ADOT PGP Section 700 states that lighting will be installed by the State only where engineering judgment indicates there are sufficient traffic volumes and/or collisions to satisfy one or more of the conditions set forth where illumination would enhance highway safety. It is recommended that illumination be provided routinely, like sidewalks, where pedestrian demand is present. 6.2.4 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures, November 2008, Section 900 – Pedestrians, Subsection 910 – Pedestrian Crosswalks Subsection 910 states that by legal definition, there are three or more crosswalks at every intersection whether marked or unmarked. The policy states that a marked crosswalk should be installed at an intersection where an unmarked crosswalk would not be clearly discernable due to peculiar geometrics or other physical characteristics. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 79 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 It is recommended that ADOT consider modifying Section 900 to explicitly state that marked crosswalks should be provided at all signalized intersections. Subsection 910 states that crosswalks may only be provided if the following conditions are met: A. The length of the block between intersections shall be at least 1000 feet; B. There shall be a high pedestrian volume generator nearby; and C. There shall be a reasonable demand by the pedestrians to cross within a concentrated area at least 400 feet from the nearest intersection. The dimensions listed in subsection 910 are oriented towards suburban locations; block lengths are usually much shorter in urban locations and often shorter in downtown areas in small-town rural locations. It is recommended that ADOT consider allowing a context-sensitive review of crosswalk warrants. This is particularly applicable in communities where the state highway serves as “main street.” As communities desire to make their downtown areas more pedestrian friendly, shorter spacing between crosswalks may be desirable. It is recommended that ADOT consider revising subsection 910 to emphasize alternative treatments to marked crosswalks, in locations where marked crosswalks are determined to be unsafe. ADOT PGP subsection 910 may be revised to emphasize that if pedestrian demand warrants are met, alternatives to help pedestrians safely cross the road should be provided, including a pedestrian hybrid signal. As stated by the proposed 2009 MUTCD, a hybrid signal is a traffic signal that is intentionally placed in a dark mode (no indications displayed) between periods of operation and, when operated, displays both steady and flashing traffic control signal indications. A pedestrian hybrid signal is a special type of hybrid signal used to warn and control traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk. Currently, ADOT does not have a policy for pedestrian hybrid signals. The proposed 2009 MUTCD will allow the installation of pedestrian hybrid signals to facilitate pedestrian crossings at locations that do not meet other traffic signal warrants. Exhibit 6-2 illustrates the proposed 2009 MUTCD pedestrian hybrid signal warrant criteria (Figure 4F1, and 4F-2, 2009 MUTCD). A pedestrian hybrid signal is warranted if the engineering analysis finds that the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding total of all pedestrians crossing the major street for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve for the length of the crosswalk. It is recommended that ADOT adopt the 2009 MUTCD pedestrian hybrid signal warrant criteria. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 80 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 6-2 – Proposed 2009 MUTCD Warrant Criteria for a Pedestrian Hybrid Signal Source: 2007 Notice of Proposed Amendment for the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices The FHWA report entitled Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA, Washington, DC, May 2001) includes guidelines that may be considered for incorporation into ADOT PGP 910. Key elements from the report’s recommendations are outlined in Exhibit 6-3. Recommended Guidelines from Report No. FHWA-RD-01-142 Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths across roadways under the following conditions: 1. At locations with stop signs or traffic signals. Vehicular traffic might block pedestrian traffic when stopping for a stop sign or red light; marking crosswalks may help to reduce this occurrence. 2. At non-signalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 81 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 used in conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed (ADOT PGP 920 identifies warrant criteria for crosswalks in school areas). 3. At non-signalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic (ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian safety and mobility. This must consider the conditions listed below, and in Exhibit 6-3. Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) and should not be used under the following conditions: 1. Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph. 2. On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater. 3. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater. Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the following available options: Option 1 – No special provisions needed. Option 2 – Provide a marked crosswalk alone. Option 3 – Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten crossing distances, and increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding. Other Factors Distance of Marked Crosswalks from Signalized Intersections: Marked midblock crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to traffic signals, since pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a marked midblock crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand, type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points. It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior may be difficult to control merely by the addition of marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk should not unduly restrict platooned traffic, and should also be consistent with marked crosswalks at other unsignalized locations in the area. Other Treatments: In addition to installing marked crosswalks (or, in some cases, instead of installing marked crosswalks), there are other treatments that should be considered to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations. Examples of these pedestrian improvements include: Providing raised medians (or raised crossing islands) on multi-lane roads. Installing traffic signals and pedestrian signals where warranted, and where serious pedestrian crossing problems exist. Reducing the exposure distance for pedestrians by: - Providing curb extensions. - Providing pedestrian islands. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 82 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Reducing four-lane undivided road sections to two through lanes with a left-turn bay (or a twoway left-turn lane), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. When marked crosswalks are used on uncontrolled multi-lane roads, consideration should be given to installing advance stop lines as much as 30 ft prior to the crosswalk (with a STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK sign) in each direction to reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat pedestrian collision. Bus stops should be located on the far side of uncontrolled marked crosswalks. - It is recommended that ADOT consider updating publications to reflect the findings for FHWA-RD-01142, including the ADOT publication “Pedestrian Crosswalks – How Safe Are They?” 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 83 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 6-3 – Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks and Other Needed Pedestrian Improvements at Uncontrolled Locations* Source: Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA, Washington, DC, May 2001 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP WP5 Recommendations.doc 84 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Working Paper No. 5 06/24/09 6.2.5 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 107.2 – Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks The ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 107.2 – Pedestrian Facilities, states that sidewalks should not be constructed as a part of a highway project except as provided below. In urban areas, the highway cross section should provide space for sidewalks to be constructed by others in the future. Exceptions: a. ADOT will construct and pay for sidewalk to replace existing sidewalks along a state highway or a local street which were removed as a part of an ADOT project. b. ADOT may construct additional sidewalks, over and above paragraph a), along local streets or along an urban arterial highway at the request of the local government, provided there is an agreement with the local government to pay ADOT’s additional costs for design, construction and right-of-way. Agreements with local governments for the maintenance of the sidewalks must be executed before advertising the project for bids. Maintenance agreements will normally be the responsibility of the District Engineer; early notification to and coordination with the district is essential. c. ADOT will construct and pay for sidewalks on local street grade separation structures where there is a clear indication of future pedestrian traffic along the street after construction of the highway. It is recommended that ADOT consider preparing a separate guideline or policy for sidewalk construction and maintenance that is more comprehensive than the guidelines currently provided in the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines. The policy or guideline should consider allowances and conditions under which ADOT may assume responsibility for construction and maintenance of sidewalks on state highways or establish costsharing guidelines with local jurisdiction for construction and maintenance of sidewalks. The policy or guideline should include provisions that require construction of sidewalks associated with new development or redevelopment along state highways. Pedestrian Grade Separated Crossings ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines Section 107.2 states that to warrant construction of a pedestrian grade structure, six of the following criteria must be satisfied: High vehicular volumes conflict with high pedestrian volumes, constituting an extreme hazard; Modification of school routes, busing policies, campus procedures, or attendance boundaries to eliminate the need for a crossing is not feasible; Physical conditions make a grade separation structure feasible from an engineering standpoint, including pedestrian channelization to insure usage of the structure; Pedestrian movements can be restricted for at least 600 ft on each side of the proposed overpass; A demonstrated problem exists that simpler, more economic solutions have failed to remedy; and The anticipated benefits to be derived from the overpass clearly outweigh the costs. It is recommended that consideration be given to amending Section 107.2 to state that the grade structure must be located where it is intuitive and convenient for pedestrians to access both ends of the structure. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 85 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 As an example, the City of Madison, Wisconsin uses the following criteria when evaluating a grade separated crossing: Pedestrian attractors Perceived ease of accessibility Pedestrian demand Pedestrian origin and destination Pedestrian volumes Motor vehicle volumes Nearest alternative “safe” crossing Barriers, lighting, topography, etc. 6.2.6 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 404 – Driveway and Turnout Access ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 404 – Driveway and Turnout Access, governs driveway access to state highways. Section 404.1 states that “depressed curb openings are provided for driveways”. It is recommended that consideration be given to modifying Section 404 to emphasize use of depressed curb openings on state highways with a sidewalk, ensuring that they are designed as a sidewalk with an apron and not as a street intersection. 6.2.7 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 408.11 – Right-Turn Channelization The analysis and design of right-turn lanes should consider pedestrian movements as per the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Section 408.11 – Right Turn Channelization. ADOT Section 408.11 – Right Turn Channelization states the following: C) Free Right Turns: Free right turns (without signal or sign control) are often used to improve the capacity of an intersection with a heavy right turn demand. The right turn is made "free" by channelizing the turning movement outside of the intersection controls. For free right turns to function properly, vehicles should not turn into a through traffic lane. Rear-end accidents can occur as turning cars slow down or stop while waiting for gaps in the through cross-traffic stream. If turning traffic must stop, it is better to take the turning movement through a controlled intersection where it is expected to stop, then turn as cross traffic permits. Free right turns shall only be provided where the turning movement can be made into an auxiliary or acceleration lane. It is recommended that ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines be amended to include reference to a free right turn design as illustrated in Exhibit 3-4, in areas where pedestrians are present. A free right turn lane with a tighter approach angle, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-4, results in slower vehicle approach speeds and improves pedestrian visibility. The design vehicle should not necessarily be the largest vehicle that can be expected to traverse the intersection. Large vehicles should be allowed to encroach into adjacent travel lanes in areas with a high number of pedestrians. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 86 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Exhibit 6-4 – Improved Free Right Turn Lane Design Source: Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2006; Figure 10.10 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 87 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 7.0 RESPONSES TO FHWA HOW TO DEVELOP A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan was developed consistent with guidelines in the FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, May 2008 (The Guide). The Guide includes a Checklist for Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Elements. The sections below include the check list element, and how the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan addresses the checklist element. 7.1 Goals and Objectives Commitment to safety for all modes should be the number one goal and priority of state and local transportation agencies. Once this commitment is made, it allows transportation agencies to allocate funds to reducing all crash types, including pedestrian crashes. 1. Do you have a clearly stated commitment to safety as your number one priority? The Vision statement of the Arizona State Transportation Board clearly states safety as a high priority: The Arizona State Transportation Board envisions a multimodal state transportation system that is safe, efficient, and dependable. Each mode performing it’s appropriate role and all modes working together to provide the maximum mobility and connectivity for people, services, and goods with a high priority for the pursuit of advanced technology. Improvements to the mobility of passengers and goods will incorporate concerns for the environment and will be accomplished through coordination with government entities, consultation with stakeholders and the general public as well as consideration of community values. Furthermore, the Transportation Board is committed to: An integrated, balanced, safe, efficient, multimodal statewide transportation system that will serve the mobility needs of people, services, and goods in Arizona. Clear objectives are needed for a pedestrian plan to be successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. They allow for the development of practical and achievable strategies; they also provide a way to measure progress over time. To be effective, objectives must be specific and measurable. 2. Do you have a clearly stated objective for reducing pedestrian crashes? Arizona’s overall state safety vision and goal includes the following: The vision of the Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan is “zero fatalities on Arizona roads, your life depends on it”. The vision is supported by a state “stretch” goal designed to bring about clear progress towards the vision. The goal requires a reduction in the number of fatalities on Arizona’s roadways of approximately 12 percent by the year 2012. The base year of comparison will be 2007. In support of the Arizona safety vision and goal, the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan proposes a goal to reduce pedestrian crashes (both fatal and non-fatal) by 20 percent by the year 2016. The reduction in pedestrian crashes will be measured by a five year average (2012 to 2016). The 5-year average for the years 2002 through 2006 will serve as the base years. This equates to 31 fewer pedestrian crashes per year by the year 2016. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 88 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 7.2 Stakeholders Individual stakeholder involvement is an excellent way to get a better product. Public stakeholders should be viewed as partners who are the on-the-ground scouts who can identify problems, needs and opportunities. To be effective, stakeholders must be involved in a regular, ongoing and systematic way. 1. Do you routinely provide for individual stakeholder involvement? Stakeholders may provide input routinely by contacting the ADOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator. Contact information can be found on the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program website (azbikeped.org). Contact information for local bicycle and pedestrian coordinators is also included on the website. Development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan included a survey that was completed by representatives of state, county, municipal and tribal governments. The purpose of the survey was to learn solicit input about roadways under Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) jurisdiction, and where improvements are needed, from their perspective, to improve the safety of state highways for pedestrians. Stakeholder interviews were also conducted with representatives of jurisdictions in April 2008. The purpose of the interviews was to elaborate on the issues and concerns identified in the survey. The interviews provided an opportunity for the jurisdiction representatives to explain their programs and policies further. A survey form was also provided on azbikeped.org to be filled out by the public. The survey provided the opportunity for the public to identify specific concerns regarding pedestrian safety on the state highway system. Survey form questions included: 1. Option identifying information 2. Do you walk on, alongside or cross any roads on the State Highway System? 3. How often do you walk on, alongside or cross the state highway roads? (please count each round trip as one trip) 4. On average, approximately how far do you walk when you walk on, alongside, or cross the state highway roads? 5. What is the purpose of your walking trips on the state highway roads? 6. If you checked work in question #5, how far do you live from your work? 7. If you checked school in question #5, how far do you live from your school? 8. If you answered NO in question #2, (you don't walk) why don't you walk on, alongside or cross the state highway roads? Please check the top three reasons that you don't walk or don't walk more often to reach your destination. 9. Are you aware of any specific pedestrian safety issues on the state highway roads within or near your community, town, or city? Please describe as specifically as possible, including mileposts, landmarks, or intersections as appropriate. Refer to ADOT's website for maps showing ADOT maintained roads and mileposts. 10. The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan may result in recommendations for improvements to pedestrian improvement projects on state highways. Which of the following should be used to prioritize the construction of pedestrian improvement projects on the state highway roads? 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 89 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 A Pedestrian Advisory Board (PAB) is another excellent way to get a better product. They also build public support for policies, programs, and projects to reduce pedestrian crashes. To be effective, stakeholders must be involved in the review of policies, programs and projects. 2. Do you have a Pedestrian Advisory Board that regularly reviews policies, programs, and projects? Currently, ADOT does not have a Pedestrian Advisory Board. The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends that ADOT establish a Pedestrian Safety Working Group to foster implementation of pedestrian safety countermeasures throughout the state. The Working Group will champion progress of the recommendations of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan and internal ADOT policy with respect to pedestrian safety. Public agency staff in other agencies are also stakeholders. Building positive, working relationships is essential for coordination on regional planning issues; it also provides a way to coordinate on solving specific problems such as identifying high-crash locations where additional enforcement may be needed, and coordinating transit stops with crossing locations. 3. Do you routinely coordinate with other agencies on crash, transit, etc., issues? The Highway Enhancements for Safety (HES) Team investigates and recommends improvements and countermeasures for traffic related problems on the state highways. The HES Teams identify and recommend countermeasures to reduce crashes frequency and severity at locations with perceived crash problems. Safety improvement projects are generated for those locations where roadway reconstruction or safety appurtenances such as lighting, traffic signals, or signing appear to be the most cost-effective means of reducing the crash experience. A critical element of the HES project development process is coordination with other agencies. A percentage of available HES funds each year are made available to local agencies and jurisdictions. 7.3 Data Collection Computerized, timely, geo-coded pedestrian crash data are essential to identify high-crash locations, corridors, and/or larger areas and to select appropriate improvements to make conditions safer for pedestrians and other roadway users. 1. Do you routinely collect pedestrian crash data? The ADOT Traffic Engineering Group is responsible for entering Arizona crash data into a State database. Motor vehicle/pedestrian crashes are included in the database. The crash data is available in multiple electronic formats, including in database, spreadsheet, and geographic information system format. Crashes are geo-coded. Development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan included a detailed review of pedestrian crash data for pedestrian crashes that occurred on the state highway system. Spatial analysis was utilized to identify high pedestrian crash segments and locations. Crash records were subsequently obtained and reviewed for performed for 22 high-crash segments and 11 high-crash interchanges. Pedestrian counts along with crossing observations can be very useful in understanding pedestrian behavior and in considering the need for facilities. Counts and behavior studies, when combined with crash data, can also provide insights into specific crash causes and potential countermeasures. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 90 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 2. Do you routinely collect pedestrian counts and complete crossing observations? Pedestrian count data is not collected on a routine basis. Pedestrian counts are collected on an asneeded basis to support specific engineering studies. Sidewalk and marked crosswalk (at uncontrolled locations) inventories help identify system gaps and unsafe conditions. When combined with crash data, pedestrian counts, and traffic characteristics, they can be very useful in prioritizing locations for countermeasures and other improvements. 3. Do you routinely inventory sidewalks and marked crosswalks? ADOT does not currently inventory sidewalk and marked crosswalk locations. The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends identifying modifications that could be made to the ADOT Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) dataset. Current data fields that relate to pedestrian safety include right and left shoulder widths. Other fields include type of access control, vehicle speed and volume, and number of traffic signals on a given segment. The Plan recommends that the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program collaborate with the HPMS data team to incorporate a sidewalk field; the data set could also include a pedestrian crossing field (crosswalks, hybrid signals, median islands etc.). Locations of sidewalks can be collected using the same vehicle that collections data such as shoulder width and pavement condition. The sidewalk data would then need to be entered into the HPMS. Inventories of traffic characteristics (such as ADT, road widths, and speeds) help identify likely crash locations. When combined with actual crash data and pedestrian counts, they can be very useful in prioritizing locations for countermeasures and other improvements. 4. Do you routinely inventory roadway ADT, widths, and speeds? The ADOT Highway Performance Monitoring System dataset identifies several traffic characteristics on given segments such as traffic volumes, road widths, shoulder widths, and speed limit. The dataset is currently updated on an annual basis. Vehicle speeds are collected on an asneeded basis for specific engineering studies. 7.4 Analyzing Information and Prioritizing Concerns Categorizing pedestrian crash data should be done to determine whether they are occurring at a) spot locations, b) along corridors, c) in a neighborhood area, or d) throughout an entire jurisdiction (poor standard practice such as failing to install pedestrian indicators at signals). Once categorized, this information can be used to focus resources and prioritize projects. 1. Do you routinely categorize pedestrian crash data? The Arizona crash database system does not facilitate the categorization of pedestrian crashes are consistent with the categories listed above (spot, corridor, neighborhood area, or in an entire jurisdiction). Pedestrian crash data in the Arizona crash database is currently categorized by intersection-related and locale. Under the intersection-related category, crashes can be located either at an intersection, driveway access, alley intersection, or have no relationship to an intersection. The locale of a crash can either be rural, urban, or unknown. The specific location of a pedestrian crash is also recorded and can be viewed using GIS mapping. This information can be utilized, supplemented by spatial analysis, to further classify crash data into the spot, corridor, neighborhood, or jurisdiction-wide categories. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 91 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Conducting field reviews and safety audits can be used to identify how each pedestrian crash occurred, and what may be done to prevent future similar crashes. The outcome is a list of improvements that can be implemented to address those crashes and enhance safety. 2. Do you routinely conduct field reviews and safety audits? Development of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan included field reviews for each highcrash segment and interchange. Findings from the field reviews served as input to the development of potential countermeasures for each high pedestrian crash location. ADOT routinely conducts road safety assessments (RSAs). RSA are a formal analysis of user safety of a roadway by an independent, experienced, and multidisciplinary team. The RSA teams typically consist of representatives from local law enforcement, roadway safety education, traffic engineering, roadway design, and emergency medical response. The purpose of the RSA is to: Identify roadway users, circumstances, and roadway elements that may present safety concerns Identify opportunities to eliminate or mitigate the identified safety concern. A recommendation of the ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan is to conduct Roadway Safety Audits for each of the high-crash segment locations identified in the Plan. Improving the safety for all roadway users will improve the safety of pedestrians. Results of the safety audits will serve as input to identification and refinement of countermeasures for each high-crash segment. Crash typing describes the pre-crash actions of the parties involved. When crashes are “crash typed,” a pattern often emerges that helps identify what the problem is and what countermeasures are generally related to each crash type. Crash typing is particularly useful in developing education and enforcement strategies. 3. Do you routinely “crash type” your pedestrian crash data? Currently, ADOT does not routinely crash type pedestrian crash data. The crash analysis for conducted for the Plan included crash-typing for each pedestrian crash on a high pedestrian crash location (segment and interchanges). Pedestrian crashes were typed consistent with categories continued in the Pedestrian Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) and Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). The crash types used include the following: Walking in Roadway Standing in Roadway Walking Along Roadway Pedestrian Failed to Yield Motorist Left Turn—Parallel Paths Motorist Left Turn—Perpendicular Paths Motorist Right Turn—Parallel Paths Motorist Right Turn—Perpendicular Paths Through Vehicle at Signalized Location Through Vehicle at Unsignalized Location Non-Roadway Multiple Threat/Trapped 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 92 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Unique Midblock Miscellaneous Prioritizing pedestrian safety improvements is the final step once all appropriate data has been collected. Priorities should be established based on a variety of factors including safety consequences, cost, travel demand, availability of right-of-way, federal and/or state mandates and public support. Solutions can be phased and divided into temporary or permanent improvements. 4. Do you prioritize (rank) pedestrian safety improvements? High pedestrian crash locations were prioritized in the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. The prioritization methodology considered criteria that measured the level of need for pedestrian safety improvements, which included Pedestrian Demand Index, Pedestrian Safety Deficiency Index, Stakeholder Input (used only for segments), and Crash Severity Index. Each high-crash location was scored for each criterion. An overall composite score was subsequently calculated to represent the overall priority score for each location. A normalized score was also determined to compare rankings in relation to each other. 7.5 Providing Funding Routine accommodation for pedestrians in all projects, programs and maintenance activities is the most cost-effective funding strategy for reducing pedestrian crashes and encouraging more walking. The majority of pedestrian infrastructure is built in conjunction with other projects. It allows for significant improvements over, time even if there is no special funding available for pedestrian safety improvements. 1. Do you routinely include pedestrian safety improvements in all projects, programs, and maintenance activities? Current ADOT policy does not require pedestrian safety improvements in all projects, programs, and maintenance activities. The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends that ADOT develop and adopt a pedestrian policy that would reinforce consideration of pedestrians and provision of pedestrian facilities on state highways. It is recommended that the Policy be collaboratively developed by multi-disciplinary representatives from Traffic Engineering, Roadway Design, Safety, Multimodal Planning, and the Districts. Suggested elements of the policy include: Recognition that ADOT is a partner with local jurisdictions and tribal communities to provide pedestrian facilities on state highways. Specific criteria for provision of pedestrian facilities on state highways. Equitable cost sharing policies with local jurisdictions for both the construction and maintenance of sidewalks. Endorsement of construction of pedestrian crossing facilities on state highways that are adopted in the 2009 MUTCD, including the pedestrian hybrid signal. Endorsement of providing raised medians as pedestrian refuge areas. The FHWA Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures Memo (July 10,2008) states that “raised medians (or refuge areas) should be considered in curbed sections of multi-lane roadways in urban and suburban areas, particularly in areas where there are mixtures of a significant number of pedestrians, high volumes of traffic (more than 12,000 ADT) and intermediate or high travel 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 93 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 speeds”. Installing raised medians can help to reduce pedestrian crashes and improve pedestrian safety. Statement that ADOT will comply with pedestrian and accessibility requirements set forth within the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Adopt the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines as ADOT’s accessibility standard. Dedicated funds and set-asides for pedestrian projects allow for immediate action in addressing highcrash locations, corridors, and other targeted areas. They can be federal, state or local funds and are often a percentage of another fund. 2. Do you routinely set aside funds that are dedicated to pedestrian safety? ADOT does not receive any funds that are solely dedicated to pedestrian safety. Many of ADOT’s funding sources, however, can be used for projects that improve pedestrian safety on Arizona’s state highways. Arizona State funding sources for pedestrian improvement projects include those listed in the table below. Funding Programs Project Type (constr., non-constr.) Required Matching Funds Total Available Annual Funding to ADOT Eligible Projects / Comments Transportation Enhancement Activity Both 5.7% Hard Cash Match $16.8 M Provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, preservation of abandoned railroad corridors (including conversion and use for pedestrian and bicycle trails) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Construction The Federal share is 90 %, subject to the sliding scale adjustment; Federal share is 100% for certain safety improvements listed in 23 USC 120(c). $24.4M Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements on any public road or publicly owned pedestrian or bicycle pathway. Safe Routes to School Both Not Permitted $3.6M Infrastructure related and behavioral projects that provide a safe and appealing walking atmosphere 10-30% of each state’s funding is to be spent on non-infrastructure activities Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF) Both Match from private monies is required if used for cultural, educational, historical, and recreational programs 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc $23M Street maintenance and improvements, street lighting, transportation service for the elderly and disabled, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks Funds are generated from the Arizona Lottery 94 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 7.6 Creating the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan focuses resources on making the changes that reduce the greatest number of pedestrian crashes. To be effective, it must provide a framework for involving stakeholders, collecting and analyzing data, selecting countermeasures, developing implementation strategies and providing funding. 1. Do you have a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan that includes all these elements? The Pedestrian Safety Action Plan includes the following documents and elements: Working Paper No. 1: Existing pedestrian safety conditions on the state highways in Arizona; Working Paper No. 2: Pedestrian safety goals and emphasis areas for ADOT; Working Paper No. 3: Prioritization system to rank locations and recommendations of potential countermeasures, policies, and programs to meet pedestrian safety goals for emphasis areas ; Working Paper No. 4: Cost estimates for high-crash locations and potential funding sources and collaborative funding alternatives for pedestrian infrastructure on Arizona’s state highways; and Working Paper No. 5: Process for selecting and implementing pedestrian safety countermeasures. Evaluation of results ensures that implemented solutions are effective in reducing crashes and improving the safety and accessibility of pedestrian facilities; it also helps ensure future funding opportunities if the plan is perceived as a success. Success should be measured against the objectives set forth in the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan—typically to reduce pedestrian crashes by a certain percentage. 2. Do you routinely evaluate results of your efforts to reduce pedestrian crashes? The ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommends development of a program to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the Action Plan. The program should assess if the overall goals of the plan have been met and measure the overall effectiveness of implemented countermeasures. 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc 95 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 APPENDICES 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Appendix A – High-crash Locations Segments Locations Interchanges Locations Tribal Community Locations 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Segments Locations 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 1 " ) 251 " ) North Ridge Ave Park Ridge Ave 250 " ) ry ber Mul Dr Oak Ave Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System " ) Mccormick Blvd River St SR -6 8 Legend 6 SR- 2 rd nCa 8 no Indian Head Dr Segment 1B Davis Dam Rd Segment 1A and 1B Bullhead City, Arizona Ridge Run Ave South Ridge Ave Syc s cu Lo t am o re d R 249 " ) Seventh St Sixth St D es e Moser A v e Main St Fifth St Rio Dr Decker Dr " )248 rt First St lD rai T t er r Bullhead s De 247 " ) Vi st a Pass Canyon Rd Outpost Dr Segment 1A Rancho Merrill Ave 246 1.5 2 Miles Cr ee kR d Dr g Hi lls Rd ver Ro llin Riverview Dr Havasupai Dr Foxfire Rd Kobe Dr Plata Caleta Rd Vi sta North Oatman Rd Sil Hillview Tesota Way Mohave Valley Hwy Booster Dr Pocito Ln Avenid a Colib ri Avenida Grande Black Mountain Rd Navajo Dr 1 Sa ipa nC Balsa Rd ir Al ta Palma Rd Shamro ck Rd SR-95 Tran e Rd Williams Dr vd Goldrush Rd Dr ay Pa rkw Lakeside Dr 0.5 Mile Miracle Dr na tali Ca r Rosebud Dr Papago Dr 0 " ) Arena Dr Talc Rd Bl l Hancock Rd Marina Blvd Swan D 245 ad ia oP o rc Zi ve nA an Ver Dr Citrus St Church St Brill Dr r ista D Turney Dr ina Col Rio V Terrace Dr Wilson Rd S umm it " ) Dr Ramar Rd " )A rc « Terral Ln Calle Media Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System Star Rd SR-95 Legend Calle Amigo Calle Esperanza Camino Viejo Calle Ranchita Camp Mohave Rd Calle El Dorado Patina Rd Segment 2 Bullhead City, Arizona Camino Colorado 238 " ) El Rodeo Rd Erin Dr La Galzada Corona Rd La Riqueza Rd Segment 2 El Ranchero Rd La Tierro Dr Pandero Rd La Riata Rd Teller Rd 237 " ) Joy Ln 236 " ) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles 1 Cholla Dr Torrance Rd Wagon Wheel Ln Calle Del Media Calle Valle Vista Hammer Ln La Cuadra Dr Mohave Valley Hwy Lakewood Rd Hammer Rd Huntington Rd Pasadena Rd Covina Rd Downey Rd Gardena Rd Jack Rabbit Dr El Ganadero Dr Los Gauchos Rd « Segment 3 and 15 Casa Grande, Arizona Kortsen Rd Legend 2 " ) Tie rra P Peart Rd Casa Grande Ave Cameron St Palm Park Blvd almas Blvd Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Racine Pl Incapacitating inury pedestrian crash Silver Reef Rd Pl Jahns Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Barrus Pl Shadow Ridge Dr " ) Milepost Viola St Gabrilla Dr State Highway System Viola Dr Evelyn St Lee St Segment 15 1 Storey Rd Cottonwood Ln Ma in Florence St Elm Ave Elliot Ave Beech Ave Green Ave Ash Ave Cedar Ave Trekell Rd 113 Florence Blvd St Avenue A " ) Pueblo Dr 4th St Hubbard St Amarillo St Trekell Rd Front Gilbert Ave Kadota Ave Lehmberg Ave Morrison Ave Brown Ave 5th St Segment 3 2nd St Campbell Ave ( re tire d " ) ) (1) 179 Ma in Earley Rd Sr -8 4 180 " ) 0.5 0.75 Miles 1 « Noble St Ol d Chuichu Rd 0.25 114 Doan St SR -8 4 Peters Rd 0 " ) C Ave Av e 11th Ln Colorado St Av e 9th St 12th St Pueblo 2n d Mcmurray Blvd Brown ve Ma in Laurel Dr 6th St 3rd St t Bonita SR-287 Morrison Av e tS Manor Dr Brenda Dr Roosevelt Ave 3r dA Olive Ave 0 178 Cameron 4 " ) " ) 1s 1s t Walnut Dr 8th St 10th St Dr yla k To e St lte cS t SR -8 Markley Dr Picacho Ave 11th St Park Ave Arbor Ave 13th St Center Ave Pinal Ave French St Saguaro St Cholla St Ocotilla St Melrose Dr Coolidge Ave SR-387 " ) Arizola Rd Elaine St Oneil Dr Malpais Ln But Dup on t co S t St Fr a ncis t eS en S t Eld t lC ne l ir Rd con Mc De lF la g ir Lone Tree Rd Pa se Po Wo nd od er lan os aP dD l r C sa po Re en o Dome St Knoles Dr Riordan Ranch St Br an n Pinegrove Milton Rd Sawmill Rd l le Ca Segment 4B SR-89A lin A ve Ernest St Osb orn Dr ay W Pl az a ve Fountaine St 0.125 Brannen Ave Ave Fran k Runke Dr Yale St 0 ve Ell e ry A Blome Dr Miles 0.25 ler A r Wa lk Me tz ey D r Mccreay Dr Saunders Dr ge A ve B Torm University Dr Ver de St 180 USCotta (4) nton Ave Segment e4A Rd University Ave 40B ike Dr da n P SR- ith Ri or s ke Mi en A ve hA ve Colorado St Dr teau a h C Ln ba b Kai e e 66 nix A ve ckw Be Blackbird Roost Clay Ave Asp O Leary St s to n e Av Segment 4C sD To m b n Av Ave Terrace Ave Tucs o ve Birc Rou te Pow er t ot S Ell i Dal e Aga ssiz S St no rry A Hill sid es S t Sitg rea v g Sprin er oni Coc 196 " ) Phoe Ave Che San Hum p dric k t Par kS St Mars Hill Rd Low Ken Bon Mog o llon it o S t St St t cS Azt e c St Tolt e Wilson Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Ave itpedestrian Incapacitating injury Scrash ant Summ aF eA e ve v A Other pedestrian crashes; aUnknown n o ny C d n a Gr " ) Milepost ve State Highway System Coconino A Ave Bea ver St hre Rd Legend Fine Ler oux Ave t Elm ys S Thorpe Segments 4A, 4B, and 4C Flagstaff, Arizona « Pine Knoll Dr Segment 5 and 6 Flagstaff, Arizona Legend Eld on L o US -8 7 9 FH5 5 ok Injury Severity ou tR d Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System Snowflake Dr nC C a rd hri s tm as Tre eL n Segment 6 Trails 420 rD r Spur S t Thornton Pl Sanford Pl Country Club Dr Dr Olso n Colte r Dr Pino nR Plateau Dr idge Po Hills D int Dr r Sou th ern Mariposa Dr Lak e vie wS t Cy pr es s Dr Dr W ay nti ne nta l oll ow dH sta Edgew ood St Fox H ill Dr Sand stone Oakmont Dr Bern St Co Co Dr La Vail Dr ne W oo Rd Dr ey ysto D r Ke on all ll V Settlers Rd ills Dr efu a san t Mt Ple tH ry Dr nu gt ac Pe Hicko al W in Bonner St Ka spa Fanning Dr Pine Dr Walker St Way 1st St 2nd St eA 3rd St ve 0 Blvd e Av Sp ru c 202 " ) 202 " ) r nt 66 p Motel Dr -Ram " )xit 2 01 G E I-40 re ic D Olymp 0.75 Miles 1 Ave Route " ) g Dr Hu t Flag 0.5 d Butler? 201 " ) " ) ) 201 0 0" " ) " ) " ) Ln Hightimber eR ve ntre Rd ler A d t ay tle R n S W This len sg ng ta Fo us M n co g in ss But 00 )0 " )" 0.25 as e Rio D Rai ro l Fa C d" )" )199 Penstock Ave Cortland 4th St 201 0 9 19 un y ck Lu " )0 0 0 " ) it Ex W es o tb Ave Commerce Ave 0 0 " ) 200 0" ) 0 I-4 0 0 Segment Spa5 rrow 199 0 I-4 Empire Ave Railhead Ave " ) " ) Dr Marie Ave lie So St -4 Ln I " ) Jamison Blvd e Ros 3rd Ave " ) Pa rk 9 89 )419 ay " w igh ) .H B (5 S 0 SR-40 U. " ) " )0 " )0 dE r is D eR w g e L nta (4) F ro B 7th Ave 0 0 4 Lakin Dr I-4 SR Trl Wild Elk r D l 200 199 ustria " )Fox d " " )In ) R un St s Dr 200 en e r g h Dr al Bu s d W le t t R Bo re Elk Run St lie o S Dr air xL o F " ) Joshua Ln 4th Ave 198 Swiss Rd Lockett Rd Elder Dr 6th Ave Center St East St Main St King St Dyer St Linda Vista Dr Cedar Hamblin St Matterhorn Dr Membure Dr Steves Blvd Manor Rd Tho m as Dr Harris Way Rd Andes D r Allen Ave St US -89 ta no ko Appala chian 98 Dodge Ave " ) Da FH end Dr « Segment 7 Holbrook, Arizona e r Ave Gr e Legend Smith t on Fr Dr Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Gr eer Dr " ) Milepost State Highway System 0 I-40 Exit 2 W 287 287 " ) 286 " ) 86 A-Ramp Dr Dr Segment 7 Jo lla st Iowa St La Hampshire St Florida St 287 3rd St St SR-40B (8) ec re Ri dg d " )0 " ) I-40 Exit 286 G-Ramp " )0 tbound I-40 Wes 0 I-40 " ) Ge org ia R 0 t " ) Spurlock Ave I-4 a ge es Erie St 3rd Ave California St 6th Ave Arizo na St 0 0.125 Miles 0.25 SR-77 Central A ve 1st S t Hopi Dr 2n d S t 1st Ave 2nd Ave Buffalo St 4th Ave 7th Ave 5th Ave Delaware St Navajo Blvd " ) « any aC Pim Glenn St Camino Miraval ima La C Calle tra da Lu z En pa ra Ca min o am Via Via Condesa Ca lle L Vine Ave Hedrick Dr Adelaide Dr Alta Vista St Campbell Ave Lind Rd Fort Lowell Rd Cherry Ave Blacklidge Dr Laguna St ad Allen Rd Halcyon Rd Euclid Ave t 0 " ) So led Roger Rd Mountain Ave Mohave Navajo Rd Delano St 14th Ave Tyndall Ave Park Ave 1st Ave Yavapai Rd Los Altos Ave 70 Fontana Ave Oracle Rd Prince Rd " )Navajo Via Limberlost Dr Calle Arizona King Rd Farr St Miracle Mile in torra Mustang St Prospect Ln 4th Ave Mills Dr Knox Dr Pastime Rd Thurber Rd m Ca ro rtu A o Northr idg e D r Foo th il ls D r Maria D r Dr Nina Neffson Dr 71 Simmons Rd 15th Ave s Ea Rd ge El Burrito Av e nta Fro d ile n cle M " ) Mira" " ) " " ) )) 00 ) 00 " rd on Ca Camin o Abb Camino ey Libby Ca mi no Ka trin a Dr Ru n Sh ad ow s oop Brom ley S t "71 " ) ) Segment 8A Delano Dr Christie Dr Village Ave Nanini Dr SR-7 7 Yucca Via W illi am eL Stone Ave Pelaar St King Pl Greenlee SR-77 nonCard Tuttle Ave Nidito Pl Reno Ave Knox St Flowing Wells Rd 0 I-1 ll R rb e ve Sil Miles 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Rinehart Ct Wetmore Rd Higgins Ln 0" ) )" ) ) 0" 255" Sto n 72 " " ) )72 Agave Dr Yvon Dr Rd tion peti m o Wabash St C Auto Mall Dr Sol Pl Schafer Dr D G St d un 0 ) "" 0) Oracle Rd nonCard Kevy Pl Alicia Ave tbo es 0W I-1 0 00" )) )" )" 0" a D to n Ln Thu rs Plum Ave 0 I- 1 Rd Gardner Ln R un Price St w ay D r Smoot Dr r Edgewater Dr Eureka St Hadley St Root Ln )" " )" ) 0 Neosha St t Gore Alsis Ln Furreys Ln Romero Rd t r Ave Sullinge es « Jay Ave dW Sweetwater Dr River Rd Ford P l Pomona Ave Kain Ave R ge " ) 0" ) 253 " ) " ) 253 D ma Lo em en G s ta no mi Ca r Via C o a erc Al b La Campana ta Wave Hill Ct ta es Cr Rd Tigua Dr R l ol C er er 16th Pl Rd st oa " ) " ) Fairview Ave io La ird Wa Brittain Dr y Dr Capri on Fr Ruthrauff Rd 7373 st Dr Hillcre 0 I-1 0 ) " ) )0" )" 0" 0 Northern Ave La Oesta Ave Las Lomitas Rd Flint Ave St at Calle Mariposa Rudasill Rd Dr Via Ranchero Pomona Rd Montebella Rd Corona Rd San Joaquin Ave Belbrook Dr Trisha Ln La Cholla Blvd es o Lavery Ln Los Alamos Ja yn m Ca L De ino Panorama Rd Curtis Rd Diamond St Paloma Dr n me L Se sa Mona Lisa Rd Pu cc Shannon Rd Sahara St Palmyra St cle Leonardo Da Vinci Way Ca sab lan c aD r La Canada Dr El lis on Dr Como Dr l in iP Sunset Rd ra Safari Dr r Rd O 74 74 " ) " ) Yucca Ct eD ro ok lle Ca Dr na eb on ur Tib Los Altos Rd o San Ignaci De O o Dr Cleric Fir nt o r Vista Lejos Orange Grove Rd Calle el Sa Via D D Segment 8Bs Padres yl in Sk ah l Firenze Dr Dr A m Segment 8C ia Andrea D or o rieg La b ana Sendero De Ju Dawn Dr Carolyn Dr Ca Rimroc k Pl s l Dr l Dr l 76 o o e Ca as D C d Lid " ) r sa s Magee Rd r C Velvet T Comobabi Dr ir y D er n r a c r D us Cambridge Dr nc a T ai Legend C ue Camino Desierto Fl o e n r ilvio Pas oza Dr Dr nD Via Di S Su g Suffo lk Eto arra Injury Severity Z Dr Chapala Monet Way Big Rock R d Krizan Dr Dr Fatal pedestrian crash g n i r K r n D D Crow a ay er aW nn Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash 7575 on Dr ony A S Silvertree Dr o n " ) ch ro Sa Ina Rd e Old Ina Rd l OtherS pedestrian crashes; Unknown So Vi y aL Wa " ) Giaconda Way Milepost Ln llo uc e c t i a ita n g Caspian Dr o a Deone s Ln D Omar Dr M Chula Vista Rd State Highway System on D r Segment 8A, 8B, and 8C Tucson, Arizona nX Sa er R avi Via Socorro Segment 11 Sierra Vista, Arizona d n Ave anc El R id a « ho Legend Buena School Blvd Ida Rd Colombo Ave Injury Severity Commerce Dr Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash ay rprise W Other pedestrian Unknown Entecrashes; " ) Milepost Dr Industr y State Highway System a Ch Campus Dr s rle ton Rd ree nD r Dr rg Dr Ev e r ade ro Vie n to Avenida Del Sol Via Serena Monte Vista Ave te dian Es tu Calle a Ct La Ro s r ta Dr S Calle Granada Calle Gitano Pa z za La Ar ru Via Via Cabrillo se o Miles 0.5 Pa se o Rico Pa se o le L Baro na Pa Cal le Sa n Lu is D el Paseo Las Palmas uces eo Pas ar sD ng pri Chula Vista Pl L Calle Fo oth il ls az a Vi D r s ta e Cir Highland Shadows Dr Calle Virada r El Sonor o D Pl Yucca Dr ill Murray H d Ce Pico Ct Chaparral Cir lip Fe Via 0.25 Su St Via Entrada Dr w Sunset Vis s W ay on ar ch Dr nri s ir eC lo Cl ou d es s Rainbow Way ng Camino Del Norte Cal 0 M oo Desert Springs Trl Busby Dr un Dr Qua il R Blue Bird Dr Highway 90 Citadel Dr inc Segment 11 SR-90 SR-92 Avenida Escuela Blackbird Dr M en 322 Twilight Dr Highway 92 Mallard Cir Pr " ) Duchess Dr Q ue Cielo Cir Mediterranean Dr g Tree Top Ave Fry Blvd Sparrow Dr Pin etr ee D r Raffaele Dr ieja Calle V Snyder Blvd Son or a St Jacinto Dr Aspen Dr iD Fermi Ave c uc sp e V Escondido Dr M ar r Rd D ar Ga li le d Ce Charleston Dr oD r ic i co ni De d Me Giulio Cesare Ave 321 " ) « " ) Colorado St Jones St Cou rt St Ave 2nd Ave " ) " ) p Factor Ave 2003 " ) " " ))3 I-8 Exit 3 " )0 22nd St Pas 22nd Pl Olivia Ave Engler Ave 32nd St SR-8B nonCard(1) " ) 32nd St nonCard " ) 5 0 0.25 6 0.5 0.75 Miles 1 30th St 7 )0 "" ) Florence Ln Crest Dr Chevy Ln Country Club Dr Avenue 2 1/2e t Avenue 1e Me eS u it sq Torry Pines Cir Ha c Catalina Dr 1 " ) San Marcos l 27 th P Palo Verde St Kuns Ct ie nd a St L n Hacienda Dr 0 i Rd Lorie Ln Melody Ln Windsor Ave R obin 28th St Gila Ridge Rd nel Yuma Stub Rd J-Ramp " ) " ) 4 0" ) )" 0 ) it 3 G-Ramp I-8 Ex" " ) " ) 24th St 25th Pl Barbara Ave 26th Pl 27th St q ui 23rd Pl Carol Ave Mary Ave 1st Ave Madison Ave Maple Ave Walnut Ave Arizona Ave Virginia Dr am " ) 24th Pl 26th St 4th Ave " ) R G- 8th Ave Ln p 8th Dr l te 26 " ) 21st Ave 25th St 4 )4 " )" m 21st St 29th St 25 Segment 12 15th Pl 18th Pl 20th St 3 " ) it 2 Segment 18 19th St 20th Pl 0" )" ) )" )" 0 Ra J- 17th Pl 18th St 24 Ex 17th St " ) 14th Pl Ho it 2 US-95 16th Pl I-8 16th St 23rd St " ) Ex " ) 23 Avenue 2e I-8 0 " )" ) )" 2 2 " ) Mesa 0 Segment 13 14th St 15th St 0 0 Avenue 3e " ) 10th St 11th St SR-8B (1) 13th St County 8th St 3rd Ave 3rd 6th Ave 5th Ave 12th St " ) Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System I-8 7th Ave 9th St 0 ) 0" Levee Rd nd 8th St 0 0" ) " ) 1 ) " )" n nsio Exte 1 7th St " ) " ) I-8 Westbou Cemetery 6th St 00 " ) 0 " ) SR-280 5th St " ) St 8th an Or e Av ge Legend Lakin Ave 4th St 0 0 0" ) ) " Redondo Center Dr I-8 Exit 1 A-Ramp Giss Pkwy Gila St 3rd St Main St 2nd St Maiden Ln 9th Ave 1st St Segment 12, 13, and 18 Yuma, Arizona « Segment 14 Sedona, Arizona Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System Mission Rd Soldier Pass Rd Fi nl ey Dr or rp Ai tR d Han Rd ger ge D al in an r na Ai rT er m tH r or ta on 0.5 Miles 0.75 Elk Rd e Rockri dg Oak Creek Blvd View Dr Inspirational Dr Hunt Birch Blvd Willow Rockrid ge Dr Saddler ock Cir Saddlerock Ln eV i st a Sunset Dr Phillips North rp Ai lM De Racquet Rd Vista Montana Rd Panorama Blvd Mo nt Cliff Rose Ct Shelby Dr Flaming Arrow Dr Last Wagon Dr Mogollon Dr Station West Dr Mountain Shadows Dr Grounds Dr Coffee Pot Dr Ln Goodrow Goodwin Ln Tranquil Ave Essex Ave Golden Eagle Dr Payne Rd Yucca Dr Coyote Rd Andante Dr Wind Song Dr Bron El Camino Rd Laguna Dr w Dr Kiva Dr th Del No rte Juniper D r Pinon Dr rru vie Ca Dr Moonlight D r ic ay Blu e J Maxwell Ln rth No Rd Picn Pyle t cou cer Roadru nn er n a wk L Red H Foothills Dr Moeur Pl n Whippet Way on r " ) lc Fa r r tD 372 SR-8 9A Dr D on ny Ca inon D Pinon Po in L Lisa 0.25 Navajo Dr l ro Ca e " ) Ranchos st 371 P Arroyo lE De l l So De 0 r Dr Segment 14 hina tle S Rd Lit Traumeri Ln co St Aria Hopi Dr Harmony Arro yo S e iD zon Ho d s Dr Soc R Pony Soldier Rd ek ers Dr re Whitetail Ln C Roadrunner Kac co Stardust Ln Rapsody Rd er ry Sanborn Dr Edgewood Dr Vista Moonglow Dr Concord Dr D oke R d Thunder Mtn Rd Farmer Broth nd Mea Gu n sm Blue Horizon Lariat Rd Buckboard Rd Ranch Rd Homestead Rd Windmill Caswell Dr Lipton Dr Rodeo Rd Corral Rd Cline Northview Rd Skyview Way Eagle D ancer R d Rim Shadow 373 " ) Lands End Rd 36th St Injury Severity Caravelle Rd Fatal pedestrian crash Dr Castle Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Me r lin R d ToOther pedestrian crashes; Unknown urn ey Rd " ) Milepost Saxon y Rd State Highway System 101 Rd Calle Toledo Calle Del Medio 16th Ave mp -R a 9C it 9 District St Columbia St " ) Pennsylvania St Michigan St I-19 Southbound " )" ) Mission Pl Macarthur St Sandy St Illinois St Ohio St Missouri St 0 Bagpipe Dr Breakwell St Delahunt St Irvington Rd 0.5 Locke Dr Miles 1 Cal le Sa Calle Santa Cruz 98 " ) nta Cruz P l 0 " ) 17th Ave I-19 Exit 98 Crossing " ) " ) " )0 0 15th Ave 61 "61 ") ) Thatcher St 0.25 Lincoln St " ) Sindle Pl 0 President St 99 Mission Rd Cook Ave Dr ri ou M iss o orr lM nd o Paseo Rio Bravo De Irvington Pl ed o " )" )0 0 Ajo " )0 " ) Way " ) " ) )0 0" Ebner Pl Calle Rio Rojo lle Kentucky Pl R 171 Via Rio Blanco Ca V Via Ingresso ia " ) 62 100 19th Ave Via Ithacar Via Ravenna Via Eboli Dr Mollohan Dr Maki Vis ta Cook St Brown Dr Via Dijon Via Canto Probasco Dr Pandora Ave SR-86 Piazza Nord " )0 ) "" ) 62 Lamar Ave I-19 Elizabeth Dr 170 " ) Rincon Nopal Solana Indio Ex Circle A Dr Via Antibes Via Bonita La Cholla Blvd Segment 16 Holiday Pk Holiday Dr Los Arcos Holiday Pz Holiday Sq Veterans Pl I-1 9 Circle B D r Calle Acapulco Los Santos Dr Calle Guadalajara Valley Rd Pl San Martin Las Milpas Los Alamos La Soledad Del Valle esa m Horn M Calle Del Rey Calle La Paz Fr ee do 44th St 42nd St 43rd St Obe ron R Romany Rd st St 101 41 " )" ) d Donny Brook « 34th St 1-Ramp Cottonwood Ln ad Placita Suavid 35th St Mannin g Ln Kostka Ave Russell Ln San Jacinto Dr Legend 33rd St I-10 Exit 26 0C l olla P La Ch Santa Cruz Ln Segment 16 Tucson, Arizona Iowa St « e Ln e rd oV e es M Ironwood Ln Pal Orlando Dr Palm Ln it qu Vah Ki Inn Rd Hess Ave Irene Bealey Ave Kennedy Ave 6th Pl Byrd Ave Lindbergh Ave Segment 17 Pinkley Ave 4th St 7th St 6th St Central Ave " )133 t Pacific S Roosevelt Ave Kenworthy Rd 3rd St 8th St Pima Ave Main St Northern Ave 1st St Lynn Dr SR-87 7th Pl 9th St Walton Ave Irene St 8th Pl Shannons Way St Sonora Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System Wilson Ave Wilson Pl Borre Ave Harding Ave Coolidge Pl Coolidge Ave Lincoln Ave Seagoe Ave Elm Ave 132 Spruell Ave Taylor Ave Dewey Ave Douglas Ave Patton Ave Martin Rd 0 Miles 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Arizona Blvd " ) Gibson Ave Picacho St Arizona Main Palo Verde Ave Palo Verde Sunset Dr California St 134 r Padre Kino Ci Legend " ) Washington St Segment 17 Coolidge, Arizona « Mclellan Rd Meridian Dr Mclellan Dr Iris Rd Legend 111th St 106th St Aq u ed Mountain Rd 113th Pl 114th St 11 1th Pl Rex Ave Elmont Dr Malcolm Dr 6th Ave 113th Way ila Signal Butte Rd 99th Pl 98th Way 98th St G Cresent Ave Elton Ave Wier Ave uc t Sa lt Fr Florian Ave Sa lt Av e Sunland Ave Wood Ave 4th Ave 5th Ave 15th Pl G i la Aq Grove St ue du ct no nC ar 112th St e ood Av Edg ew Segment 20 ito Pueblo Ave 97th Way 96th St 93rd Pl 92nd Pl 96th Pl El e y Re 97th St Broadway Rd Apache Apache Blvd nonCard Illini St Birc hwood Av e Jupiter Dr Albany St Jones Ave Balsam Ave 110th Pl Mercury Dr Boulder Dr 110th St 107th St University Dr Apache Blvd US-60X Westbound(1) US-60X (1) Arbor Cir Concho St El Paso St 104th Pl 105th St Merrill Rd Boulder St Boise St Akron St 96th Way 94th Way 104th St 103rd St 102nd Pl Crismon Rd 100th Pl 98th Pl 99th St 97th Pl St Cholla Rd Butte St Billings St Coralbell Ave 91st St Mason Way Segment 21 Ellsworth Rd Front nonCard 91st Pl v Vine A sr Fo r Pl th 94 95 th na Pr oj C Ellsworth Rd Ar izo 95th Pl SR-202 (future) Ce ntr al tS t Adobe Rd Duncan St 95th Way 90th Pl 94th St 101st Pl Princess Dr Injury Severity Gary Ln Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Brown Rd Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ers Rd Fland Fenimore Rd " ) Milepost Elmwood St Hedges StateRdHighway System Smythe Dr Cedar Dr Pinal Dr 101st St 93rd St Segment 20 and 21 Mesa, Arizona d Southern Ave 0 " ) 0 0.2 0 0 " ) " )0 " ) 0.4 0 " ) 192US-6 0 " 0 ) 0 Exit 192 " " ) ) amp " A-R ) " ) " ) 192 0 0 0.6 0.8 Miles 1 0 " ) 0 " 0 ) US-60 nonCard 194 US-60 Exi US-60 ) " ) t 193 A-R " ) " " ) amp " " )194 ) " ) 0 " ) 193 0 193 " ) 0 0 37th Ave Interchanges Locations 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 Dr co en Fla m ar Rd Calav Ln 26th ola Av e 25th Ln Em ile Z Ave Vo ltaire Ave Eug ie e c Av e Ar D n Joa e w Av Willo 24th Dr Rue De Lamour Larkspur Dr 31st Ave Columbine Dr 33rd Dr Bloomfield Rd Charter Oak Rd Interchange 5 Wethersfield Rd Cactus Rd Front Shaw Butte Dr 0.2 0.3 Paradise Dr 0.4 Miles 0.5 Cactus Rd Laurel Ln 23rd Ave Rosew ood Ave 25th Ave Corrine Dr Wood Dr 26th Dr 36th Ln Windrose Dr 28th Dr 32nd Ave Aster Dr I-17 Southbound Black Canyon Hwy Front nonCard I-17 Roveen Ave ve ey A Surr Sweetwater Ave 35th Ave 24th Ln 31st Dr I-17 Exit 210 Crossing Dahlia Dr 36th Dr I-17 Frontage Rd South Ct ine Car Montego Ct Thunderbird Rd nonCard Av e 22nd Ln C t 30th Ave 33rd Ave Dailey St 30 th Ln E Rd 30th Ln W ld Redfie Pershing Ave 0.1 23rd Ln Dr h itz 29 t or St M Hearn Rd 34th Dr 35th Dr 30th Dr 34th Av e 31st Ln 32nd Ln 35th Ave Front Crocus Dr Sharon 0 r bD co m h c Win Ave 35th Ave Front nonCard Gelding Dr Mandalay Ln h 26t 36th Ave Evans Dr Thunderbird Rd Andora Dr Dr « Acoma Dr Port Royale Ln Interchange 1 th 25 Country Gables Dr Injury Severity Mauna Loa Lncrash Fatal pedestrian Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Banff Ln Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Lisbon Ln StState Moritz LnHighway System 28th Ave Delmar Ln Port Au Prince Ln 29th Ave Legend 24th Ave Acapulco Ln 27th Dr Caribbean Ln Greenway Rd Black Canyon Hwy Front Greenway Rd nonCard 23rd Dr Beck Ln I-17 Frontage Rd North 32nd Dr Interchange 1 and 5 Phoenix, Arizona Legend « Granada Rd Palmcroft Dr NE Palmcro ft Dr SE Palmcroft Way SE Palmcroft Dr NW Palmcroft Way NE Coronado Rd Palmcroft Dr SW Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown State Highway System 1st Ave Interchange 3 Phoenix, Arizona Almeria Rd Mcdowell Rd 11th Ave I-10 E A- Ram p p xit 144 Z1-Ramp I-10 Exit 144 Crossing I-10 E xit 1 44 -R amp it 144 C x E 0 1 Iamp I-10 144 V 1-R I-10 E xit amp R 4G 4 1 t i Ex I-10 -Ram 4 E1 tbound xit 14 Latham St Moreland St Culver St Interchange 3 I-10 E I-10 Wes Willetta St 7th Ave Front nonCard 13th Ave Lynwood St Portland St Fillmore St Taylor St Miles 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Polk St 0 2nd Ave 3rd Ave 9th Ave 10th Ave X 4th Ave 60 Pierce St Mckinley St 5th Ave S- 6th Ave U 7th Ave e Av 12th Ave nd ra G 8th Ave Roosevelt St SR-101 5th St Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown 6th St State Highway System SR-101 Southbound Price Sb Rd Siesta Ln Rockford Dr Legend « Price Nb Rd SR-101 Frontage Rd South Interchange 4 and 13 Tempe, Arizona Interchange 13 SR-101 Exit 52 E1-Ramp University Dr Lebanon Ln Exit 52 George Dr Don Carlos Ave na l Cs rW Mcarthur Dr Apache Blvd pe Ca n al C sr E Te m SR-101 Exit 53 E1-Ramp Ca Interchange 4 Victory Dr pe Lemon St Randall Dr Cottonwood Dr Howe Ave SR-101 Frontage Rd North Lola Ln River Dr G-Ramp Orange St Maryland Dr SR-101 SR-1 01 Exit 52 St Siesta 10th St C-Ram p Laird St 0 Te m Wildermuth Ave Miles 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Cedar St Main St Interchange 9 Phoenix, Arizona « Granada Rd Legend 33rd Pl 31st Pl 32nd Way Coronado Rd G Gr a ra n nd d C a Can na al l C Cs sr r N S Almeria Rd Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Mcdowell Rd Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Brill St State Highway System In di an Tr l 29th St Willetta St Culver St Oa k Exit 1 J 29th Pl Moreland St SR202 Latham St r 2-Ramp Exit 1A 3-R SR 202 amp Wes tb oun SR -2 d SR- Portland St 02 Exi t1 202 C3 SR-20 31st St Diamond St 30th St af D Interchange 9 Belleview St SR-202 le -Ra mp 2 Exit 1 G2- R amp Roosevelt St Garfield St Pierce St 35th St 34th St 32nd St 33rd St Mckinley St 30th Pl Fillmore St 32nd Pl Taylor St 0 Miles 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Ra nd ol ph Rd Polk St Interchange 10, 11, and 18 Phoenix, Arizona Bethany Home Rd Front nonCard Bethany Home Rd 25th Dr Solano Dr N Vermont Ave Missouri Ave 22nd Ave 28th Dr Colter St Orange Dr Pierson St Wolf St 30th Ave Meadowbrook Av e Campbell Ave Roma Ave 27th Dr 30th Dr Heatherbrae Dr 31st Dr Mackenzie Dr Monterosa St Coolidge St Hazelwood St Minnezona Ave Turney Ave Devonshire Ave I-17 32nd Ave 33rd Dr Glenrosa Ave Highland Ave 21st Dr Montecito Ave 27th Ave Front nonCard Sells Dr 26th Dr 31st Ave Elm St 0.4 28th Ave 0.3 24th Dr 0 -6 US 0.2 Fairmount Ave Miles 0.5 lC na a C sr N Interchangend 18 Indian School Rd Indian School 9 21st Ave Mariposa St 26th Ave 27th Ave College Dr I-17 Frontage Rd So uth Black Canyon Hwy Front nonCard I-17 Frontage Rd North Medlock Dr Camelback Rd 0.1 Luke Ave Georgia Ave Interchange 11 0 Solano Dr 22nd Dr « Denton Ln 29th Ave 29th Dr 31st Ln 33rd Ave 34th Dr 32nd Dr Injury Severity Montebello Ave San Miguel Ave Fatal pedestrian crash Juan Ave Incapacitating injury pedestrianSancrash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Marshall Ave State Highway System I-17 Southbound Legend Solano Dr S Interchange 10 23rd Ave Rancho Dr 24th Ave Black Canyon Hwy Front Palo Verde Dr 23rd Dr 34th Ave Rovey Ave a Gr Amelia Ave « 26th Dr Cave Creek Sports 2 Entr W Ironwood Dr 25th Dr Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown State Highway System Mountain View Rd e Av st 31 N al Csr a Ca n n o S iz r r s A al C a Ca n Arizo n 25th Ave I-17 Southbound I-17 Black Canyon Hwy Front Legend I-17 Frontage Rd South Black Cany on Hwy Front nonCard Metro Pkwy E Metro Pkwy W Interchange 12 Phoenix, Arizona Mission Ln Interchange 12 Dunlap Ave Ln E I-17 n 28th Dr G ol de 28th Ave Puget Ave Townley Ave 2 xi t 30 Av a J-R 07 th e mp 29th Ave 26th Ave Orchid Ln Freeway Ln F I-17 e Av ta ron 27th Ave a an Di Seldon Ln e Av 30 th h ut D R r Alice Ave 27th Dr Lawrence Ln R ge h ort 0 Miles 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 dN Butler Dr Echo Ln Interchange 14 Tempe/Mesa, Arizona « ra Dr Garden Dr Ln d Avenida Del Yaqui Calle Cerrito Calle Montezuma Poi nt e P kwy E Poi Pointe Pkw y W ar amp Beverly Rd nC Calle Azteca no Calle Sahuaro E Calle Maravilla y I-10 Exit 155 C2 -Ramp Pk w Calle Bella Vista ard on C Wn kw y te nte P in -R I-10 Exit 155 G Po 0 48th St Sonora St Miles 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Darrow Dr I-10 Wendler Dr st Dr US-60 Exit 172 C11-Ramp Filer Dr I-10 Exit 155 A2-Ramp Baseline Rd Pointe Pkwy Interchange 14 I-10 Exit 155 J2-Ramp Calle Los Cerros Potter Dr Hanna Dr Injury Severity Ca rs Fatal pedestrian crash on Rd Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown Fremont Dr State Highway System Pr ie Rd De sir ee Lindon Ln Legend ya rd I-10 Westbound Vi ne I-10 Exit 155 C1-Ramp Gr ee nw a yR d Riv ie Calle Pitaya Gloria St Tribal Community Locations 091374020 2009 06 24 ADOT PSAP Final Report.doc Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Final Report 06/24/09 ) " 160 « Pebble Beach Dr Mcqueen Rd 115th St Sunnydale Dr Navajo Dr Bia117 Bia115 SR-87 Alma School Rd ard How Hunt Hwy Bia113 Su r Bia111 San Tan Blvd D nL ak rd es tfo ar Navajo Pl ve Dr B lv D 99th Dr m lo a P o in Foxglen Dr d Gl Bre enbur nD ntw r oo dD r Location 1, SR-587 Riggs Rd Minnesota Ave Mic hig Gila River Indian Community an l A P ) " 219 ) " 159 Bia060 ) " Location 1 SR-587 ) " ) " 220 221 0 I-1 s We d un tbo 172" )) " 172 Bia068 222 173173 ) " ) " Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System ) "" ) ) " 223 0 Bia123 Bia119 ) " Bia121 0 I-1 Legend 158 Bia072 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles 1 Location 2, SR-87 J St Erie St Williams Field Rd B St Frye Rd Gila River Indian Community Fairview St R Pecos Rd « 151 Bia096 " ) SR -18 7 " ) " ) 192 ) " )" " )146 191 190 " ) 189 10 " ) 11 " ) ) 12 " " ) " ) 15 " ) 141 " ) Camdon Dr 2 Peart Rd Trekell Rd 0 Rd " ) 3 Milepost Kortsen Rd State Highway System " ) Cox Rd I-1 Burris Rd 13 " ) 14 " ) 7 187" ) " ) 187 Legend 6 " ) 0 " )" ) " ) 188 0 189 Injury Severity " ) 5 189 " ) 190 Fatal pedestrian crash " 0 ) 190 t S a " ) 00 d in IncapacitatingLinjury pedestrian crash " )0 )" )" " ) 4 191 " ) S Other pedestrian crashes; 1910 Rd Unknown Rodeo P Ethington Rd Quail Run Queen Creek Rd Vineyard Rd Bia098 " ) School Rd Blackwater 188 " ) 144 192 192 193193 140 " ) ) 139 " " ) Woodruff Rd " ) " ) " ) 1 2 131 Bartlett Rd Randolph Rd Kleck Rd " ) 135136 134 Martin")Rd Mccartney Rd 0 SR-287 136 ) 135" " ) " ) " ) " ) 1st St St SR-387 Gila 184 " ) 0) 9 " ) 0 " )" " )" 0 ) " ))" 8 " ) 147 Nafziger Rd Bia007 Bia028 " ) " ) 184 148 Bia187 " ) Arizona Rd " ) 0 0 " ) " )) " " )0 Navajo Scott Dr 149 3 La Palma Rd " ) Skousen Rd Bia084 0 Location 2 150 Bia177 " ) Macrae Rd " ) " ) Meridian Rd Ellsworth Rd Bia071 Bia080 1830 " )" ) 0 " ) " )0 1830 Gail Rd Bia173 Bia129 d un Bia121 tbo " ) Combs Rd Old Hwy 87 es W " ) Ocotillo wy 0 I-1 " ) ) 0" Pima Rd Judd Rd 153 aton Cloud Rd Germann Rd Happy Rd Empire Blvd 154 " ) Ocotillo Rd Curry Rd " ) Sac " ) " ) Bianco Rd d Thompson Rd 155 " ) 180 " ) eR 0 07 00 0 " ) " ) " ) " ) " 0 ) " )0 0 177" ) Bia090 " ) Bia072 76 ) ) " "" ) " ) 156 a Bi 174 00 us " ) Bia068 223 Power Rd Lime Dr Bell Rd Sossaman Rd 221 a0 Bi " ) 157 " ) Bia123 " ) 158 nh o H nt Hu SR-587 " ) " ) 7 -8 SR " ) 220 Recker Rd Hunt Hwy 160219 " ) Greenfield Rd Riggs Rd Bia131 " ) 164th St " ) " ) Val Vista Dr " ) Arizona Ave " ) Mcqueen Rd " ) lo Rd Ocotil Lindsay Rd 164 Higley Rd Germann Rd Gilbert Rd " ) 165 Cooper Rd " ) Hawes Rd itte " ) SR-20 2 (future) Merrill Rd " ) 4 " ) 130 E ")St 128 Miles " ) 5 Location 3, US-89 Navajo Nation (Cameron) ) " 473 Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System US-89 ) " ) " ) " Location 3 ) " ) " ) " ) " 291 292 89T SR- ) " 466 ) " ) " 293 294 SR-64" ) ) " 295 ) " ) " ) " ) " 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles 2 464 463 462 465 471 470 469 468 467 472 « Location 4, US-160 Navajo Nation (Tuba City) « Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System ) " Main St 60 S-1 U" ) 325 r rD rrio Wa ve ai A hlak Pes Bi a1 01 ) " 322 ) " 322 ) " ) " 319 ) " 320 ) " ) " 324 323 Location 4 321 ) " 323 ) " 324 ) " 325 ) " 326 SR-264 327 ) " 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Miles 2 ) " 328 326 Location 5, US-160 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) ) " « 400 Legend US-163 Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System 399 ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " 398 397 396 395 5 648 a i B ) " ) " 0 390 0.5 ) " 1 391 1.5 ) " 392 ) " 393 394 0 US-16 " ) 394 Location 5 Miles 2 ) " 395 ) " 396 Location 6, US-163 Navajo Nation (Kayenta) ) " « 400 Legend US-163 Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System 399 ) " ) " ) " ) " Location 6 ) " 398 397 396 395 5 648 a i B ) " ) " 0 390 0.5 ) " 1 391 1.5 ) " 392 Miles 2 ) " 393 394 0 US-16 " ) 394 ) " 395 ) " 396 Location 7, US-191 Navajo Nation (Chinle) 452 « ) " Legend Injury Severity 451 Fatal pedestrian crash ) " Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost 450 State Highway System ) " ) " 449 Location 7 448 " Bia00 ) Bia 0 64 7 a Bi 10 ) " 447 2 1 19 US ) " 446 445 " ) ) " 444 443 ) " 0 Bia 004 0.5 1 Bia 027 ) " 1.5 442 Miles 441 ) 2 " Location 8, SR-264 Navajo Nation") 422 « Legend ) " SR -2 6 )4 " 440 027 Bia 439 419 US-19 1 ) " Bia 01 5 421 Injury Severity ) " Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash 420 Other pedestrian ) crashes; Unknown " ) " Milepost State Highway System ) " 418 " ) 441 ) " 442 ) " 443 ) " 444 ) " Location 8 445 ) " 446 ) " ) " ) " ) " 0 0.5 1 1.5 411 410 409 ) " Miles 2 447 408 ) " 407 ) " 448 ) " 449 ) " 450 Location 9, SR-264 Navajo Nation (Window Rock) « Legend Wi nd ow R 12 ock Bia0 Blv d Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System Bia112 475 ) 474 " ) " 473 Location 9 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles 1 Arizona 64 SR-2 New Mexico ) " Location 10, SR-86 Tohono O'odham Nation « Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System Bi a0 17 ) " 71 ) " 72 ) " 73 Location 10 SR-86 ) " 74 ) " 75 ) " 76 ) " 77 ) " 78 ) " 1 Bia02 0.5 1 1.5 Bia132 0 Miles 2 79 Location 11, SR-86 Tohono O'odham Nation « Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System ) " Location 11 89 ) " 90 ) " Bia015 ) " 88 91 ) " 92 93 Bia132 ) " ) " Bia03 94 2 ) " 95 Bia232 -8 SR 96" ) 6 ) " 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles 2 97 ) " 98 Location 12, SR-86 Tohono O'odham Nation « Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System ) " 109 ay hw Hig ) " 110 2 23 SR ) -8 " 111 6 ) " 112 Location 12 ) " 113 ) " 114 Bia101 Highway 24 ) " 115 ) " 116 ) " 117 Bia016 9 Bia01 Bia020 0.5 1 1.5 d el R igu nM Sa 0 Miles 2 ) " 118 Location 13, SR-264 Hopi Tribe « Legend ) " 375 ) " Bia0 04 Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System 376 ) " 377 ) " 378 379 ) " ) " ) " 394 395 393 " ) 392 8 ) " 0 " ) " 5 ) a Bi 380 Location 13 381 382 2 64 Bia 017 ) " 383 " ) 384 ) )" " ) 406 " ) " ) " ) " 405 404 ) " 403 402 ) " 401 ) " 400 87 SR- 399 ) " ) " 0 1 2 ) " Miles 3 398 ) " 397 386SR- ) " 387 385 " ) ) " ) 388 " ) " 389 390 391 Location 14, SR-264 Hopi Tribe « Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown ) " Milepost State Highway System 362 ) " 363 ) " 364 ) " 365 366 ) " ) " ) " ) " 367 Location 14 368 369 ) " 370 ) " 371 ) " 372 ) " 373 Bia 0 02 Bi a5 03 ) " 374SR-264 376 ) ) 375 " " ) " Bia0 04 ) " 361 " ) 377 ) " 378 379 ) " ) " ) " Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 380 381 ) " 382 ) " 383 Location 15, SR-73 Deer Trl White Mountain Apache Tribe SR d en ll Ta Dr e Pin FH271 Hi R Sky p As d - 60 S U ") 330 « 5 18 FH " ) Rim 350 Rd R Woodland -26 0 Dr Legend Injury Severity Fatal pedestrian crash Incapacitating injury pedestrian crash Other pedestrian crashes; Unknown " ) Milepost State Highway System " ) 73 -4 SR Location 15 " ) " ) " ) 350 340 055 Bia " ) 0 1 2 3 330 4 SR-73 Miles 5 360 Bia046 10