Revised Attachment A - Road Safety Action Plan - Moving to Vision Zero.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
319257 characters
STRATEGIES & ACTIONS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC
STRATEGIES & ACTIONS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC
DEATHS & SERIOUS INJURIES TO ZERO
DEATHS & SERIOUS INJURIES TO ZERO
CITY OF PHOENIX
CITY OF PHOENIX
SEPTEMBER 2022
ATTACHMENT A
Acknowledgments
The Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is more than just a transportation plan — it’s a critical step to move to zero
deaths and serious injuries by 2050 on Phoenix Streets. The City of Phoenix would like to dedicate this plan to
the people who have lost their lives or have been seriously injured through traffic crashes.
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor: Kate Gallego
District 1: Councilmember Ann O’Brien
District 2: Councilmember Jim Waring
District 3: Councilmember Debra Stark
District 4: Vice Mayor Laura Pastor
District 5: Councilmember Betty Guardado
District 6: Councilmember Sal DiCiccio
District 7: Councilmember Yassamin Ansari
District 8: Councilmember Carlos Garcia
STREET TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TEAM
Kini Knudson, Director
Briiana Velez, Assistant Director
Bruce Littleton
Carl Langford
Reed Henry
Mailen Pankiewicz
Leticia Vargas
Yvette Roeder
Gregg Bach
Vivian Padilla
Ashley Patton
Tricia Quiroz
Cooper Payne
CITY OF PHOENIX DEPARTMENTS
City Manager’s Office
Community & Economic Development Dept.
Fire Dept.
Housing Dept.
Human Services Dept.
Information Technology Services Dept.
Neighborhood Services Dept.
Parks and Recreation Dept.
Planning & Development Dept.
Police Dept.
Public Transit Dept.
Street Transportation Dept.
PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS
Thank you to thousands of City of Phoenix neighborhood and business association, Block Watch and faith-based groups, schools and
community leaders and various community organizations who took the time to provide us with your opinions, thoughts, concerns, and
input. Your voice matters. It was directly used in creating the RSAP strategies and subsequent implementation plan.
CONSULTANTS TEAM
Y2K Engineering
WSP
Lee Engineering
Engineering Mapping Solutions
PARTNERS & COLLABORATORS
Karla Petty, FHWA
Jeff King, FHWA
Kerry Wilcoxon, AZ Dept. of Transportation
Margaret Herrera, Maricopa Assn. of Governments
Richard Nassi, Pima Assn. of Governments
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
ii
A Message From Mayor Kate Gallego
iii
When it comes to population growth, economic development and innovation,
the city of Phoenix has always ranked at the top. Unfortunately, Phoenix has
also ranked in the top three cities in our nation for roadway fatalities, behind
only Houston and Los Angeles.
Data from 2021 show fatalities on our city roadways are consistently on the
rise. In comparing 2021 data with the previous year’s, fatalities related to motor
vehicle crashes, as well as fatalities involving pedestrians and cyclists, saw a
dramatic increase of 25 percent. The numbers are alarming and very tragic.
It was clear that immediate steps needed to be taken to protect anyone and
everyone using our roadways.
Since becoming Mayor of the 5th largest city in the U.S. in 2019, I have supported the installation of 34 HAWKs (High-intensity Activated
crossWalKs) by our Street Transportation Department, bringing the total number to 77 HAWKs installed across the city. We also have
added 120 miles of bike lanes throughout our roadways to encourage the use of active transportation as an alternative and more
environmentally friendly mode to travel. Most importantly, Phoenix was at the forefront of cities to establish the Office of Pedestrian
Safety as a resource hub that educates residents on a variety of traffic safety issues through community engagement, and promotes
increased driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist awareness, especially around school zones and residential neighborhoods.
As Phoenix continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in population and economy in the nation, my commitment to providing
safe roadways for everyone is stronger than ever. In March 2021, my colleagues in the City Council and I supported the development
of the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP), a roadmap that includes attainable goals and strategies that fit the unique characteristics
of Phoenix’s roadways and roadway users. This is the roadmap Phoenix needs to systematically provide guidance and direction on
continuously lowering traffic-related fatalities. Spearheaded by the Phoenix Street Transportation Department, this RSAP is the result
of the great collaboration among city departments, state agencies, engineering consultants, and more importantly, the many Phoenix
residents and stakeholders who provided their input every step of the way.
In January 2022, members of the City Council and I took it a step further by taking action for Phoenix to be a part of the Vision Zero
Network. Incorporating the Vision Zero strategy to the RSAP allows for a more multi-disciplinary approach to achieve zero traffic
fatalities and injuries, and encourages policy makers, urban planners, health professionals and engineers to work together towards
that goal.
On February 2022, the City Council and I made it official. We adopted a resolution to integrate Vision Zero strategies and principles
into the RSAP.
Now, the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan is a more holistic approach to achieving zero traffic-related fatalities, using the “Five
Es of Traffic Safety”—Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Equity—as its foundation. Working with our partners,
my commitment is to continue to invest in safer roadway designs and redesigns, advanced traffic technologies, and engagement
programming. That is what our residents want, and that is what they deserve.
This Plan is the culmination of over two years of collaborative dedication and passion for roadway safety from our outstanding Street
Transportation engineers and other city staff, policy makers, municipality and state agency partners, public safety personnel, safety
technology experts across the nation, and of course, Phoenix residents, who deserve the best quality of life our city has to offer.
iv
A Message From Councilwoman Debra Stark,
Transportation, Infrastructure & Planning Chair
Road safety is everyone’s business.
A traffic-related fatality or serious-injury crash not only impacts the family
of the victim, but also affects the lives and well-being of 911 operators, first
responders, medical personnel, and indirectly, the lives of residents and
bystanders within the crash area. While most crashes are preventable, there
are several factors that may have also contributed to the tragedy.
From 2015 to 2019, about 46% of all traffic-related crashes in Phoenix streets
have caused the deaths or severe injuries of pedestrians, motorcyclists or
bicyclists (Data Source: ADOT ALISS), citing red-light running, speeding,
distracted driving, poor visibility and crossing mid-block as just some of the
reasons. As we heard more and more of these tragic stories in the news each day, the need to keep our streets safer for all users
became dire. We needed a well-thought-out plan.
Phoenix’s Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is the outcome of concerted efforts from city department staff, experts in traffic
design and technology, and multiple external partners, who listened, discussed, and considered our community members’ needs,
wants, and feedback to compile a methodical list of attainable goals and strategies for safer streets. The Plan not only calls for safer
and more reliable infrastructure and updated technology; it also incorporates effective enforcement, data analysis for prioritization,
and ongoing education of the public to deliver a well-rounded approach to achieving road safety. As Phoenix’s landscape and
demographics continue to change, the Vision Zero RSAP is designed to adapt and accommodate the ebb and flow of our city.
Now, the ball is in our court to create a culture of road safety by having a mindset that fatal and serious injury crashes on our streets
are preventable if we remain mindful of our actions and our decisions when sharing the road. After all, zero fatalities and severe
injuries on our roads can only be achieved when everyone works together as a system.
As the Chairperson of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee, I would like to thank everyone who worked
on the development of the Plan, especially to our Street Transportation Department that led the efforts. The Vision Zero RSAP reaffirms
the Mayor’s, my fellow City Councilmembers’ and my commitment to preventing traffic-related deaths and reducing road injuries in
Phoenix so that we can all confidently drive a vehicle, ride a bike, cross the street, and take public transit knowing that we will all get
home safe.
v
A Message From Kini L.E Knudson, PE
City of Phoenix Street Transportation Director
Developing and implementing a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP)
is the top priority for the City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department.
Traffic fatalities in Phoenix have increased over several years. In 2021, the city
saw 231 roadway fatalities – its highest ever. That was a 25 percent increase
from 185 fatalities in 2020. These numbers and that trend are alarming and is
the reason that a consistent strategy is needed to ensure appropriate resources
are focused on making city roadways safer for all users – drivers, bikers and
pedestrians.
I’m grateful for the support and leadership of Mayor Kate Gallego and the
Phoenix City Council, who in March 2021 unanimously approved funding for city staff to develop this plan. In February 2022, City
Council approved a resolution for that plan to incorporate the goals of Vision Zero – a core philosophy that traffic-related deaths and
serious injuries are preventable.
In addition to embracing the Vision Zero approach, the RSAP also provides a roadmap for how to coordinate the implementation of the
five E’s of transportation safety – Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Equity. All five carry equal weight, and each are
vital to helping Phoenix achieve its roadway safety goals.
Creation of this plan also would not have been possible without the input received from thousands of Valley residents, who took
time to communicate with us through interactive online surveys, at public meetings and special events, and through social media
and e-mail. Public engagement was crucial, and the feedback received helped city staff create and revise a plan that matches the
priorities of the community.
Improving roadway safety is a community effort and the Street Transportation Department has dedicated itself to the task of reversing
recent trends and improving roadway safety for all.
III
Quick Facts
Crash Factors
High Injury Network
THE FACTS
CHAPTER 2
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
THE 5 E’S
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
An Urgent Need
The Planning Process
Vision Zero Commitment
The Safe Systems Approach
Vision & Goals
CHAPTER 1
1
What Phoenix is Saying
Using Phoenician Input
ENGAGING PHOENICIANS
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION
How to Read This Section
General Strategies
Behavior Related
Pedestrians & Bicyclists
Intersections
Segments
Toolboxes
TAKING ACTION
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
Strategy Prioritization
Foundational Change
Systemic Implementation
Addressing the HIN
Resources
Reporting & Tracking
A PATH FORWARD
CHAPTER 6
49
11
17
31
25
INTRODUCTION
3
5
7
9
10
12
13
15
19
20
21
22
23
27
29
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
50
51
57
63
71
72
vi
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER 1
If one fully loaded Boeing 737 aircraft were to crash with no surviving
passengers each year, imagine for a moment what the response would be.
Lives lost through motor vehicle
crashes deserve the same attention.
EVERY DAY,
There are 83 automobile crashes.
EVERY OTHER DAY,
There is at least one fatal car crash.
IN A SINGLE YEAR,
There are 190 people killed,
enough to fill a Boeing 737.
On Average, In the City of Phoenix...
*2015-2019
*
With an average of over 30,000 crashes annually and an average of 2 crashes resulting in serious
injury every single day, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has consistently
ranked Phoenix in the top 3 cities in the nation for overall traffic fatalities. In 2021, as the COVID
pandemic continued, the amount of people killed on Arizona’s transportation system reached a new
peak of 1,120 (preliminary number), the highest number of traffic fatalities since 2007 with 231 of those
fatalities (21%) within the City of Phoenix - the most amount of lives lost in a single year since 2000.
Any fatalities on our streets are unacceptable, and the City of Phoenix has pledged to take action.
50
100
150
200
250
300
Los Angeles, CA
Houston, TX
PHOENIX, AZ
New York,NY
Dallas,TX
San Antonio, TX
Jacksonville, MI
Chicago, IL
Memphis, TN
Detroit, MI
3
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
TOTAL FATALITIES ANNUAL AVERAGE (2017-2019)
This City of Phoenix, Road Safety Action Plan – Moving To Vision Zero was created to fundamentally
shift the way the City of Phoenix addresses and responds to crashes, develop systemic strategies
to improve safety, and provide a road-map for the City to hone a “safety-first,” proactive stance in
reducing and ultimately preventing road fatalities. The purpose of this plan is simple: ultimately reduce
the number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2050.
“We need a change in mentality. We’ve become accustomed to accepting the unacceptable”
-Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation
AN URGENT NEED
The tragedy of lost life on Phoenician streets doesn’t
just affect the people involved with a crash. For every
person directly involved, there are parents, siblings,
children, friends, coworkers, neighbors, first responders,
bystanders, and others that often bear the brunt of the
emotional pain, and consequences of fatal crashes.
In addition to the emotional pain of losing life, having a
When analyzing 5-year crash data (2015-2019), an alarming trend emerges. Although 94% of ALL
crash types (minor, serious injury, and fatal) are vehicle to vehicle incidents, when drilling down
to killed and serious injury motor vehicle crashes (KSI), the vulnerability of those outside of motor
vehicles becomes evident with people walking, bicycling, or riding a motorcycle involved in 46%
of KSI crashes. Within the same five-year study period, 65% of fatal crashes involved people walking,
bicycling, or riding a motorcycle with a large portion of fatal crashes (46%) involving a pedestrian. As a
crash increases in severity, those outside of vehicles are more likely to be the ones sustaining serious
injury and death. This plan aims to address safety for everyone on the streets of Phoenix no matter
how they travel around the city.
94%
54%
15%
25%
6%
6%
35%
15%
46%
4%
CITYWIDE CRASH
TRENDS
(2015-2019)
Bicycle Crashes
Pedestrian Crashes
Motorcycle Crashes
Vehicle Crashes
ALL Crashes
KSI Crashes
Fatal Crashes
life significantly altered for the future, or even short term consequences of a non fatal impact, the
financial impact is significant as well. Using the USDOT FHWA Safety Program Crash Costs for
Highway Safety Analysis, adjusted for Arizona, it is estimated that $2.75 billion dollars was lost
in the greater Phoenix community by people getting killed or seriously injured between 2016-
2020 on the City of Phoenix High Injury Network (HIN). This figure doesn’t include the tens of
thousands other crashes that occurred on Phoenix streets that were damaging to a lesser degree.
Photo Credit: Jim Walsh
4
Introduction
Building from decades of previous traffic and safety work, the City of Phoenix
initiated the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) in the Summer of 2021 to upgrade
evaluation tools, engage the public, collaborate with City staff from different
departments, and create a transparent safety plan that is comprehensive and
implementable. The planning process consisted of six phases that included: a
discovery phase, goals and visioning effort, safety tools and data improvement,
development of RSAP strategies, delivery of the RSAP, and finally the integration
of new safety measures and tools.
2021
Q2
Q3
Q4
THE PLANNING PROCESS
Goals and Visioning
• Determine High Injury Network & Emphasis Areas
• RSAP framework development related to the 5 E’s:
(Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, & Equity)
02
Discovery Phase
• Data collection
• 5 Year crash analysis
• Understanding city processes & tools
• City RSAP Working Group sessions
01
Safety Tools & Data Improvement
• Create more timely crash data connections
• Begin development of crash data dashboard &
warrant tools
03
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
5
2022
Q2
Q3
Q4
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Phase 2
Safety Integration
• Complete crash data dashboard & reports
• Complete warrant tools
• Staff training for crash data & warrant tools
• Implement Vision Zero Task Force
06
Deliver Road Safety Action Plan
• Reporting & data evaluation process
• Final prioritization process
• Final Implementation plan
05
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
Phase 1
Introduction
RSAP Strategies
• Draft implementation strategies related to the 5 E’s
• Draft prioritization process
• City RSAP Working Group sessions
04
6
The process also included an internal City RSAP Working Group that established
guidance and partnerships at the beginning of the work effort (Discovery Phase),
and worked to develop the RSAP objectives and strategies together (RSAP
Strategies). This RSAP Working Group included both technical staff and executive
leadership to ensure that the strategies, implementation plan, and performance
metrics were realistic and highly beneficial to reduce KSI’s on Phoenix streets.
Essential partners in this RSAP Working Group include: the City Manager’s
Office, Community & Economic Development, Mayor and City Council Offices,
Fire, Housing, Human Services, IT Services, Neighborhood Services, Parks and
Rec, Planning and Development, Police, Public Transit, and Street Transportation
Departments. This group will transform into the RSAP Implementation Team upon
approval of the RSAP.
Anchorage
Laredo
San Antonio
Austin
Houston
Tampa
Hillsborough County
Orlando
West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Macon
Charlotte
Durham
Columbia
Chicago
Madison
Boulder
Denver
Denver Regional
Council of Governments
Albuquerque
Tempe
La Mesa
Santa
Barbara
Watsonville
Alameda
Sacramento
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo
Monterey
San Jose
Fremont
San Francisco
Berkley
Eugene
Portland
Oregon Metro
Seattle
Bellevue
Minneapolis
Somerville
Cambridge
Boston
New York City
Jersey City
Montgomery County
Washington D.C.
Richmond
Bethlehem
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Alexandria
PHOENIX
Vision Zero Community
VISION ZERO COMMITMENT
Vision Zero refers to the ultimate goal of eliminating all fatalities and serious injuries on Phoenix
roadways. Beginning with the ethical belief that everyone – people walking, biking, taking transit, and
driving - have the right to move safely in their community; no one should be killed or seriously injured
in crashes on the transportation network; and that all traffic deaths are preventable. A Vision Zero
commitment sets measurable objectives, establishes a clear schedule and time-frame, and puts forth
strategies to accomplish the objectives.
On February 16, 2022, the Phoenix City Council voted in favor of a resolution to commit to Vision Zero,
understanding that transportation safety is everyone’s responsibility, including both the City and road
users, and to be proactive in employing programs and strategies to meet City Council’s adopted goals
and objectives of zero traffic deaths by 2050. The City of Phoenix will join 51 cities and regions (as of
August 2021) in becoming a part of the Vision Zero Network, and 1 of 2 cities in Arizona.
7
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
WHEREAS, Phoenix aspires to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes on its streets to zero;
WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a City safety policy that takes an ethical approach toward achieving safety for all road users;
WHEREAS, in the past five years more than 900 people have lost their lives and more than 4,000 people were seriously injured
on Phoenix streets;
WHEREAS, traffic-related deaths and serious injuries are preventable;
WHEREAS, the severity of motor vehicle-related crashes can be reduced;
WHEREAS, Phoenix wants to be proactive in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on our streets.
WHEREAS, transportation safety is everybody’s responsibility, including the City and road users;
WHEREAS, multiple City Departments, that include Street Transportation, Planning and Development, and Phoenix Police
departments, are actively employing programs to improve safety; and
WHEREAS, Vision Zero leverages existing programs and can create new programs and strategies to help meet the Council’s
adopted performance measure to achieve a reduction in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes to zero.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AS FOLLOWS: The Phoenix City Council
hereby makes a commitment that the City of Phoenix will adopt the Vision Zero strategy with the goal of eliminating all traffic
fatalities for all users on Phoenix roadways.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of February, 2022
8
THE FEDERAL SAFE SYSTEMS APPROACH
When creating this Road Safety Action plan (RSAP), Phoenix strived to develop a plan that went
beyond traditional road safety measures by integrating best practices, Vision Zero Network guidance,
and Federal guidance recognizing the need to take action now. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Safe Systems Approach focuses on a human-centric approach of intelligent transportation
system design, proactively identifying and addressing risks, and creating redundancies in safety
measures. People will still make mistakes, and crashes will still occur - but they shouldn’t end in life-altering
tragedy.
The Safe Systems Approach brings safety to the forefront of transportation investment and provides
a model for the Safety-first approach of this RSAP. It does so through a holistic view of the road
system that first anticipates human mistakes and second keeps impact energy on the human body
at tolerable levels according to the FHWA.
The Plan also prepares the City for funding opportunities through the Federal Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) by identifying a High Injury Network (HIN), developing actionable
strategies that address fatal and serious crash trends, and creating engineering, evaluation, equitable,
educational, and enforcement solutions that are comprehensive. The City of Phoenix will continue
to work with their federal, state (Arizona Department of Transportation and the Governor’s Office
of Highway Safety), regional (Maricopa Association of Governments and Valley Metro/Valley Metro
Rail), and local agencies to align safety plans, actions, projects, policies, and funding strategies for
implementation.
1. Death/serious injury is unacceptable
2. Humans make mistakes
3. Humans are vulnerable
4. Responsibility is shared
5. Safety is proactive
6. Redundancy is crucial
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Roads
Post-Crash
Care
Safe
Vehicles
Safe Road
Users
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
9
HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH
VISION
Phoenix aspires to reduce the number
of fatal and serious injury crashes on
its streets to ZERO by 2050
Create a Road Safety Action Plan that moves to VISION ZERO
Embrace the 5 E’s of safety
(Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, & Equity)
Develop and implement strategies and countermeasures
Establish performance measures for evaluation
Engage the public through an inclusive engagement process
Use data to drive decisions
Establish a culture of safety
GOALS
10
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
11
THE FACTS
11
CHAPTER 2
The Facts
12
QUICK FACTS:
46%
of all fatal
crashes
involved
pedestrians
04%
of all traffic
fatalities are
bicyclists
in a collision with a vehicle, a bicyclist will ALWAYS
receive a far greater share of injury
despite only making up 2.5% of all crashes, with most
pedestrian crashes occurring at night
21%
of all KSI
crashes are
speed related
with Impaired Driving & Distracted Driving the primary
factor in 15.3% & 3.7% of KSI crashes respectively
15%
of all traffic
fatalities are
motorcyclists
despite only being involved in 2% of crashes, with 39%
of motorcyclists involved in crashes not wearing helmets
43%
of all KSI
crashes occur
at signalized
intersections
with less than 6% of Phoenix’s signalized intersections
accounting for 12% of all KSI crashes
57%
of all KSI
crashes occur
at roadway
segments
with less than 3% of Phoenix’s roadways
accounting for 12% of all KSI crashes
Through the creation of this Road Safety Action Plan (, the City of Phoenix analyzed 5 years of crash
data (2015-2019) to determine trends and understand the facts of road safety in the city. Data was
obtained from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS) maintained by the Arizona Department
of Transportation (ADOT). Appendix-A contains detailed crash analysis report.
Following the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) Safe Systems approach of honing in on
preventing serious and fatal crashes, the Phoenix team needed to determine how often these injuries
occur. In the five years analyzed, there were over 150,000 vehicular crashes that included about 5,000
crashes that resulted in a person getting killed or seriously injured (KSI) on Phoenix public roads. While
the total number of crashes has been increasing in the past years, the number of crashes resulting in
a fatality or serious injury has stayed between 2.6% and 3.8%.
The Facts
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
13
CRASH FACTORS
Understanding how and when crashes occur and who is involved are all critical factors in determining
how to prevent them in the future.
The manner of collision is
an important descriptor of
how crashes happen, and
the physics of a collision is a
key factor in resulting injury.
Serious and fatal crashes
happen in a different way
than the other collisions.
The most common collision
manners of crashes that
result in a fatality or serious
injury are left-turn, angle,
and pedestrian crashes;
whereas among the less
severe crashes, the most
common collision manners
are rear-end, left-turn, and
angle crashes.
Speed violations and not
wearing a seatbelt are
two serious factors that
contribute to KSI crashes.
20.5% of crashes that killed
or seriously injured people,
involved speeding and a
further 13% of KSI crashes
involved an unrestrained
driver as the primary factor
in a fatality/serious injury.
HOW
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
120
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
22.9%
21.6%
19.2%
17.8%
21.3%
12.4%
11.6%
11.8%
13.0%
15.3%
Share of KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes Unrestrained Drivers %Speeding
Left Turn
Angle
Other - Pedestrian
Single Vehicle
Rear End
Head On
Sideswipe
Other - Bicyclist
Other
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
22.9%
23.5%
17.8%
20.7%
19.1%
1.0%
7.0%
10.8%
29.4%
9.9%
2.1%
15.6%
5.3%
4.1%
0.5%
3.3%
3.8%
3.0%
Property Damage Only/Minor Injury Crashes (N=144,562)
Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes (N=4,906)
The Facts
14
WHEN
March was the month with the
highest number of crashes, averaging
89 per day; July, on the other hand,
registered the lowest number
of crashes (70 per day). Fridays
registered the highest number of
crashes, but Sundays registered
the highest rate of serious and fatal
crashes (4.1% of Sunday crashes
resulted in a fatality or serious injury,
compared to an average of 3.2% on
the other days of the week).
As might be expected, the time of
day with the highest number of
crashes is the afternoon peak hour
(from 3 pm to 6 pm), when 27% of
crashes occurred. Crashes involving
a pedestrian most commonly happen
between 6 pm to 9 pm, when more
than 25% of all pedestrian crashes
were reported (the same period
recorded 14% of all crashes and 19%
of serious/fatal crashes).
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Number of Crashes
January
February
March
April
May
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Temperature (0F)
All crashes
Average Temperature* (0F)
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour
Share of Crashes
All Crashes Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes Pedestrian Crashes Vehicle Volume*
WHO
The largest age group representing
drivers of the unit that contributed
most to the crash are individuals
between 15 to 24 years old. The
largest age group representing drivers
of other units are individuals from 25
to 34 years old. Men are more likely to
be involved in pedestrian and bicycle
crashes in Phoenix.
Understanding this data can inform
how resources can be directed
and targeted for educational and
awareness campaigns.
15-24
35-44
25-34
0-14
65-74
55-64
45-54
75+
15-24
35-44
25-34
65-74
55-64
45-54
75+
15-24
35-44
25-34
65-74
55-64
45-54
75+
2803
2932
5054
5504
4084
1231
3112
99
75
4588
1940
176
6832
8864
13680
15396
12601
17427
13289
10631
7257
199
405
353
294
298
207
389
807
758
578
626
552
10369
14460
15843
18519
14199
7814
10521
12087
18050
20880
Female Male
Female Male
Female Male
Drivers of Unit 1** by Age
and Gender
Drivers of Unit 2-6 by Age
and Gender
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
by Age and Gender
*Unit 1 is defined as the driver that contributes to a crash the most
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
15
HIGH INJURY
NETWORK (HIN)
The High Injury Network (HIN) is a map of corridors where the
highest amount of people have been killed and severely injured in
motor vehicle collisions, and is a tool for road safety initiatives. This
approach will help city staff focus limited resources on what is needed
and where so that funds can be invested in the areas that are most
impacted by death and injury.
Five years of data (2016-2020) was analyzed, including 5,473
motor vehicles crashes that resulted in serious injury or death.
This data was separated into the two separate categories of
Signalized Intersections and Segments (Phoenix public roads).
Appendix-B contains detailed list of Intersections & Segments
This analysis shows that 12% of KSI crashes occur at less than 6% of
Phoenix traffic signals, and 12% of KSI crashes occur on less than 3%
of Phoenix public roads.
See more info here: HIN GIS Story Map
15
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
The Facts
16
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
U
V
85
U
V
51
U
V
51
U
V
153
U
V
143
U
V
74
U
V
202
U
V
101
U
V
85
U
V
51
¡¢
60
¡¢
60
§¨¦
17
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
10
§¨¦
17
N CAVE CREEK
R
D
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
E GLENDALE AVE
T
S
H
T
4
4
N
W GRAND AVE
T
S
H
T
7
S
E
V
A
H
T
9
1
S
E
V
A
H
T
5
7
N
D
V
L
B
M
U
T
A
T
N
W THUNDERBIRD RD
T
S
H
T
8
4
S
E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
W SONORAN DES
ERT
DR
W DUNLAP AVE
E
LINCOLN DR
E SHEA BLVD
W BELL RD
E
V
A
H
T
9
1
S
E CACTUS RD
W BASELINE RD
2
S
4TH
S
T
E WASHINGTON ST
W GLENDALE AVE
N 24TH ST
E BASELINE RD
T
S
H
T
7
N
E DYNAMITE BLVD
E
V
A
T
S
1
5
N
W DOVE VALLEY RD
D
R
E
L
A
D
S
T
T
O
C
S
N
W HAPPY VALLEY RD
W BUCKEYE RD
E
THUNDERBIR
D
R
D
E BELL RD
E
DEER VA
LLEY DR
E PINNACLE PEAK RD
W CAREFREE HWY
E MCDOWEL
L RD
E
D
EER
V
A
LLEY RD
E
V
A
H
T
5
7
S
E
DOVE VA
LLEY RD
N
NEW RIVER RD
E SO
N
ORAN
D
E
SER
T
DR
E
V
A
H
T
9
1
N
S 51ST AVE
E
V
A
H
T
5
3
N
T
S
H
T
7
N
T
S
H
T
7
S
S
4
4
TH
ST
N
NORTH VALLEY
P
K
WY
N 7TH ST
0
1
2
3
4
0.5
mi
o
!
Intersections >1.98 Std. Deviation
(KSI crashes)
Roadways > 2.6 Std. Deviation
(KSI crashes per mile)
Legend
Fatal and Serious Injury (KSI)
Crashes (2016 - 2020)
HIN Intersections
HIN Segments
16
17
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
THE 5 E’S
17
CHAPTER 3
18
The 5 E’s
In addressing safety on Phoenix roadways, the City acknowledges that creating a safe transportation
network for all users is accomplished through a combination of non-infrastructure and infrastructure
projects and programs. The City currently takes a proactive and inclusive approach that recognizes
the Five E’s of Transportation Safety: Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Equity.
Formally recognizing this work as part of this plan allows the City to evaluate its programs, continue
work efforts, consider expansion, propose emphasis areas, create cohesive strategies that respond to
measures, and develop an implementation plan that is inclusive.
All five E’s of Transportation Safety play a valuable role in supporting safety, but are most effective
when implemented together. The RSAP encourages collaboration between City departments on
these initiatives including, but not limited to the Street Transportation, Public Transit, Police, Fire,
Planning and Development, Neighborhood Services Departments, and others as appropriate.
ENGINEERING
EVALUATION
ENFORCEMENT
EDUCATION
EQUITY
THE 5 E’S OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
THE 5 E’S OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
19
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Evaluation focuses on network screening
& benchmarking efforts to measure
effectiveness of implemented initiatives
Evaluation efforts review past safety trends, benchmark current conditions, and
monitor conditions as improvements are implemented. Reviewing historical crash
data is an important component in understanding current safety trends, identifying
areas within the City experiencing higher crash frequencies, and prioritizing
locations for improvements. Evaluation activities can be used to establish baseline
data for planning projects and support in setting goals.
Current Initiatives
The City of Phoenix evaluates crash data
for projects regularly and produces annual
collision summary reports; a general traffic
safety report, pedestrian safety report,
and bicyclist safety report. The evaluation
identifies trends over time, by collision
manner, by injury severity, locations with the
greatest number of collisions, crashes by
violation type, and common characteristics
of pedestrian and bicyclist related crashes.
The Phoenix Police Department (PD)
coordinates with the Street Transportation
Department on crash trends and reports
on an annual basis. The annual collision
summaries provide information to PD
for consideration in their work efforts.
PD reports crash data regularly to the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
(GOHS), which is required for grant funding.
The City of Phoenix partners with the
Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG) and Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) to further
benchmark trends among the larger region.
MAG produces an annual list of top 100
intersections ranked by crash risk within
the metro-Phoenix area, which considers
crash frequency, crash severity, and crash
type. While Phoenix is the largest city within
the MAG region; it also has the greatest
number of intersections within the Top
100 list. Collaboration with MAG further
supports the City’s evaluation efforts,
regional benchmarking, identification of
priority locations for further study and
improvements. In addition to evaluation, the
MAG Top 100 list is also used to support
regional funding pursuits.
The City regularly collects vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle counts to monitor
growth and trends within the City. Vehicular
traffic counts are also collected to serve a
critical role in traffic engineering studies;
including traffic signal warrant analyses,
pedestrian crossings, and left-turn signal
phasing studies.
As the RSAP is implemented, benchmarking
will be used to measure effectiveness of
implemented strategies.
EVALUATION
EVALUATION
GOALS
Identification of the High Injury
Network (HIN)
Linkage of implementation strategies
to specific crash types
Automation of crash analysis &
summary reporting
Modernization of the traffic engineering
warrant analysis tools, including the traffic
signal warrant tool, HAWK warrant tool,
left-turn warrant tool, & prioritization
Further integration of safety in the
project development process
20
The 5 E’s
Current Initiatives
The City participates in formal Road
Safety Assessments (RSA), which involve
a multi-disciplinary, focused review of a
specific intersection or roadway segment.
Engineering solutions are developed to
address specific safety concerns that may
be present.
Intersection improvements may
include additional lighting, traffic
signal improvements, sight visibility
improvements, crosswalk and curb ramp
improvements, curb extensions, and
signing and marking improvements. The
City also reviews traffic signal operations to
select appropriate left-turn phasing, re-time
signals, and coordinate signals along a
corridor. Roadway segment improvements
may include raised medians and/or
other forms of access control, lane re-
purposing to provide bike lanes, sidewalk
improvements, midblock pedestrian
crossings, additional lighting, and signing
and marking improvements.
Phoenix uses the High Intensity Activated
Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon signal as a tool
to help make it easier and safer for people
to cross busy streets. HAWK signals can
be installed on streets with regular traffic
signals as part of the city’s coordinated
signal system. Phoenix has been installing
HAWK signals since 2009 after they
were approved by the Federal Highway
Administration. Phoenix activated its 75th
HAWK location in March 2022.
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
Engineering identifies improvement
projects anticipated to address roadway
safety through roadway design, traffic
engineering, maintenance, operation &
planning
GOALS
Locations for engineering review are identified based on high crash locations and
input from the public.
Identification of safety-focused emphasis
areas to focus resources
Development of engineering strategies to
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes,
based on focus areas and targeted
locations
Integration of safety analysis into project &
program development processes
21
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT
Current Initiatives
The Phoenix Police Department (PD)
uses several different squads to target
speeding, moving violations, and driving
under the influence (DUI) with a nighttime
focus. This enforcement is conducted by
precinct squads that review past collision
data reports that the Street Transportation
Department shares, and through click-it
or ticket grants from GOHS. The patrol
location depends on the focus of the squad:
DUI, street racing, enforcement, or traffic
education and safety. The enforcement
squads rotate throughout the city.
The Traffic Education and Safety squad is
response driven through special requests
from internal City departments, Council, and
citizen concerns. Residents and community
members can contact PD to share concerns
through the PDt Traffic Complaint Hotline,
the dedicated e-mail address (traffic.
complaints@phoenix.gov), and a web-
based submission form. These requests are
documented, investigated, and reported out.
Complementary to the enforcement squads
is the Traffic Impact Program that focuses
on data driven location needs (crashes or
complaints, not associated with rotation).
Locations are identified by the speed
complaint hotline, if there are a high number
of crashes in a period of time, a high-profile
crash, or information from council offices or
neighboring jurisdictions.
Automated photo enforcement in the City
of Phoenix ended in early 2020. While
the program is no longer active, the PD
has a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
webpage related to the previous red light
camera enforcement program.
Enforcement focuses on policing,
preventing & mitigating behaviors
affecting road safety
Generation of crash analysis tools and
summary reports to support the Police
Department
Support of efforts to enforce safety
ordinances and development requirements
Development of enforcement strategies
to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes,
based on focus areas and trends in traffic
user behavior and violations.
GOALS
22
The 5 E’s
Current Initiatives
Many City departments work together to
create traffic safety materials, organize
school safety programs, and education
within the community.
School Events
The City provides leadership, assistance,
and training to schools across the city to
help ensure safety for students who walk
or bike to school. The Street Transportation
School Safety section is responsible for
review and responding to pedestrian
and traffic related concerns that affect
all public, charter, private, and parochial
K-12 schools within the City of Phoenix.
Current initiatives include the Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) program, Walk/Bike to
School Days, Bike Rodeos, and resources
for schools, students, parents, teachers,
and crossing guards. Bike Rodeos are held
at elementary schools in coordination with
the SRTS program through efforts by the
Street Transportation and PD, which teach
younger students bicycle safety and provide
bicycle helmets to the community.
Safety Events
Phoenix PD leads educational DUI events
at local high schools at the request of
school/district administration. For example,
PD has held events at high schools prior
to Homecoming/Prom events to educate
students on impaired driving and distracted
driving. PD and Fire departments partner
on child-safety restraint events, and at
neighborhood block watch events as
requested.
Outreach and Education Campaigns
The City continues to increase awareness
and education in roadway safety through
education campaigns, which are integrated
using social media, public service
announcements, printed material, and
engagement in community events. Current
focused campaigns include:
•
Hands Free
•
See Me AZ
•
Heads Up
•
Scan the Streets for Wheels & Feet
Education efforts consist of communication
campaigns & initiatives that teach &
promote safe roadway behavior for all
users, including people driving, riding
transit, walking, or bicycling
GOALS
EDUCATION
EDUCATION
Identification of new methods to
communicate existing campaigns
Expanded collaboration with state, regional,
& local partners for funding opportunities &
coordinated messages of safety analysis into
project & program development processes
Development of education strategies to
reduce fatal & serious injury crashes, based
on emphasis areas & targeted locations
23
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
EQUITY
EQUITY
Current Initiatives
In 2021, the City of Phoenix included
funding in their annual budget approval
to open the Office of Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion (DEI).
“The charge of the office is to ensure
equitability, equitable distribution of city
services and to champion the delivery
of racially equitable services for the
community and for city staff across the city
of Phoenix”
-Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson
While the office is in its early stage of
formation, the City, including the Street
Transportation Department, has integrated
equity into many of its current work efforts.
The Transportation 2050 Program (T2050)
was approved by voters in 2015. This
program both continues and expands
funding for bus service, dial-a-ride,
light rail, mobility improvements, traffic
signal upgrades, paving, and other street
improvements. A key component of this
35-year, $16.7 billion investment is the
goal of ensuring that Phoenicians have
a viable and equitable transit system.
This system will support Phoenicians
with frequent dial-a-ride, bus, and light
rail service assisting residents who
don’t have or choose not to travel in a
vehicle. The roadway program supports
the transit system and is committed
to install 135 miles of sidewalks, over
1,000 miles of bike lanes, install/upgrade
2,000 new street lights, replace aging
traffic signals, and invest $240 million for
major street improvements. A number
of these programs have considered
equity in their planning, prioritization, and
implementation phases.
In addition, The City of Phoenix
Street Transportation Department
conducted an equity analysis to evaluate
demographics of residents to understand
if the transportation network is safe and
accessible where they live. This analysis
will also ensure equity is integrated into
community engagement to understand
the diversity of residents, consider
alternative outreach methods, and
provide opportunities for all City residents
involved.
Equity in transportation ensures that work
efforts are free from bias, & identifies,
understands, & eliminates barriers that
exist for people using the network.
Evaluate characteristics of residents to
understand if the transportation network is
safe & accessible where they live
Equitable integration in community
engagement to understand the diversity
of residents, consider alternative outreach
methods, & provide opportunities for all
City residents to be involved
GOALS
24
The 5 E’s
•
The City of Phoenix Street
Transportation Department
Equity Analysis (shown in
blue
blue) highlights areas of the
city that have concentrations
of people and households that:
• •
Do Not Own a Car
Do Not Own a Car
• •
Are Low-Income / In Poverty
Are Low-Income / In Poverty
• •
Are Young (0-19)
Are Young (0-19)
• •
Are Elderly (65+)
Are Elderly (65+)
• •
Are of a Minority Group
Are of a Minority Group
• •
Have a Disability
Have a Disability
As shown right, there is a strong
correlation between the HIN and
equity areas.
Parallel to the City evaluation
is the USDOT Underserved
Community Analysis (shown in
yellow
yellow) as part of the Federal
Justice40 Initiative. This analysis
included communities that are:
• •
Historically Disadvantaged
Historically Disadvantaged
• •
Transportation Disadvantaged
Transportation Disadvantaged
• •
Health Disadvantaged
Health Disadvantaged
• •
Economically Disadvantaged
Economically Disadvantaged
• •
Equity Disadvantaged
Equity Disadvantaged
• •
Resilience Disadvantaged
Resilience Disadvantaged
• •
Environmentally
Environmentally
Disadvantaged
Disadvantaged
When implementing strategies,
projects, & programs noted in this
plan, these equity analyses will be
included and utilized.
HIN Intersections
HIN Segments
Phoenix Equity Area
USDOT Underserved Community
N
0
0.5
1
2
3
4
Mi
25
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
25
CHAPTER 4
ENGAGING
PHOENICIANS
25
CHAPTER 4
26
Engaging Phoenicians
This plan would not exist without direction from engaged and concerned Phoenicians. The input of
those who travel Phoenix’s roadways, whether driving, walking, biking, or taking transit is essential
to make streets safer for everyone. Public involvement was ongoing throughoutthe RSAP process,
and included online and virtual engagement opportunities as well as in person. Both efforts were
used to reach as many Phoenix residents as possible while COVID-19 precautions were in place, and
to ensure an equitable approach was delivered. These tactics were successful; over 3,000 people
participated online, over 4,500 location based safety comments provided, and staff met with residents
and shared information at 21 community touchpoints.
THE RSAP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORT AIMED TO:
• Inform and educate Phoenicians about the traffic safety problem and the Road Safety Action Plan, and to
• Consult, involve, and understand the community’s perspectives about safety issues and the high amount of people
getting killed and severely injured on Phoenix roadways.
Responding to these objectives, the project conducted 3 main work efforts to facilitate meaningful input:
• Continuous communication to ensure residents had an opportunity to learn about the project. This effort began
with the launch of the project website and then integrated social media content, branding, email notifications,
presentations, fact sheets, videos, and created posters/flyers throughout the life of the project.
• Phase 1: Community Engagement focused on learning which traffic safety issues Phoenicians were most concerned
about and what they would like to see this plan accomplish.
• Phase 2: Public Input Provided an opportunity for review, comments, suggestions, and prioritization on the draft
RSAP strategies (as presented in June 2022), and used Phoenix city libraries and community events to spread the
word about the online survey and to ask residents to take the Vision Zero Pledge.
26
27
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
>60%
of survey respondents
think Phoenix streets are
unsafe
Driver
Behavior
is the number one
safety concern
WHAT PHOENIX IS SAYING...
>1000
comments related to
missing/inadequate infrastructure
bike facilities, street crossings,
pedestrian facilities,
& intersections
Survey respondents said
Preventing
Traffic Deaths
is the number one priority
for this plan
>2600
people completed
the Phase 1 online
engagement exercise
72%
of survey respondents
strongly agreed/agreed to all
40 proposed strategies
27
28
Engaging Phoenicians
Phase 1: Community Engagement kicked off in November 2021 with a virtual meeting hosted by the City
of Phoenix using the WebEx platform. 116 people attended the virtual public meeting that included
both Spanish and English speaking attendees with a live Spanish speaking interpreter. The public
meeting engaged participants with polling, breaks for questions and discussions, and a presentation
about the project. The presentation included an overview of the project, the planning process, project
background information, information about the High Injury Network and crash trends.
Since in-person engagement opportunities were limited, the project utilized an online engagement
tool, MetroQuest, to gather information about residents safety concerns on Phoenix streets. MetroQuest
is an engagement platform that is designed for transportation planning. Surveys that both educate
the public and gather informed output, helping public involvement teams get tangible insights from
diverse communities and consistently deliver outstanding public involvement. The MetroQuest
Survey received over 2,600 responses and over 5,000 comments submitted through February 2022.
To ensure a diverse geographic outreach within the City that provided Phoenicians with an
opportunity to learn about the RSAP, how to engage and use MetroQuest, and have time to discuss
the project with Phoenix staff, a series of community touchpoints were completed after the initial public
meeting through February 2022. This effort continued to drive residents to visit the RSAP website and
complete the MetroQuest activity. Community touchpoints during this time included in person and
online meetings, and a community event in Laveen. During Phase 1 Public Engagement, the Street
Transportation Department created 35 tweets encouraging people to take the MetroQuest survey,
which accounted for a total 14,727 impressions
Phase 2: Public Input began in June 2022 and focused on receiving feedback on the draft strategies
by way of an on-line survey. This stage of involvement began with sharing the RSAP’s draft five
focus areas, fifteen objectives, and forty strategies. The draft strategies were posted online at the
project webpage, an online video (accessed over 260 times) shared the details of strategies, city staff
presented this information at a City Council sub-committee, e-mails and social media communications
were sent to residents, staff attended community events to share information and talk with the public,
and project posters with information about the draft strategies and survey were hung at City libraries.
Over 550 people responded to the survey, staff connected with over 300 residents at events, and over
100 residents wrote their own pledge to help do their part to get to zero deaths on Phoenix streets.
28
29
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
With the goal of creating a series of actionable strategies in this plan, the integration of public feedback
into the development and finalization of the strategies, and prioritization is vital to ensure that this
plan works. Both phases of public input provided a platform to receive both open input, and specific
feedback on trends revealed from the data analysis and planning process.
The feedback from Phase 1 helped to:
•
Develop strategies around enforcement and education for driver behavior. A significant share of
input received noted that driver behavior was a major issue. In the spirit of the 5 E’s, this feedback
also supports developing engineering strategies that address speeding, red light running, not-
yielding, turn restrictions, and like counter measures to save people’s lives.
•
Prioritize preventing traffic deaths as the number one goal of the plan, which aligns with the City
Council adoption of Vision Zero, and supports the prioritization of strategies for reducing and
eliminating killed and serious injury (KSI) crashes.
•
Develop strategies connected to improving signalization at intersections, pedestrian safety,
assessing unsignalized crossings, and systematic roadway design concepts. Adequate
transportation infrastructure for all users: people biking, walking, crossing the street, and driving
is a high demand of Phoenicians.
The input from Phase 2 informed:
•
The implementation plan and performance measurements related to all focus areas presented in
the following chapter. Survey respondents ranked Intersections the highest priority of the 5 focus
areas of the RSAP. Behavior Related and Pedestrians & Bicyclists were tied in second place, with
General Strategies and Segments following.
•
The inclusion of all draft strategies presented in the following chapter into the final plan. 72% of
survey respondents strongly agreed/agreed to all 40 strategies as presented in June 2022. For
strategies in the Pedestrian & Bicyclist, and Intersection focus areas, agreement increased to 80%
to 96%. 2 additional strategies were included based on community input.
•
The selection of projects to request funding through federal grant opportunities. Reviewing the
public feedback from the survey, the strategy that received the highest amount of respondents
that strongly agree or agree, 96%, was: Analyze the transportation network to identify locations
that have the greatest number of risk-factors that contribute to pedestrian and bicyclist crashes,
and then identify countermeasure improvements.
USING PHOENICIAN INPUT
30
Engaging Phoenicians
30
Moving towards Vision Zero is a commitment that’s only
Moving towards Vision Zero is a commitment that’s only
attainable when
attainable when EVERYONE
EVERYONE does their part
does their part
We’d like to sincerely thank everyone who participated in
We’d like to sincerely thank everyone who participated in
developing this Road Safety Action Plan
developing this Road Safety Action Plan
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
31
TAKING
ACTION
31
CHAPTER 5
Taking Action
32
Vision Zero acknowledges that there are many factors that contribute to safe mobility - including
roadway design, speeds, enforcement, behaviors, technology, and policies. One of the distinct goals
of this Plan is to approve a group of actionable strategies that over time, will achieve the shared goal
of zero fatalities and serious injuries that encompass evaluation, education, enforcement, engineering,
and equitable activities. The evaluation of crash data and further public input led to the identification
of five Focus Areas where implementation of safety strategies is anticipated to have the highest impact
on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries.
FOCUS AREAS
GENERAL STRATEGIES - Strategies focused on internal programmatic changes within Phoenix
BEHAVIOR RELATED - Strategies focused on mitigating speeding & other roadway user behavior
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS - Strategies focused on pedestrian/bicyclist safety policy & infrastructure
INTERSECTIONS - Strategies focused on improving safety at intersections
SEGMENTS - Strategies focused on improving safety on roadway segments
Within each Focus Area, there are three objectives (15
total) that provides distinct guidance on what needs to be
accomplished. Each objective has time-bound performance
metrics to measure success throughout implementation
of the city’s Vision Zero initiative. Performance metrics
will track and evaluate either programmatic metrics, an
increase/decrease in a given metric, or the installation/
improvement of infrastructure. Where possible, metrics list
items that should be completed within a given time-frame.
The heart of this RSAP are the 42 strategies outlined in this
section. Through this planning process, over a hundred
strategies were initially evaluated, and through a series of
workshops with the City of Phoenix RSAP Working Group
alongside community input, pared down to the those
presented. The strategies presented were determined to
be both implementable and have a high potential to make
a significant impact in reducing KSI crashes in Phoenix.
They are also connected to at least one of the 5 E’s and
will be applied through of the following categories: HIN
HIN:
High Injury Network
STR:
Street Transportation Department
PTD:
Public Transit Department
PDD:
Planning and Development
Department
NSD:
Neighborhood Services Department
PD:
Police Department
FD:
Fire Department
ExPA: External Public Agencies: USDOT,
FHWA, ADOT, MAG, Maricopa County,
Valley Metro, City of Phoenix Public
School Districts, and Neighboring
Cities
ExA:
External Associations: Private
Businesses, Neighborhood
Associations, Business
Improvement Districts BIDs,
Developers, etc.
Acronyms
Strategies, Systemic Implementation, and Location-Specific Strategies. Each strategy also has a list
of departments and agencies that will be responsible for its implementation.
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
33
HOW TO READ THIS SECTION
Focus Area
Objective
Performance
Metrics
There are 5 focus areas
identified in this plan for
safety improvements
There are 3 objectives
per focus area (15 total).
Objectives are the
overarching goal that each
strategy & performance
metric will support
Each objective has 1-4 performance
metrics that are time-bound
measures by which Phoenix will
track their success in implementation
of this plan
Programmatic
Metric
Track Increase
Track Decrease
Build or Install
Infrastructure
Performance Metrics Symbol Key
Taking Action
34
Strategies
Application
5 E’s
Responsible Partners
Each strategy has a lead agency
responsible for its implementation, along
with partner agencies & departments that
will provide support to the lead
There are multiple strategies that contribute to
the achievement of each objective
Each strategy is connected to at least
one of the 5 E’s (Evaluation, Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Equity)
Application describes how and where the
strategy will be applied within the city -
whether it be internal programmatic or
systemic changes, strategies applied at
specific locations, or strategies that are
focused on the HIN
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
35
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
FOCUS AREA :
1. GENERAL STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVE 1.A
OBJECTIVE 1.B
OBJECTIVE 1.C
REDUCE CRASH RISK ON ROADWAYS BY ENHANCING SAFETY
DATA COLLECTION & EVALUATION
REDUCE CRASH RISK ON ROADWAYS BY CREATING A
CULTURE OF ROAD SAFETY WITHIN THE CITY
ESTABLISH FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF VISION ZERO
INCLUDING A TIMELINE & GOALS FOR IMPLEMENTATION &
EVALUATION
Implement a Vision Zero Task Force
consisting of a multi-departmental team
for continued oversight of reducing KSI
crashes
Create a Vision Zero status report on
objectives, updated every year in the
fall & published in the spring
Streamline RSA process to identify &
implement feasible improvements by 2023
Develop crash data dashboard to
identify & rank crash locations by 2023
Integrate crash data from Phoenix PD /
ADOT on a monthly basis by 2023
Conduct before/after evaluations
for previously implemented safety
projects
Integrate safety review in development
of CIP projects & private development
projects by 2024
Ensure that road safety expenditures
are at least $60M per year
35
Taking Action
36
GENERAL STRATEGIES
5 E's: Identifies the type
of work effort connected
to the strategy
Application of
Strategy
Partners
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
HIN, Systemic,
Location
Specific,
Programmatic
The Lead
Department
is Italicized,
& support
departments
are included.
1.A Establish foundational elements of Vision Zero including timeline & goals for implementation & evaluation
GN.01A
Create a City of Phoenix inter-departmental Vision Zero Task
Force.
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PDD,
NSD, PD, FD
GN.01B
Create an annual Vision Zero status report including updated
crash statistics from the crash dashboard, high injury network
(HIN), & status of performance measure targets.
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PDD,
NSD, PD, FD, ExPA,
ExA
1.B Reduce crash risk on roadways by enhancing safety collection & evaluation
GN.02A
Continue to analyze safety data annually to identify high
severity crash areas & implement countermeasures at prioritized
locations.
Location Specific,
Systemic,
Programmatic
STR, PDD
GN.02B
Improve crash data sharing between the Street Transportation
Department, Police Department, & Arizona Department of
Transportation.
Programmatic
STR, PD, ExPA
GN.02C
Continue to conduct Road Safety Audits (RSA), focusing on
the HIN, to identify appropriate countermeasures; develop &
implement recommended countermeasures through projects at
these locations.
HIN,
Programmatic,
Location Specific
STR, PTD, PD, FD,
ExPA
GN.02D
Enhance and streamline the process to implement RSA
recommendations.
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PD
1.C Reduce crash risk on roadways by creating a culture of road safety within the City
GN.03A
Incorporate analysis of crash history & countermeasure safety
improvements for City of Phoenix capital improvement projects &
private development projects.
Systemic,
Programmatic
STR
GN.03B
Create a road safety crash dashboard available to city staff for
analysis & development of countermeasures into City practices.
Systemic,
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PDD,
NSD, PD, FD
GN.03C
Incorporate a Vision Zero component into required driver training
programs for City of Phoenix employees (including municipal
courts) & contractors.
Programmatic
STR
GN.03D
Develop and maintain a list of prioritized planning, pre-design,
design, & construction projects in pursuit of local, state, federal, &
private grant funding as appropriate.
Location Specific,
Programmatic
STR, PTD, NSD, PD
GN.03E
Incorporate use of USLIMITS2, a free, web-based tool, to assess
and establish speed limits for specific segments of roadway with
high pedestrian/bicyclist activity, on-street parking, more than
30 driveways per mile, or above average crash history. USLIMITS2
produces an unbiased and objective suggested speed limit
value based on 50th and 85th percentile speeds, traffic volumes,
roadway type, roadway setting, number of access points, crash
history, and pedestrian/bicyclist activity.
Programmatic
STR
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
37
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES RELATED TO SPEEDING,
RED-LIGHT RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, & AGGRESSIVE
DRIVING
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES RELATED TO
IMPAIRED DRIVING (DRUGS & ALCOHOL)
FOCUS AREA :
2. BEHAVIOR RELATED
OBJECTIVE 2.A
OBJECTIVE 2.B
OBJECTIVE 2.C
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES INVOLVING
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS THROUGH BEHAVIORAL CHANGES
Expand transportation safety enforcement
impact programs by 10% per year
Target KSI crashes associated with driver-
behavior violations not to increase at a
rate greater than population growth
Re-institute automated enforcement,
& install units at 10 intersections or
school zones per year
Conduct DUI enforcement programs at
least 18 times per year
Target KSI crashes associated with
impaired driving not to increase at a
rate greater than population growth
Conduct pedestrian & bicyclist
enforcement impact programs at least
12 times per year
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Conduct behavior-related enforcement impact programs at least 12 times per year
37
Taking Action
38
BEHAVIOR RELATED STRATEGIES
5 E's: Identifies the type of
work effort connected to
the strategy
Application of
Strategy
Partners
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
HIN, Systemic,
Location
Specific,
Programmatic
The Lead
Department
is Italicized,
& support
departments
are included.
1.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists through behavioral changes.
BH.01A
Continue & enhance paid and earned media campaigns
(electronic, print, radio, and broadcast) to promote public
awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This includes using
new & effective methods to reach target audiences.
HIN,
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PDD,
NSD, PD, FD, ExPA,
ExA
BH.01B
Expand enforcement of school zone laws.
Location Specific
PD, STR, ExA
BH.01C
Expand current efforts for student pedestrian & bicyclist
education, safety, & awareness efforts, focusing on schools within
1/4 mile of the HIN network.
HIN, Location
Specific,
Programmatic
PD, FD, STR, PDD
BH.01D
Conduct proactive enforcement of traffic laws amongst all road
users on the HIN network, with emphasis on risk factors that
contribute to pedestrians & bicyclists being involved in motor
vehicle crashes.
HIN
PD, STR, PDD
2.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes related to speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, & aggressive driving
BH.02A
Increase visible enforcement programs, that includes
reintroducing automated enforcement & red light running
cameras. These measures can be effective in deterring drivers
from speeding & driving distracted.
Location Specific,
Programmatic
PD, STR
BH.02B
Develop roadway safety awareness & education campaigns for
people driving vehicles, in concert with enforcement efforts,
to specifically target change in road user behavior related to
speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, & aggressive
driving.
Programmatic
STR, PD, ExPA
BH.02C
Continue to evaluate & implement speed management
techniques related to roadway design, roadway surface, traffic
control, community education, and speed enforcement
Programmatic
STR, PD
2.C Reduce the number of KSI crashes related to impaired driving (Drugs & Alcohol)
BH.03A
Expand the DUI Enforcement through use of high-visibility
enforcement techniques, saturation patrols, & integrated
enforcement tactics.
Programmatic
PD, STR, NSD
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
39
FOCUS AREA :
3. PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS
REDUCE CRASH RISK INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING & BIKING BY
EXPANDING SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL EFFORTS
OBJECTIVE 3.A
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES INVOLVING PEOPLE
WALKING & BIKING WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES
REVIEW EXISTING GAPS IN PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE &
PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS
OBJECTIVE 3.B
OBJECTIVE 3.C
Implement safety improvements at 20 schools per year focused on schools on arterials,
collectors, within mobility areas, and with high equity need.
Install 20 mid-block improvements
per year
Reduce pedestrian-related fatal
crashes by 10% per year
Develop pedestrian safety toolkit by 2027
Develop a risk factor network to
identify locations with greatest risk
by 2025
Develop a plan to implement annual
improvements to mitigate risk factors
by 2027
Improve shade coverage at 60 transit stops per year
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
39
Taking Action
40
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS
STRATEGIES
5 E's: Identifies the type
of work effort connected
to the strategy
Application of
Strategy
Partners
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
HIN, Systemic,
Location
Specific,
Programmatic
The Lead
Department
is Italicized,
& support
departments
are included.
3.A Reduce crash risk involving people walking & biking by expanding safe routes to school efforts
PB.01A
Develop Safe Routes to School plans for public, private, & charter
elementary, middle, & high schools with crossings of arterial
roads, & construct recommendations.
HIN,
Programmatic
STR
PB.01B
Implement school zone safety countermeasures for school
crossings of collector roads. Develop school typologies for
prioritization.
Systemic,
Location Specific,
Programmatic
STR
3.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes involving people walking & biking with geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
PB.02A
Continue constructing mid-block crossings at priority arterial
road locations that include: HAWKs, signing, markings, & lighting
to provide a safe place for people walking & bicycling to cross.
HIN
STR
PB.02B Develop a best practice approach for pedestrian crossings to
improve safety in a context sensitive manner.
Systemic,
Programmatic
STR, PTD
PB.02C
Develop a checklist or toolkit to improve safety for pedestrians
& bicyclists through smart design choices for all to be used in
designing City of Phoenix capital improvement program projects
& private development projects.
Systemic,
Programmatic
PTD, STR
3.C Review existing gaps in pedestrian infrastructure & prioritize improvements
PB.03A
Analyze the transportation network to identify locations that
have the greatest number of risk-factors (which contribute to
pedestrian & bicyclist crashes), & then identify countermeasure
improvements.
Systemic,
Location Specific
STR, PTD, NSD,
PD, FD
PB.03B Establish natural or structural shade in pedestrian refuge &
waiting areas.
Location Specific
STR, PTD, PDD
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
41
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH SIGNAL PHASING OR TIMING
FOCUS AREA :
4. INTERSECTIONS
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES
OBJECTIVE 4.A
OBJECTIVE 4.B
OBJECTIVE 4.C
Develop geospatial process for
identifying unsignalized crashes by
2024
Develop list of priority intersections &
improvements by 2024
Complete 15 HIN intersection rebuilds
per year
Reduce KSI crashes at unsignalized
intersections by 8% per year
Evaluate the 68 HIN intersections for appropriate pedestrian safety operations & left-turn
operational improvements by 2024
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
41
Taking Action
42
INTERSECTIONS STRATEGIES
5 E's: Identifies the type
of work effort connected
to the strategy
Application of
Strategy
Partners
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
HIN, Systemic,
Location
Specific,
Programmatic
The Lead
Department
is Italicized,
& support
departments
are included.
4.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes at unsignalized intersections w/ geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
IT.01A
Develop a geospatial network screening process, that includes
the frequency & severity of crashes, for unsignalized intersections
to identify priority locations for improvements.
Systemic,
Location Specific
STR
IT.01B
For priority unsignalized intersections that do not or are not
anticipated to meet traffic signal warrant criteria, evaluate &
identify alternative countermeasures to improve traffic safety.
Systemic,
Location Specific
STR
4.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes at signalized intersections w/ geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
IT.02A
Review sight visibility at HIN intersections to ensure adequate
sight distance for left-turning vehicles. Re-stripe/reconstruct
single left turn lanes to have zero or positive offsets, where
protected lefts are not implemented.
HIN
STR
IT.02B
Continue efforts to identify existing traffic signals with legacy
equipment including lighting level, & reconstruct them to current
standards.
HIN,
Programmatic
STR
IT.02C
Install additional far-side bus bays at priority locations.
Location Specific
PTD, STR, PDD
4.C Reduce the number of KSI crashes at signalized intersections with signal phasing or timing
IT.03A
Evaluate & modify left-turn phasing at signalized intersections on
the HIN to reduce conflicting movements.
HIN,
Programmatic
STR
IT.03B
Evaluate & implement use of leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at
intersections with greatest crash risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle
collisions.
Location Specific
STR
IT.03C
Review procedure on establishing yellow change & all-red
clearance intervals.
Programmatic
STR
IT.03D
Continue to evaluate & implement ITS improvements to provide
greater signal efficiency, coordination, communication, including
piloting & evaluating adaptive traffic signal control.
Systemic
STR
IT.03E
Install emergency vehicle preemption at locations with the
greatest need.
HIN, Systemic
FD, STR
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
43
43
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | Draft Report - June 2022
FOCUS AREA :
5. SEGMENTS
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES ON ROAD CORRIDORS
WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT (REDUCING CONFLICT POINTS)
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES ON ROAD CORRIDORS BY
IMPROVING VISIBILITY, ILLUMINATION, & DRIVER EXPECTANCY
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NIGHTTIME CRASHES BY IMPLEMENTING
SYSTEMIC LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS CITYWIDE
OBJECTIVE 5.A
OBJECTIVE 5.B
OBJECTIVE 5.C
Reduce nighttime crashes by 5% Per Year
Initiate 3 single sided miles of lighting per year for the first 5 years and install a
minimum of 3 miles per year by year 3
Reduce KSI crashes on
segments by 2% per year
Install 4 Miles of Raised Medians per year with less
than 8 median breaks per mile for the first 5 Years
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
43
Taking Action
44
SEGMENTS STRATEGIES
5 E's: Identifies the type
of work effort connected
to the strategy
Application of
Strategy
Partners
Evaluation
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Equity
HIN, Systemic,
Location
Specific,
Programmatic
The Lead
Department
is Italicized,
& support
departments
are included.
5.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes on corridors with access management (reducing conflict points)
SG.01A
Update the current Access Management Standards within the
Street Planning & Design Guidelines to provide guidance for all
roadway classifications & all types of intersections, including
unsignalized intersections & driveways (full access, partial
access, left-in/left-out, & right-in/right-out).
Programmatic
STR, PTD, PDD, PD,
ExPA, ExA
SG.01B
Install raised medians on HIN corridors to reduce conflict points.
HIN
STR, PTD, PDD,
NSD PD
5.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes on road corridors by improving visibility, illumination, & driver expectancy
SG.02A
Improve street lighting luminescence & uniformity on the HIN
network at segments with the greatest nighttime crash history in
coordination with the current city street lighting standards.
HIN
STR
SG.02B
Review unbalanced lane undivided arterials (i.e., two northbound
lanes & three southbound lanes) for potential reconfiguration
based on evaluation factors such as crash rate, speed, & volume.
Programmatic
STR, PDD
5.C Reduce the number of nighttime crashes by implementing systemic lighting improvements citywide
SG.03A
Develop an approach to review & prioritize lighting improvements
(improve or create positive lighting, coverage, brightness, etc.) at
uncontrolled, marked mid-block crossings.
Programmatic,
Location Specific
STR, PDD
SG.03B
For arterial & major collector streets with single sided lighting,
add the other side of lighting in coordination with current city
lighting standards.
Location Specific
STR, PDD
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
45
BEHAVIOR RELATED
TOOLBOXES
To support the implementation of various strategies presented in this chapter, the City of Phoenix
will utilize proven best practices, guidelines, toolkits, and handbooks from external organizations
that include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). These resources are collectively referred to as toolboxes. These
toolboxes are to be used to support advancing the RSAP strategies, apply proven engineering,
enforcement, education, and evaluation designs and methods, and as quick references to determine
how to best approach and solve a traffic safety issue within the city. Below are several examples of
toolboxes presented by focus area. Appendix-C contains the entire list of toolboxes
Strategies to Coordinate Zero Deaths Efforts for State and Local Agencies, FHWA-SA-20-061, November 2020 - The document
is designed to help state and local agencies foster and build stronger relationships that support coordinated zero deaths efforts. The
document describes work toward the Safe System Approach for reaching the zero deaths goal, including managing speed for safety,
strengthening safety culture, and leveraging data and community input to prioritize changes. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
zerodeaths/docs/Strategies_for_VZ_Coordination_112020.pdf
Noteworthy Speed Management Practices, FHWA-SA-20-047, August 2020 - This report provides an avenue of information for
practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies which highlight noteworthy practices over a range of speed management issues.
The case study strategies include Strategic Speed Management Program; Self-Enforcing Roadways; Setting Credible Speed Limits; High
Visibility Enforcement; Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras; Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes; Consistent
Speed Limit for Vulnerable Road Users; and Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/
ref_mats/fhwasa20047/fhwasa20047.pdf
A Strategic Approach to Transforming Traffic Safety Culture to Reduce Deaths and Injuries, NCHRP Document 25, 2018 -
A strategic approach to transform traffic safety culture should leverage the values and change the beliefs of all relevant traffic safety
stakeholders across the social environment. The purpose of this report is to provide state agencies responsible for traffic safety (and their
traditional, as well as non-traditional, traffic safety partners) with guidance for a strategic approach to transform the traffic safety culture
of road users and stakeholders. The goal is to use this approach to sustain improvements in traffic safety for all road users, including non-
motorized users. Access: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25286#
High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Toolkit, NHTSA - Provides information on types of enforcement (Saturation Patrol, Wave, Integrated
Enforcement, and Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement), placement of HVE, visibility elements, training and measuring effectiveness. Also
provides information on publicity methods for HVE, implementation and resources on the website. In addition, NHTSA provides template
materials (press releases, talking points, posters, etc.), for the following individual program areas: Impaired Driving; Occupant Protection;
Speed/Aggressive Driving; and Distracted Driving. Access: https://www.nhtsa.gov/enforcement-justice-services/high-visibility-
enforcement-hve-toolkit
GENERAL STRATEGIES
Taking Action
46
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS
Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-22-017, April 2022 - The purpose of this
guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal
for zero fatalities and serious injuries while improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. The primary intersection types discussed
in this guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections, Reduced Crossing U-Turn
(RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges
(DDI). This guide also includes discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and alternative intersections, describes
countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections, and summarizes the application of intersection
analysis methods for the safety and mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/
fhwasa22017.pdf
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA-SA-17-072, July 2018 - This document provides
guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. By focusing on uncontrolled crossing
locations, agencies can address a significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-making guidelines. This guide
provides a Countermeasure Selection Table for uncontrolled intersections based on posted speed limit, ADT and roadway configuration.
This guide also provides a table listing the safety issues addressed by countermeasure type. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf
INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide (UIIG) Toolkit, ITE, 2015 - The purpose of the UIIG is to assist and guide users
through the process of evaluating their unsignalized intersections and identifying opportunities to enhance their safety and operational
performance. The contents of the UIIG are presented under two sections: Information and Toolkit. The Information section provides
important background material related to the types, users, common problems and treatments, and general considerations associated with
unsignalized intersections. The Toolkit provides several resources to assist the user in: (1) collecting data on the existing conditions and
characteristics of the intersection; and (2) identifying potential treatments that may improve the safety and mobility at the intersection.
Access: https://toolkits.ite.org/uiig/
Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, FTA-FL-26-7012-00, July 2017 - Provides a compendium of best practices
to help transportation professionals improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating,
planning for, and implementing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. In addition to covering key concepts such as
access sheds, connected networks, and station area comfort, safety, and legibility, the manual covers needs specific to pedestrians, such
as complete sidewalks and safe, convenient crossings, and to bicyclists, such as bicycle parking and on-transit accommodations. Access:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
47
SEGMENTS
Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Corridor Access Management, FHWA-SA-15-005, Updated
July 2020 - This Technical Summary was prepared to assist transportation professionals with decisions pertaining to Corridor Access
Management, including planning, permitting, design, selection, and implementation. This document provides a substantive overview
of important access-related issues: safety performance (i.e. crashes), effects on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and community and
business economic impacts. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15005.pdf
Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting Design, FHWA-SA-18-035,
May 2018 - Participant workbook for Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop, Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting
Design. Module 3 covers lighting design criteria, calculations, field measurements, and light pollution. Other modules include Module 1:
Roadway Lighting Design Overview, Module 2: Lighting Hardware and Light Source Considerations for Roadway Lighting, and Module
4: Other Roadway Lighting Topics. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/
Module3Workbook_021219.pdf
Taking Action
48
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
47
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
A PATH
FORWARD
49
CHAPTER 6
A Path Forward
50
20
40
60
80
100
IT.02C
IT.02C
IT.03D
IT.03D
IT.01B
IT.01B
IT.02A
IT.02A
IT.03B
IT.03B
IT.03C
IT.03C
IT.01A
IT.01A
IT.03E
IT.03E
IT.02B
IT.02B
PB.02A
PB.02A
PB.01B
PB.01B
PB.02B
PB.02B
PB.02C
PB.02C
PB.01A
PB.01A
PB.03A
PB.03A
PB.03E
PB.03E
IT.03A
IT.03A
SG.02B
SG.02B
SG.03A
SG.03A
SG.03B
SG.03B
SG.01A
SG.01A
SG.02A
SG.02A
SG.01B
SG.01B
BH.01B
BH.01B
BH.01A
BH.01A
BH.02B
BH.02B
BH.01C
BH.01C
BH.01D
BH.01D
BH.03A
BH.03A
BH.02C
BH.02C
BH.02A
BH.02A
0
Cost Level
Effectiveness & Application Score
Low (<$100k)
Medium-Low
($100k-$500k)
Medium
($500k-$1M)
Medium-High
($1M-$5M)
High (>$5M)
Legend
STRATEGY PRIORITIZATION
Recognizing resources are finite and that some actions will have a more immediate impact reducing
traffic fatalities and improving safety, the strategies presented in the previous section were prioritized
based on the following factors:
BH: Behavior Related
PB: Pedestrians & Bicyclist
IT: Intersections
SG: Segments
Effectiveness: Strategies that have been proven to have a higher impact on reducing serious and fatal crashes are
prioritized higher in this plan. Resources used to quantify strategy effectiveness include: the Crash
Modification Factors Clearinghouse, FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Association. General Strategies were not applicable and not included in this evaluation.
Application: Strategies that will be applied to the HIN are prioritized higher in this plan, with location specific,
systemic, or programmatic strategies prioritized secondarily.
Cost: Annual average cost of implementation is an additional factor for strategy prioritization in this plan.
Using these factors, the chart below illustrates each strategy’s composite effectiveness and
application score distributed by annual average cost. Each strategy serves a purpose towards the
ultimate vision of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries. Strategies closest to the lower right corner are
anticipated to have the highest benefit-cost ratio.
51
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
As the City moves forward with the goal and reducing fatal and serious injury on City streets, an
implementation plan was developed to identify the when, where, and how projects will be implemented.
This section develops a framework for moving the objectives and strategies to actionable projects,
including further details on work phases and timeline. This implementation plan is divided into three
categories based on timing, sequence, and location: Foundational Change, Systemic Implementation, &
Addressing the HIN. Strategies may apply to one or more of these categories.
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE
Foundational change strategies include internal initiatives and process improvements to support the
City’s goals of becoming a Vision Zero community, improving crash data collection and evaluation,
and creating a culture of roadway safety within the City. Foundational change strategies will serve as
the building blocks to support implementation of the other strategies within the plan and, as such, are
excluded from the previous strategy prioritization effort. Most of these strategies will be substantially
complete with one-time efforts to establish policies, procedures, or framework needed to execute
other strategies. Each foundational change strategy is provided in the following table along with a
justification statement, the process to complete the strategy, and proposed timeline for completion.
A Path Forward
52
GN.01A - CREATE A CITY OF PHOENIX INTER-DEPARTMENTAL VISION ZERO TASK FORCE
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Developing an inter-departmental task force is
a foundational element of a Vision Zero Plan. A
diverse, committed team is needed to lead in the
goal of reducing & eliminating serious injury & fatal
crashes, as many factors contribute to crash safety.
The success of the program will be dependent on
involvement from internal departments & external
stakeholders, with different knowledge, experience,
& roles, but the same shared goal of improving
safety.
-PHX RSAP Project Team to develop Vision Zero
Task Force draft framework, including the group’s
goals, growth phases, coordination schedule, &
stakeholder roles/functions.
-PHX leadership team to finalize framework
-Designation of Task Force Chair/Department
-Engagement with department supervisors for
commitment & key team members.
-Tier 1: Establish Executive Task Force
-Tier 2: Establish RSAP Implementation Team
-Tier 3: Establish Community Advisory Committee
Q4 2022 - Executive Task Force begins quarterly
meetings; RSAP Implementation Team begins
monthly meetings
Q2 2023 - Establishment of the Community Advisory
Committee with quarterly meeting cadence
GN.01B - CREATE AN ANNUAL VISION ZERO STATUS REPORT INCLUDING UPDATED CRASH STATISTICS FROM THE CRASH DASHBOARD, HIGH INJURY
NETWORK (HIN), & STATUS OF PERFORMANCE MEASURE TARGETS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
The annual Vision Zero Status Report will provide
benchmarking information on the City’s progress in
reaching safety goals. The status report is intended
to keep focus on the short term & long term goals,
provide information to the public, Council, & other
stakeholders, review effectiveness of strategies
implemented, & inform future implementation
decisions.
-Development of a crash dashboard with enhanced
evaluation features.
-Development of a high injury network (HIN).
-Development of performance measure targets.
-Development of a status report template for all
performance measure targets.
-Complete a Vision Zero Status Report once
annually, reporting on the current status of all
performance measure targets.
-Update the HIN every three years based on the
most recent five years of crash data.
Q4 2022 - Development of crash dashboard,
HIN, performance measure targets, status report
template
Q4: Annual - Data analysis for each status report
Q2: Annual - Status reports complete
GN.02A - CONTINUE TO ANALYZE SAFETY DATA ANNUALLY TO IDENTIFY HIGH SEVERITY CRASH AREAS AND IMPLEMENT COUNTERMEASURES AT
PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
The City currently conducts an annual safety review
of trends Citywide, & uses supporting data to inform
project-specific analyses throughout the year. This
strategy aims to develop more dynamic evaluation
capabilities to better understand hot spot areas
with particular crash types. The network screening
improvements could be developed to rank locations
based on crash frequency, crash severity, & user
type. Potential evaluations include: top signalized
intersections by left-turn & angle crashes, top
unsignalized intersections by left-turn & angle
crashes, top segments by pedestrian crashes, top
intersections by percent of nighttime collisions, top
segments by percent of nighttime collisions, most
crashes within a set radius of a school, top locations
by children & elderly pedestrian crashes, top
locations involving transit corridors, & consideration
of equity factors.
-Integrate a more frequent data transfer (weekly/
monthly) for the Streets Department to obtain new
crash data for analysis.
-Collaborate to identify the network screening
features desired.
-Integrate GIS elements with crash data (equity,
traffic signals, HAWKs, unsignalized intersections,
street lighting, transit corridors, etc.).
-Develop features within the crash dashboard to
quickly query data.
Q1 2023 - Integration of automated crash data
transfer & GIS elements
Q3 2023 - Development of evaluation features
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES
53
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
GN.02B - IMPROVE CRASH DATA SHARING BETWEEN THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, & ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Crash data is initially collected & reviewed by
Phoenix PD, reported to ADOT, reviewed/scrubbed
through ADOT, & shared back to Phoenix Streets
on an annual basis for crash data analysis.
Improvements to the crash data sharing process are
intended to reduce the data latency between the
date of a crash & the date in which it is available for
review by Phoenix Streets.
-Method A: ADOT Data Transfer
•Establish an FTP to share crash data directly from
ADOT, on a more frequent basis (weekly or monthly).
•Develop connections to integrate the data format
directly into the existing crash data dashboard.
-Method B: Phoenix PD Data Transfer
•Establish an FTP to share crash data directly
between departments, from PHX PD to Streets, on a
more frequent basis (weekly or monthly).
•Develop connections to integrate the data format
directly into the existing crash data dashboard.
Q1 2023 - Establish crash data connection(s)
Q3 2023 - Integrate fully within dashboard
GN.02C - CONTINUE TO CONDUCT ROAD SAFETY AUDITS (RSA), FOCUSING ON THE HIN, TO IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE COUNTERMEASURES; DEVELOP &
IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES THROUGH PROJECTS AT THESE LOCATIONS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
The formal RSA program is funded by the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG), based on
the intersections ranking highest in safety need.
The MAG list of Top 100 intersections, published
every few years, typically includes a significant
number of locations within Phoenix. When Phoenix
intersections are selected for study, continue
support & involvement from Phoenix staff to
provide background information on existing
issues, participate in discussion of proposed
recommendations, & develop a response to each
proposed recommendation.
-Continue to submit applications for the MAG Road
Safety Assessment Program to conduct RSAs at
intersections, along corridors, & in conjunction with
preliminary design of projects on the HIN.
-Identify candidate locations by crosschecking the
MAG Top 100 list with the City’s HIN & excluding any
past RSA locations or recently completed safety
improvement projects.
-Designate one staff position within Traffic Services
to identify & pursue funding sources (outside
of CIP funds) to support safety improvement
implementation.
Continuous
GN.02D - ENHANCE AND STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT RSA RECOMMENDATIONS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
RSAs generate a list of recommendations to
improve safety at an intersection, ranging from
signing & marking, signal operation & phasing,
ADA considerations, access management, & minor
maintenance items. The improvement efforts are
carried out by various teams within the City (signals,
sign shop, police, fire, maintenance, transit, etc.)
& tracking the status of ongoing improvements is
currently challenging.
-Designate one staff position within Traffic
Services to manage the documentation of RSA
recommendations (excluding maintenance items)
& obtain feedback from internal staff and other
departments (Transit, PD, etc.) to program the
improvements.
-Improve collaboration between departments on
RSA recommendations that are not led by Streets
(Transit, PD, etc.)
-Following implementation of safety improvements,
conduct before & after evaluations to track the
changes/benefits of the improvements. The
evaluation is recommended to include 3 years of
data before & after the improvements.
Q3 2023 -Create central tracking process to
program safety
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
A Path Forward
54
GN.03A - INCORPORATE ANALYSIS OF CRASH HISTORY & COUNTERMEASURES SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY OF PHOENIX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS & PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Evaluation of crash data & safety trends is an
important aspect as the City plans for & implements
projects. A historical crash review & associated
countermeasure identification is recommended
to be added as a required element in CIP project
development & in the private development review
process.
-Review CIP program types to identify which should
require crash evaluation in planning process, &
which may be excluded.
-City management engagement to facilitate
coordination between Streets & other involved
departments for CIP process modifications.
-Streets to develop proposed criteria for crash data
evaluation (number of years, intersection radius,
segment bounds, reporting summaries).
-Create process flow & assign responsibility to staff
person who will query crashes using dashboard or
provide methodology for submitter to be able to pull
key crash information.
Continuous - Begin in 2023
GN.03B - MAKE THE ROAD SAFETY CRASH DASHBOARD AVAILABLE TO CITY STAFF TO ACCESS FOR ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTERMEASURES
INTO CITY PRACTICES.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Safety reviews help the City make fiscally
responsible decisions & to improve the safety for
all roadway users. The objective of the road safety
crash dashboard is to extract useful information
from centrally stored safety data & display the
information using graphs, tables, maps & other
visualizations so that staff across departments
(e.g. project-specific stakeholders) can make
informed decisions. Providing department access
to this tool will reduce the risk of schedule delays
when incorporating safety reviews in projects &
encourage involvement in safety review in other
departments, outside of Streets.
-Establish an FTP to share crash data directly from
ADOT, on a more frequent basis (weekly or monthly).
-Broaden geographical analysis of crash data to
include crashes near jurisdictional boundaries with
other agencies.
-Develop a crash dashboard that allows crash data
to be more easily accessible & provide enhanced
analytics.
-Improve investigation & procedural requirements
to shorten time from when a fatal or serious injury
motor vehicle crash occurs & when the records are
submitted to ADOT.
Q1 2023 - Establish crash data connection(s)
Q3 2023 - Integrate crash data scrubbing elements
Q4 2024 - Improve timeframe for submitting fatal
crash records to ADOT
GN.03C - INCORPORATE A VISION ZERO COMPONENT INTO REQUIRED DRIVER TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR CITY OF PHOENIX EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING
MUNICIPAL COURTS) & CONTRACTORS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
The City of Phoenix has more than 14,000
employees working across 35 departments. Both
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) & the National Highway Traffic
Administration (NHTSA), agree that by implementing
an effective program of corporate driver training,
the number of crashes your employees might be
involved in will be dramatically lowered. Instilling &
reinforcing Vision Zero safe driving practices for city
staff & contractors reduces the likelihood that they
contribute to serious & fatal accidents.
-Work with appropriate team member to add a
Vision Zero component to required employee
on-boarding & annual training. Expand this training
to the Municipal Courts.
-Create & publish a series of webinars or videos to
provide Vision Zero training specific to the City of
Phoenix.
-Ask vendors registered with ProcurePHX to
self-certify that key personnel have participated in
Phoenix’s Vision Zero Training within the past three
years.
Q3 2023 - Add Vision Zero component for internal
staff training & expand
Q2 2023 - Publish Vision Zero Training
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
55
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
GN.03D - DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A LIST OF PRIORITIZED PLANNING, PRE-DESIGN, DESIGN, & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN PURSUIT OF LOCAL, STATE,
FEDERAL, & PRIVATE GRANT FUNDING AS APPROPRIATE.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Maintaining a list of prioritized projects will
streamline application processes as new funding
opportunities become available. Maintaining the
prioritized list will reduce delay and deliberation
during the grant application process, and will
allow City staff to focus time into crafting the best
applications possible to be selected for funding.
-The projects listed in the “Addressing the HIN”
section of this chapter will serve as the initial list of
prioritized projects.
-As the HIN is updated in the future, new locations
will be identified and prioritized based on the
number of historical KSI crashes or predicted injury
crashes.
Continuous
GN.03E - INCORPORATE USE OF USLIMITS2, A FREE, WEB-BASED TOOL, TO ASSESS & ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY
WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY, ON-STREET PARKING, MORE THAN 30 DRIVEWAYS PER MILE, OR ABOVE AVERAGE CRASH HISTORY.
USLIMITS2 PRODUCES AN UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE SUGGESTED SPEED LIMIT VALUE BASED ON 50TH AND 85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS, TRAFFIC
VOLUMES, ROADWAY TYPE, ROADWAY SETTING, NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS, CRASH HISTORY, & PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
The City of Phoenix has authority per ARS 28-703
to set appropriate speed limits on the basis of
an engineering & traffic investigation. There is
broad consensus among global roadway safety
experts that speed control is one of the most
critical methods to reduce the significant risks
drivers impose on others—especially vulnerable
road users—and on themselves. Addressing speed
is fundamental to the Safe System Approach for
reducing fatalities and serious injuries.
-Use USLIMITS2 at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/
-Document the factors or thresholds that constitute
“high pedestrian/bicyclist activity” beyond the
examples provided in the user guide.
-Determine the average crash rate per 100 million
vehicle miles for different types of roads in the City
of Phoenix to replace the national Highway Safety
Information System (HSIS) rates.
-Determine the average injury & fatal rates for
different types of roads in the City of Phoenix to
replace the national HSIS rates.
Q4 2022 - Begin
PB.02B - DEVELOP A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS TO IMPROVE SAFETY IN A CONTEXT SENSITIVE MANNER.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Judgment on the application of a marked crosswalk
should be based on multiple factors, including
land uses, present & future demand, pedestrian
compliance, speed, safety, and crash history.
Volumes alone are not enough to determine
whether or not a particular device should be used.
The presence of a marked crosswalk does not
in & of itself render a street safe. Based on their
surrounding context, speed, & overall roadway
width, marked crosswalks often require additional
safety measures such as safety islands, signals, or
traffic calming.
-Establish process to standardize all uncontrolled
marked crosswalk locations.
-Set up annual reviews of marked crosswalk
locations for maintenance purposes.
-Develop & implement warrant criteria for when to
designate a new crossing location.
Q4 2022 - Establish new crossing warrant criteria
Q4 2023 - Complete standardization process for
uncontrolled locations; Establish annual review
cadence of crosswalk locations
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
A Path Forward
56
PB.02C - DEVELOP A CHECKLIST OR TOOLKIT TO IMPROVE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS THROUGH SMART DESIGN CHOICES FOR ALL TO BE
USED IN DESIGNING CITY OF PHOENIX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS & PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
Justification
Process Phases
Timeline
Checklists can help professionals identify roadway
crash risk early on in the lifespan of a project.
Early identification of issues allows time for safety
countermeasures to be identified, evaluated, &
budgeted for during final design & construction.
Checklists offer a systematic procedure that
empowers staff & other professionals to play a
role in road safety without extensive training or
education in road safety principles. Checklists may
be complemented by design toolkits, which provide
further guidance for the application of specific
countermeasures given site-specific conditions.
-Develop a fillable form PDF checklist that guides
the user in design choices that are likely to improve
safety for pedestrians & bicyclists. Reference
existing toolkits when available.
-Develop internal & external processes for use of
the checklist.
Q4 2023 - Implement for CIP Program
Q2 2024 - Implement for private development
projects
FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
57
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
SYSTEMIC IMPLEMENTATION
Expanding beyond the HIN, systemic implementation takes a broader view and addresses risk across
the City’s entire roadway system. A systemic safety approach involves continuous evaluation,
engineering, enforcement, and education initiatives to allocate resources to proactively address safety
concerns. Systemic actions build upon resources and programs the City already has and may have
an annual implementation goal to track progress. The strategies identified in this plan target the City’s
high risk crash types and should be widely implemented as resources allow. Most of these strategies
will be continually implemented through annual programs. The following sections are organized by 4
of the 5E’s and recommend actions to start in the first year of plan implementation. The 5th E, Equity,
is incorporated for each strategy during project development and prioritization, and thus, does not
have a dedicated table.
A Path Forward
58
SYSTEMIC EVALUATION
Quality data is the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of roadways. The
combination of analyzing crash, roadway and traffic data leads to more precise and prioritized safety decisions. Safety analysis
helps the City make decisions that are fiscally responsible and to improve the safety of the roadway for all users. Phoenix has
been conducting safety analysis for decades to better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to inform the CIP and
respond to citizen feedback and input from elected officials. The City receives 50 to 70 requests for traffic signals and 40 to 50
requests for signalized mid-block pedestrian crossings (HAWKs) each year. To advance the City’s ability to incorporate explicit,
quantitative consideration of safety into planning and project development decision making, several safety enhancements
and process changes will be made to: modernize and manage existing safety analysis tools in a centralized database and
software system, implement city-wide network screening to identify candidate locations, update evaluation and prioritization
methodologies, implement a centralized tracking system for traffic and safety study requests, incorporate available safety
analysis tools at the project level including USLIMITS2 and IHSDM, shorten the installation time for safety countermeasures, and
record outcome data to measure progress over time.
FIRST YEAR EVALUATION ACTIONS:
PB.02A: CONTINUE TO ANALYZE SAFETY DATA ANNUALLY TO IDENTIFY HIGH SEVERITY CRASH AREAS & IMPLEMENT COUNTERMEASURES
AT PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS.
•
Re-instate collection of traffic volumes city-wide on arterials and major collectors at least once every three years.
•
Modernize existing safety analysis tools in a centralized database and software system. (UNDERWAY)
GN.02B: IMPROVE CRASH DATA SHARING BETWEEN THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, & ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (UNDERWAY)
GN.03B: MAKE THE ROAD SAFETY CRASH DASHBOARD AVAILABLE TO CITY STAFF TO ACCESS FOR ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT OF
COUNTERMEASURES INTO CITY PRACTICES. (UNDERWAY)
GN.03E: INCORPORATE USE OF USLIMITS2, A FREE, WEB-BASED TOOL, TO ASSESS AND ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS
OF ROADWAY WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY, ON-STREET PARKING, MORE THAN 30 DRIVEWAYS PER MILE, OR
ABOVE AVERAGE CRASH HISTORY.
PB.03A: ANALYZE THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS THAT HAVE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF RISK-FACTORS
(WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST CRASHES), & THEN IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURE IMPROVEMENTS.
2-5 YEAR EVALUATION ACTIONS:
BH.02C: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE & IMPLEMENT SPEED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES RELATED TO ROADWAY DESIGN, ROADWAY SURFACE,
TRAFFIC CONTROL, COMMUNITY EDUCATION, AND SPEED ENFORCEMENT. (UNDERWAY)
PB.01B: IMPLEMENT SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS OF COLLECTOR ROADS. DEVELOP SCHOOL
TYPOLOGIES FOR PRIORITIZATION.
IT.03B: DEVELOP A GEOSPATIAL NETWORK SCREENING PROCESS, THAT INCLUDES THE FREQUENCY & SEVERITY OF CRASHES, FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TO IDENTIFY PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
59
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Engineering strategies address roadway safety through roadway design, traffic engineering, maintenance, operations, and
planning. Certain strategies are better suited for widespread implementation across the City to proactively address crash risk or
to provide consistency and equitability. Additionally, some engineering strategies are currently being targeted for location-based
implementation on the HIN because there are limited resources to allocate. In future years, as those locations are addressed and
additional funding may become available, the strategies identified in this plan will continue to merit widespread implementation
to accelerate the achievement of safety goals. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the Street Transportation Department
includes a comprehensive pavement maintenance program, improvements to existing streets for mobility and safety issues,
technology upgrades to signals, building new street and drainage infrastructure, expanding roadways, and much more. The
2020-2025 five-year program will provide over $750 million in improvements to the City’s infrastructure. As these CIP projects
are implemented, they should be viewed through a safety lens to determine applicable road safety strategies to incorporate.
FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING ACTIONS:
PB.02A: CONTINUE CONSTRUCTING MIDBLOCK CROSSINGS AT PRIORITY ARTERIAL ROAD LOCATIONS THAT INCLUDE: HAWKS, SIGNING,
MARKINGS, & LIGHTING TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PEOPLE WALKING & BICYCLING TO CROSS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 95; 20 PER YEAR AT $440K EACH.
PB.01A: DEVELOP SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLANS FOR PUBLIC, PRIVATE, & CHARTER ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, & HIGH SCHOOLS WITH
CROSSINGS OF ARTERIAL ROADS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70; 20 STUDIES OR INSTALLATIONS PER YEAR AT $40K EACH.
IT.03B: CONTINUE EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI) AT INTERSECTIONS WITH GREATEST
CRASH RISK OF PEDESTRIAN-MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55; INSTALL AT 30 LOCATIONS PER YEAR, ASSUME 10 INVOLVE NEW CONTROLLERS ($35K
EACH) AND 20 CAN USE EXISTING EQUIPMENT ($1K).
SG.03A:
DEVELOP AN APPROACH TO REVIEW & PRIORITIZE LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVE OR CREATE POSITIVE LIGHTING,
COVERAGE, BRIGHTNESS, ETC.) AT UNCONTROLLED, MARKED MIDBLOCK CROSSINGS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55; 10 LOCATIONS PER YEAR (20 NEW STREETLIGHTS) AT $20K EACH.
SG.03B: FOR ARTERIAL & MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS WITH SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING, ADD THE OTHER SIDE OF LIGHTING IN COORDINATION
WITH CURRENT CITY LIGHTING STANDARDS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 53; 2 MILES OF SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING PER YEAR AT $585K PER MILE.
PB.03E: ESTABLISH NATURAL OR STRUCTURAL SHADE IN PEDESTRIAN REFUGE & WAITING AREAS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 15; SHADE INSTALLATION AT 60 TRANSIT STOPS PER YEAR AT $8K EACH.
IT.02B: CONTINUE EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH LEGACY EQUIPMENT INCLUDING LIGHTING LEVEL, &
RECONSTRUCT THEM TO CURRENT STANDARDS. (UNDERWAY) EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100 ; REBUILD 15 HIN
INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR AT $1M EACH.
IT.03D: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE & IMPLEMENT ITS IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE GREATER SIGNAL EFFICIENCY, COORDINATION,
COMMUNICATION, INCLUDING PILOTING & EVALUATING ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL. (UNDERWAY) EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 30; 18 INTERSECTIONS AT $55K EACH.
SYSTEMIC ENGINEERING
A Path Forward
60
2-5 YEAR ENGINEERING ACTIONS:
PB.01B: IMPLEMENT SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS OF COLLECTOR ROADS. DEVELOP SCHOOL
TYPOLOGIES FOR PRIORITIZATION. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 85; IMPLEMENT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT 20
SCHOOLS PER YEAR AT $500K EACH.
IT.01B: FOR PRIORITY UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS THAT DO NOT OR ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO MEET TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
CRITERIA, EVALUATE & IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE COUNTERMEASURES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION
SCORE = 65; COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS AT 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR AT $150K EACH.
IT.02A: REVIEW SIGHT VISIBILITY AT HIN INTERSECTIONS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR LEFT-TURNING VEHICLES. RE-
STRIPE/RECONSTRUCT SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES TO HAVE ZERO OR POSITIVE OFFSETS, WHERE PROTECTED LEFTS ARE NOT
IMPLEMENTED. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 80; CORRECT LEFT TURN OFFSET ISSUES AT 10 INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR
AT $250K EACH.
IT.02C: INSTALL ADDITIONAL FAR-SIDE BUS BAYS AT PRIORITY LOCATIONS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 15; INSTALL 5 FAR-
SIDE BUS BAYS PER YEAR AT $200K EACH.
IT.03A: EVALUATE & MODIFY LEFT-TURN PHASING AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ON THE HIN TO REDUCE CONFLICTING MOVEMENTS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100; 10 LOCATIONS AT $4.5K WITH SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS OF 150K EACH.
IT.03C: REVIEW PROCEDURE ON ESTABLISHING YELLOW CHANGE & ALL-RED CLEARANCE INTERVALS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION
SCORE = 40; STUDY/COMMUNICATIONS EFFORT EST. $150K.
IT.03E: INSTALL EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION AT LOCATIONS WITH THE GREATEST NEED. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE =
60; INSTALL/UPGRADE EVP AT 10 LOCATIONS PER YEAR AT $20K PER INTERSECTION.
SG.01A: UPDATE THE CURRENT ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE STREET PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES TO PROVIDE
GUIDANCE FOR ALL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS & ALL TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS &
DRIVEWAYS (FULL ACCESS, PARTIAL ACCESS, LEFT-IN/LEFT-OUT, & RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT). EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE
= 60; STUDY/DESIGN GUIDE EST. $325K.
SG.01B: INSTALL RAISED MEDIANS ON HIN CORRIDORS TO REDUCE CONFLICT POINTS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100;
INSTALL 4 MILES OF RAISED MEDIAN PER YEAR AT $2.25M PER MILE.
SG.02A:
IMPROVE STREET LIGHTING LUMINESCENCE & UNIFORMITY ON THE HIN NETWORK AT SEGMENTS WITH THE GREATEST
NIGHTTIME CRASH HISTORY IN COORDINATION WITH THE CURRENT CITY STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS. EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 100; 3 MILES OF SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING PER YEAR AT $585K PER MILE.
SG.02B: REVIEW UNBALANCED LANE UNDIVIDED ARTERIALS (I.E., TWO NORTHBOUND LANES & THREE SOUTHBOUND LANES) FOR
POTENTIAL RECONFIGURATION BASED ON EVALUATION FACTORS SUCH AS CRASH RATE, SPEED, & VOLUME. EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 70; IMPROVE 2 MILES PER YEAR AT $1M PER MILE.
61
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
The two primary goals of traffic law enforcement are to: promote sustained compliance with traffic laws through deterrence
and prevent risky traffic situations from occurring and thus preventing or reducing the number of motor vehicle crashes. Some
roadway users will ignore traffic laws if they perceive that their actions will not be detected or enforced, even with the potential
of fines, mandatory training (loss of time), and losing licensure. In general, road users obey road rules when they perceive a
substantial risk. Deterrence through enforcement should be: 1) accompanied by widespread publicity, 2) unpredictable and
difficult to avoid, 3) a mix of highly visible and less visible activities, 4) continued over a long period of time, and 5) well
resourced.
A goal of this plan is to further integrate the five E’s (evaluation, engineering, enforcement, education, and equity) into different
City Departments. Collaboration between the Street Transportation Department and Police Department will bolster enforcement
efforts with crash analysis (evaluation) to inform resource allocation and targeted areas for enforcement such as types of
crashes, factors, days of the week, times of the day, and locations.
Law enforcement agencies across the United States are struggling to recruit and hire police officers. It is anticipated to take
multiple years to expand staffing for the Traffic Bureau to achieve greater performance metrics in the area of enforcement. The
current performance metrics align with existing staff levels and may be reviewed and revised in the future.
FIRST YEAR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:
BH.01D: PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT ON THE HIN, WITH EMPHASIS ON RISK FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST
RELATED CRASHES. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 80
BH.03A: EXPANDED DUI ENFORCEMENT. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70
BH.01B: EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL ZONE LAWS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55
BH.02A: EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT FOR USER BEHAVIOR ISSUES – SPEEDING, RED-LIGHT RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, AGGRESSIVE
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 50
SYSTEMIC ENFORCEMENT
A Path Forward
62
SYSTEMIC EDUCATION
The behavior of drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists is the human factor element in traffic crashes. Traffic safety
education is an integral component in changing behavior and encouraging safety in every trip, whether it is walking, biking,
riding transit, or driving.
Awareness campaigns are important tools of systemic education. The objective of Phoenix’s Vision Zero awareness campaigns
are to educate the public and encourage safe behaviors for all road users specifically targeting change in road user behavior
related to speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, impaired driving and address crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists. These campaigns will include:
Organic Grassroots Outreach. Most programs are community-based and involve local, grassroots organizations (i.e., schools,
faith-based, business, service/civic/social, advocacy, public health) and law enforcement agencies, that can help to sustain and
institutionalize the initiative. These potential partners are able to connect to the public as they speak as community members,
supporters and friends to audiences who – as employers, students, parishioners, customers, members, etc. – are naturally
receptive to their messages. Organic campaigns featuring reels, challenges and videos will be created on Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram and cross shared with school districts, to promote eye-catching statistics and safe road-use tips. Additional outreach
items such as stickers may be developed for distribution.
Paid Media. Messaging will be developed and displayed through multiple channels, including billboards near freeways, and
via social media campaigns on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Statewide TV & radio PSA spots will be developed in English
& Spanish and boosted with YouTube and Google Ads.
FIRST YEAR ACTIONS (EDUCATION):
BH.01C: EXPAND CURRENT EFFORTS FOR STUDENT PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST EDUCATION, SAFETY, & AWARENESS EFFORTS, FOCUSING
ON SCHOOLS WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THE HIN NETWORK. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 75
BH.02B: DEVELOP ROADWAY SAFETY AWARENESS & EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS FOR PEOPLE DRIVING VEHICLES, IN CONCERT WITH
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS, TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET CHANGE IN ROAD USER BEHAVIOR RELATED TO SPEEDING, RED-LIGHT
RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, & AGGRESSIVE DRIVING. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70
BH.01A: CONTINUE & ENHANCE PAID AND EARNED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS (ELECTRONIC, PRINT, RADIO, AND BROADCAST) TO PROMOTE
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY. THIS INCLUDES USING NEW & EFFECTIVE METHODS TO REACH
TARGET AUDIENCES. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 60
63
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
The amount of KSI crashes at/on the location. Locations were rank ordered by amount of KSI crashes in
that project catagory, then the catagory was divided into thirds: Tier 1, 2, and 3.
Within each Tier, the locations were prioritized in an area of need determined by the Phoenix RSAP Equity
Analysis. If the location is either fully in, adjacent - one side, or at least one corner (intersections) it is noted
as a ‘yes.’
Status of location/project. The intent of this information is to help determine what RSAP strategies should
be implemented at these locations. The status of the location/project are RC = recently completed, PC =
partially completed, P = programmed in the upcoming Phoenix Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or F =
future project is needed.
ADDRESSING THE HIN
Projects targeted within the first five years of the Road Safety Action Plan adoption are focused on the
geographic locations within the City with the greatest demonstrated pattern of motor vehicle crashes
resulting in fatalities and serious injuries – the High Injury Network (HIN). Projects implemented on
the HIN will have the highest immediate impact on safety and will be prioritized for funding and
implementation. Locations from the HIN are grouped into three project type categories that identify
the overarching characteristics of improvements: Intersections, Segments, and Composite (Segments
+ Intersections). Several Intersection locations on the HIN have been recently addressed by the City,
and thus have been removed from these lists. To determine which locations should be prioritized, three
factors were applied per project category:
-
-
-
Additionally, key crash characteristics are identified per location providing a snapshot of the factors
and crash types that have occurred at this location from the 5-year crash data (2015-2019). This
will be used to identify RSAP Strategies and other safety countermeasures to develop the context
sensitive solutions to incorporate into the scope of work for each project. RSAP strategies that will
be evaluated for integration into these projects include GN.03E, BH.01D, BH.02A, PB.02A, PB.02B, PB.02C,
PB.03E, IT.01A, IT.01B, IT.02A, IT.02B, IT.03C, IT.03A, IT.03B, IT.03C, IT.03D, IT.03E, SG.01A, SG.01B, SG.02A,
SG.02B, SG.03A, and SG.03B.
Moving from analysis and identifying improvements on the HIN is just the first step in constructing
a project and/or making operational changes. While some quick build options can be done in the
short term, many of these locations require a three-phase project development process that includes
design, right-of-way and utilities, and construction. Depending on the complexity of the location and
type of delivery method, each phase could take 1 to 1.5 years to complete, which leads to a 3 to 4.5
year project completion timeline. All HIN locations ranked by priority are displayed in the following
tables.
A Path Forward
64
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
35th Ave & Glendale Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 50% Left-Turn (LT) crashes
- 50% nighttime
- 3 ped & 1 bike crashes (40%)
- Fatal crash ped south of crosswalk
P
Mcdowell Rd & 51st Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 56% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 44% peds (3 on west leg)
- 75% peds at night or dawn/dusk
- Fatal at night
- Decreasing by year
P
Thomas Rd & 51st Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 33% peds
- 33% LT crashes
- Decreasing by year
- 66% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 67% fatals are peds
F
16th St & Southern Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- Crashes declining by year
- 2 ped & 1 bike crash
- Both ped crashes fatal
- 38% nighttime
F
19th Ave & Peoria Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 4 ped crashes & 1 bike crash (63%)
- Both fatals are peds
- 38% LT crashes / 50% other
- 5 nighttime & 1 dawn/dusk (75%)
F
75th Ave &
Indian School Rd
1
Yes
Yes
- 63% LT crashes
- 50% nighttime
- Fatal crash (ped at night)
P
Broadway Rd & 7th St
1
Yes
Yes
- 63% < 25 years old
- 50% LT crashes
- 63% nighttime
- Decreasing by year
- 0 ped/bike crashes
F
43rd Ave & Peoria Ave
1
No
Yes
- 50% LT crashes
- 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 2 ped &1 bike crash (21%)
- 43% in 2018
F
Union Hills Dr & 19th Ave
1
No
Yes
- 4 ped and 1 bike crash (45%)
- 54% Nighttime
- 36% LT crashes
- Both fatals in 2020
- Both fatals at night
F
Cave Creek Rd & Union
Hills Dr
1
No
Yes
- 30% Nighttime
- 50% LT crashes
- 50% ped, bike or not reported
- Highest 2016 & 2020
F
HIN INTERSECTIONS
65
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
51st Ave & Thunderbird Rd
1
No
Yes
- Decreasing by year
- 44% LT crashes
- 44% angle crashes
- 56% at night
- 58% <30 years old
F
7th Ave & Bell Rd
1
No
Yes
- 56% LT crashes
- 2 peds & 2 bikes (44%)
- 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- Both peds fatal at night
- 56% in 2017
P
Greenway Pkwy & Cave
Creek Rd
1
No
Yes
- Declining by year
- 56% LT crashes
- 1 ped & 1 Bike (22%)
- 44% nighttime
- 67% fatals at night
- 47% <25 years old
F
Indian School Rd & 3rd St
1
No
No
- 2 fatal crashes (22%)
- 2 ped crashes & 1 bike crash (33%)
- 56% LT crashes
- 44% in 2019
P
16th St & Broadway Rd
2
Yes
Yes
- 43% nighttime
- 43% ped crashes
- Fatal crash (ped at night)
- 28% angle crashes
- 28% LT crashes
- 59% < age 30
P
19th Ave & Southern Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 57% nighttime
- 1 ped crash (fatal & nighttime)
- 73% <30 years old
- 28% LT crash
- 28% rear end crash
P
75th Ave & Thomas Rd
2
Yes
Yes
- 43% LT crashes
- 29% angle crashes
- 57% nighttime
- Fatal crash (ped at night)
P
7th St & Cave Creek Rd &
Dunlap Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 71% in 2020
- 43% LT crashes
- 29% angle crashes
- 0 nighttime
- 0 ped/bike crashes
F
Lower Buckeye Rd & 35th
Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 71% angle crashes
- 57% in 2017
- 57% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 Ped/bike
P
HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
A Path Forward
66
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
19th Ave & Thunderbird Rd
2
Yes
Yes
- 33% Nighttime
- Constant all years
- 1 ped crash (night)
F
19th Ave and Dunlap Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 83% peds
- 17% bike
- 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 50% in 2019
- 1 fatal (Bike crash)
F
27th Ave & Indian School
Rd
2
Yes
Yes
- 50% peds
- 83% nighttime
- 50% in 2016
- Both fatals are ped crashes at night
- 33% angle crashes
F
35th Ave & Southern Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 33% LT crashes
- 50% in 2019
- 1 bike crash in 2017
- 1 nighttime crash
P
35th Ave & Thunderbird Rd
2
Yes
Yes
- 50% LT crashes
- 67% nighttime
- 1 ped crash
- 1 fatal in 2020
- 55% <25 years
F
39th Ave & Southern Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 50% fatal
- 67% ped crashes
- 83% nighttime
- 50% in 2020
P
48th St & Chandler Blvd
2
No
No
- 86% LT crashes
- Both fatals in 2018
- Both fatals LT
- 1 nighttime/1 unk.
- 2016 to 2018 only
F
48th St & Mcdowell Rd
2
No
No
- 57% ped crashes
- Ped crash fatal at night
- 57% nighttime
- 43% LT crashes
- 61% <30 years old
F
Deer Valley Dr & 27th Ave
2
No
No
- 28% ped crashes (both night or dawn/dusk)
- 71% LT
- 57% night or dawn/dusk
F
27th Ave & Beardsley Rd
2
No
No
- 50% same Dir SS
- 67% 2018, 33% 2018
- 33% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 ped/bike
F
HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
67
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
43rd Ave & Van Buren St
3
Yes
Yes
- 67% nighttime
- 50% LT crashes
- 1 Bike crash (nighttime)
F
59th Ave & Mcdowell Rd
3
Yes
Yes
- 50% LT crashes
- 2 Ped crashes (1 at night)
- 50% in 2017
- 1 nighttime crash
F
67th Ave & Osborn Rd
3
Yes
Yes
- 50% Angle crashes
- 33% LT crashes
- 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 Ped/bike crashes
F
83rd Ave & Thomas Rd
3
Yes
Yes
- 50% nighttime (2 in AM)
- Both fatal crashes at night (AM)
- 50% LT crashes
- 83% in 2020
- Ped crash at night
F
Broadway Rd & 35th Ave
3
Yes
Yes
- 1 ped & 1 bike (33%)
- 33% nighttime
- 67% LT crashes
- 50% in 2018
F
Buckeye Rd & 27th Ave
3
Yes
Yes
- 50% angle crashes
- 67% in 2016
- 33% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- Decreasing by year
- 0 ped/bike crashes
P
48th St & Baseline Rd
3
No
No
- 50% LT crashes
- Fatal - dawn/dusk
- Crashes increasing
- 0 ped/bike crashes
P
51st Ave & Union Hills Dr
3
No
No
- 67% LT crashes
- 50% nighttime
- 2016 & 2019 worst
P
Deer Valley Rd & 23rd Ave
3
No
No
- 33% single vehicle
- 57% <30 years old
F
Northern Ave & 7th St
3
No
Yes
- 67% LT crashes
- 33% nighttime
- 50% in 2017
- 0 ped/bike
F
HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
A Path Forward
68
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Washington St & 44th St
3
No
No
- 2 peds & 1 bike (33%)
- 67% nighttime
- 50% angle crashes
- 50% in 2019
F
Thunderbird Rd & 43rd Ave
3
No
No
- 53% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist
- Unusually high number of fatal crashes
- Total crashes have declined from a peak in 2017, but fatal
crashes have remained constant every year
F
HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
69
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
35th Ave Moreland
to Van Buren
1
Yes
Yes
- 8 ped crashes (32% of all crashes) accounted for 4 fatalities
(57%). All but 1 ped crash were within 300' of a signalized
intersection
- 1 bicyclist crash accounted for an additional fatality
- Near even mix of daytime and darkness crashes
P
7th St: Hatcher Rd
to Mountain View Rd
1
Yes
Yes
- 55% peds (2 fatal)
- 1 bike crash (fatal)
- 64% nighttime
- 55% in 2017
- 27% fatal
P
51st Ave: Roosevelt St
to McDowell Rd
1
Yes
Yes
- 57% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 29% peds
- 36% in 2018
- 29% angle & 21% LT crashes
- 36% in I-10 interchange
F
Indian School Rd: 27th Ave
to 19th Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 33% of crashes involved a ped, including 3 of 4 fatals
- Note: Existing PHB at Grand Canal crossing (east of 23rd Ave)
was not in place during entire crash analysis period. Installed in
2019
- 57% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/dusk
PC
19th Ave: Hatcher
to Mountain View Rd.
1
Yes
Yes
- 60% nighttime
- 60% LT crashes
- 20% ped (at night)
- Fatal at Vogel (at night)
F
27th Ave: Campbell Ave
to Camelback Rd
1
Yes
Yes
- 47% nighttime
- 40% peds
- 40% fatal
- 47% LT or angle crashes
P
McDowell Rd: 40th St
to 44th St
1
Yes
No
- 53% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist
- Unusually high number of fatal crashes
- Total crashes have declined from a peak in 2017, but fatal
crashes have remained constant every year
- Crashes concentrated from 40th to 43rd St
PC
McDowell Rd: 24th St
to 28th St
1
Yes
Yes
- 42% nighttime
- 33% peds
- 1 bike
F
Indian School: 7th Street
wto 12th Street
1
No
Yes
- 71% ped (2 fatal)
- 29% fatal (100% at night)
- 86% nighttime
P
Carefree Hwy: N North
Valley Pkwy to I-17
(eastside)
1
No
No
Further review needed
F
HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS
A Path Forward
70
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Union Hills Dr: 27th Ave
to I-17
1
No
No
- No nighttime crashes
- All crashes of different types
- No ped or bike crashes
F
Thunderbird Rd: 30th Ave
to 26th Ave
1
No
Yes
- No crashes in 2020
- No ped or bike crashes
- Most crashes (67%) have left-turn collision manner
- Equal mix of daytime and dark crashes
- Most common crash location: traffic signal at 2900 W
F
43rd Ave: Thomas
to Indian School
2
Yes
Yes
- 40% peds
- 70% nighttime
- 40% in 2016
- 20% fatal (peds at Pinchot/Verde)
RC, P
43rd Ave: McDowell
to Encanto
2
Yes
Yes
- 60% nighttime or Dawn/Dusk
- 40% ped (75% fatal)
- 60% fatal
P, F
7th Ave: Buckeye Rd
to Watkins St
2
Yes
Yes
- 33% fatal
- 67% peds
- 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 42% in 2017
PC
19th Ave: Wood Dr.
to Cactus Rd.
2
Yes
Yes
- 38% single vehicle
- 50% in 2017
- 38% at night
- 1 ped (fatal/night)
F
19th Ave: Glenrosa
to Campbell Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- Decreasing over the years
- 33% nighttime
- 33% ped
- 50% LT crashes
RC
24th St: Roosevelt
to McDowell
2
Yes
Yes
- 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 33% ped (100% nighttime)
- 33% bikes (1 night & 1 dawn/dusk)
- 33% angle crashes
- 50% at Loop 202 interchange
P
27th Ave: Bethany Home Rd
to Maryland Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 45% fatal
- 100% nighttime
- 64% peds
- 9% bikes
- 45% in 2017
P
HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
71
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Thomas: 28th Street to 32nd
Street
2
No
Yes
- 57% ped (100% fatal)
- 57% fatal
- 71% nighttime
P
Bell Rd: 20th St to Cave
Creek
2
No
Yes
- 40% fatal
- 20% nighttime
- 30% peds (100% fatal)
- 50% angle crashes
P, F
7th Ave: Glenrosa to Indian
School
2
No
No
- Crashes only shown in 2017 and 2018
- No collision manner or first harmful event that are in common
among any crashes.
- No two crashes at the same location
- Note: Existing PHB at Glenrosa
- Note: Existing reversible lane precludes raised median
PC
Bell Rd: 32nd St to 34th Way
2
No
Yes
- 24% fatal (LT crashes)
- 38% nighttime of dawn/dusk
- 38% LT crashes
- 1 ped crash
- 2 per year
F
Greenway Rd: 32nd St to
34th St
2
No
Yes
- 50% angle crashes
- 1 ped crash (fatal/night)
- 1 bike crash
F
7th St: Bell Rd to Grovers
Ave
2
No
Yes
- No crashes in 2019 or 2020.
- Most crashes (82%) involve either angle or left-turn
- Mix of daylight and darkness crashes
- Fewer ped crashes (9%) than most segments. However, the
one ped crash was the segment's only fatality
PC
Maryvale Pkwy: 51st Ave to
N. Maryvale Pkwy
3
Yes
Yes
- 1 LT crash
- Dawn/Dusk
P
McDowell Rd: 32nd St to
36th St
3
Yes
No
- 33% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist. Both fatal crashes
involve a ped
- 56% of crashes at dark or dawn/dusk
- No crashes in 2016 or 2019
- Note: Existing PHB at 34th St
PC
Thomas Rd: 63rd Ave to
67th Ave
3
Yes
Yes
-33% peds (2 fatal)
-33% nighttime
P, F
19th Ave: Maryland Ave to
Glendale Ave
3
Yes
Yes
-75% ped
-25% bike
-50% nighttime
P
HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
A Path Forward
72
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
59th Ave: Roosevelt to
McDowell
3
Yes
Yes
- 71% nighttime
- 43% single vehicle
- 43% in 2018 & 43% in 2019
- 1 ped crash (night)
- 71% in Freeway interchange
PC
35th Ave: Northern Ave to
Butler Dr
3
Yes
Yes
- 27% peds (1 fatal & 2 nighttime)
- Both fatals at Griswold Rd
- 36% nighttime
P
Southern Ave: 7th Ave to
15th Ave
3
Yes
Yes
- 79% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 67% fatal
- 33% peds (1 fatal)
- 1 bike crash (fatal)
- 44% in 2020
P
McDowell: 7th St to 10th St
3
Yes
Yes
- 44% nighttime
- 33% peds (2 fatal, 3 nighttime)
- 33% fatal
- Most at west end of corridor
PC, P
Bell Rd: 15th Ave to 19th Ave
3
No
Yes
- 13% nighttime
- 25% ped
- 38% angle, 28% LT crashes
- Fatal at 17th Ave signal
P, F
Indian School: 40th St to
44th Street
3
No
No
- 4 ped crashes, all during darkness
- Crashes declining since the high in 2017
- Other than ped crashes, left-turn crashes are highest frequency
Left-turn crashes are distributed along corridor
F
Indian School: 28th St to
32nd St
3
No
No
- Peds account for more than half of crashes (average 1 per year)
2 of 5 ped crashes occurred at signal.
- No crashes in 2016 or 2020
- Crashes about evenly split between daytime and darkness
- No more than one crash involving any known collision manner
- Note: Existing PHB at 30th St is one of the highest-ped-volume
PHBs in the city
F
16th Street: Colter St. to
Missouri Ave.
3
No
No
- Most crashes (86%) in daylight
- No ped crashes, 1 bike crash
- Most common crash type: Angle crashes (43%)
- No crashes in 2020
F
HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
73
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Glendale: 19th Ave to 17th
Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 71% of segment crashes involved a ped, including both fatal
crashes
- 57% of segment crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk
- 71% of intersection crashes involved a ped, including all 3 fatals
- 86% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness
P
McDowell Rd: 55th Ave to
43rd Ave.
1
Yes
Yes
- Segments: 46% of crashes involved a ped or bike, including 5
of 6 fatal crashes
- Two hotspots for segment fatal crashes: 41st to 42nd Ave and
51st to 52nd Ave
- 63% of segment crashes occurred during darkness
- 4 ped crashes, including 2 fatals, occurred within 500' of
existing PHB at 41st Ave
- Left-turn and angle crashes account for 60% of intersection
crashes
- 80% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness
- 1 intersection fatal crash was angle type
- 1 intersection ped crash was serious injury
RC, P
Thomas: 45th Ave to 43rd
Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 57% of segment crashes are single-vehicle, all of these crashes
occurred within 100' of the existing PHB at 4400 W
- 86% of segment crashes at dark or dawn/dusk
- Both segment ped crashes occurred at 44th Ln, one was the
only fatality on the segment
- 67% of intersection crashes occurred in daylight
- Half of intersection crashes involved a ped
P
Northern Ave: 21st Ave to
19th Ave
1
Yes
Yes
- 60% of segment crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist.
- 60% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/dusk
- Only 13% of intersection crashes involved pedestrians despite
the presence of the LRT station just south of the intersection
- Intersection crashes are an even mix of daytime and nighttime
- Intersection crashes have been consistent over time, never
fewer than 1 or more than 2 KSI crashes per year
RC, F
Bell Rd: 26th Ave to 17th
Ave.
1
No
Yes
- 29% of segment KSI crashes and 33% of fatalities involved a
pedestrian or bicyclist
- 71% of segment crashes occurred during daylight
- Segment crashes peaked in 2020, contrary to COVID crash
trends
- Peds account for 44% of intersection crashes and 67% of
fatalities
- 67% of intersection crashes occurred during daylight
- Angle and left-turn crashes accounted for 56% of intersection
crashes
P, F
HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS
A Path Forward
74
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Indian School Rd: 83rd Ave
to 67th Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- 47% of segment crashes involved a ped, including 3 of 6 fatals
- 53% of segment crashes occurred at dark or dawn/dusk
- Segment crashes did not decline in 2020 as occurred in much
of the rest of the city
- Half of intersection crashes involved a ped, including 1 of 2
fatals
- Half of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk
- No intersection crashes in 2019 or 2020
P
Indian School: 59th Ave to
27th Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- Pedestrians and bicyclists accounted for 33% of segment
crashes and 40% of fatalities
- 46% of segment crashes occurred during daylight.
- Both segment and intersection crashes peaked in 2020,
contrary to COVID crash trends
- Left-turn and angle crashes were most common in the
segments, accounting for 48% of crashes
- No ped or bike segment crashes occurred west of 47th Ave.
- Pedestrians were involved in 16% of intersection crashes and
represented the only fatality
- Intersection crashes were evenly split between daytime and
darkness
- Left-turn crashes were the most common intersection crash
type, accounting for half of KSI crashes
P
Cactus: 31st Ave to 23rd Ave
2
Yes
Yes
- Segment: 42% of crashes involved a ped, including the only
fatality
- Segment: 58% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk.
- Segment crashes did not decline in 2020
- Intersection: Half of crashes involved a ped or bike
- Intersection: 75% of crashes occurred during darkness
F
19th Ave: Greenway Rd. to
Grovers Ave.
2
Yes
Yes
- 33% of segment crashes and 33% of segment fatalities involved
a bicyclist or pedestrian
- 58% of segment crashes occurred during daylight
- 25% of intersection crashes, but no fatalities, involved bicyclists
or pedestrians
- 38% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk
- Intersection: left-turn crashes were the most common crash
type, accounting for 63% of crashes
P
Bethany Home Rd: 35th
Ave to 31st Ave
2
No
No
- Segment: 14% of crashes involved a ped, but no fatals
- 3 segment head-on crashes occurred, an unusually high
number
- 43% of segment crashes occurred during darkness
- Intersection: 43% of crashes involved a ped, including both
fatals
- Intersection: Mix of daylight and dark crashes
PC
HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS (CONT.)
75
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Location
HIN
Segment
Tier (1-3)
RSAP
Equity
Analysis
USDOT
Underserved
Community
Key Crash Characteristics
Status: RC,
PC, P, F
Peoria Ave: 25th Ave to
28th Dr
3
Yes
Yes
- 73% of segment crashes occurred during darkness.
- 53% of segment crashes involved a ped or bike. Both fatal
segment crashes involved a ped.
- Left-turn and angle crashes comprise 40% of segment crashes.
- 75% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk.
- 63% of intersection crashes involved a ped or bike. Both fatal
intersection crashes involved a ped.
F
27th Ave: Thomas to
Roosevelt
3
Yes
Yes
- 25% of segment crashes involved a ped or bike, but no fatalities.
- Half of segment crashes occurred during daylight and half
during darkness.
- 14% of intersection crashes involved a pedestrian, including 1
fatality.
- No intersection crashes occurred in 2020.
- 43% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness.
PC, P
Northern Ave: 43rd Ave to
35th Ave
3
Yes
Yes
- 19% of segment KSI crashes and 25% of fatalities involved a
pedestrian or bicyclist.
- All segment fatal crashes occurred between 36th and 39th Ave.
- 56% of segment crashes occurred during daylight.
- No intersection ped crashes but 1 bike crash (14% of all
crashes).
- 86% of intersection crashes occurred during daylight.
- No intersection KSI crashes in 2019 or 2020."
P, F
43rd Ave: Maryland to
Camelback
3
Yes
Yes
- Very high number of fatal crashes (12) in these segments.
- Segments: Ped crashes account for 18% of crashes and 33% of
fatalities.
- 59% of segment crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk, including all ped crashes.
- Intersection: 29% of crashes involved a pedestrian, including
the one fatal crash.
- Intersection: 71% of crashes occurred during darkness or
dawn/dusk.
P
Dunlap: 35th Ave to 31st
Ave
3
Yes
Yes
- Peds account for half of segment crashes and the segment
fatality. (The PHB at 34th Avenue was previously an RRFB and
was converted to PHB control in 2018 or 2019. The ped crash
there occurred while it was an RRFB in 2016.)
- 33% of segment crashes occurred during dark conditions.
- 33% of intersection crashes involve a ped, including the only
fatal.
- 83% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness.
PC
43rd Ave: Orangewood Ave
to Maryland
3
No
Yes
- Segments: 25% of crashes involved a pedestrian, including 2
of 3 fatals.
- Half of crashes occurred during daylight and half during
darkness.
- Intersection: 33% of crashes involved a pedestrian and
accounted for both intersection fatalities.
- Intersection: 83% of crashes occurred during daylight.
- No intersection crashes in 2020.
P
HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS (CONT.)
A Path Forward
76
RESOURCES
While the City of Phoenix currently funds a significant amount of projects, operations, programs, and
staff to improve safety on its streets across many departments, the commitment to Vision Zero will
require additional resources. These resources can be understood as on-going costs, a one-time
(project specific) cost, and costs for a specific time period. The table below outlines a resource
need framework categorized by 4 of the 5 E’s, costs for implementation of strategies and projects,
additional staff, and potential funding sources. This framework will be fully developed separately
from this Plan by December 2022.
Strategy/
Project Costs
Additional
Staff
Potential Funding Sources
Evaluation
Ongoing
Low
Low
City
One Time
Low
Low
City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of
-
-
City, Regional, State, Federal
Engineering
Ongoing
High
Medium
City, Regional, State, Federal
One Time
High
Medium
City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of
High
Medium
City, Regional, State, Federal
Enforcement
Ongoing
Medium
High
City, State, Federal
One Time
Medium
High
City, , State, Federal
Specific # of
Medium
High
City, State, Federal
Education
Ongoing
Low
Low
City, Regional, State, Federal
One Time
Low
Low
City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of
Low
Low
City, Regional, State, Federal
Strategy/Project Costs: Low = Under $1 million, Medium = $1 - $5 million, High = Over $5 million
Additional Staff: Low = 1 to 3 staff, Medium = 4 to 10, High = 10 +
77
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
REPORTING & TRACKING
The Phoenix RSAP stands apart from other transportation planning efforts due to the diverse range
of strategies, coverage of strategies beyond engineering solutions, the defined vision, and the tracking
and monitoring elements. The RSAP progress will involve review of the implementation plan outcomes
outcomes of the implementation plan, adjusting measures and action items, consistently reporting on
an annual basis, and continuous effort and involvement from the Vision Zero Executive Task Force,
RSAP Implementation Team, and the Community Advisory Committee.
The Phoenix RSAP’s ultimate goal is to have zero traffic related fatalities on its streets by 2050.
This goal aligns with the City’s street and transit improvement plan and funding source, known as
Transportation 2050 – T2050. The T2050 Plan is funded by a City of Phoenix 0.7 percent sales
tax; this sales tax dedicates 7/10ths of a cent or 70 cents on a $100 purchase to transit and street
improvements.
Recognizing the 28-year timeframe to reach vision zero, two interim targets are set to ensure that
implementation is on track:
2027: 25% reduction in fatal crashes*
2035: 60% reduction in fatal crashes*
*Baseline Year: 2020
-Potential 22% reduction from addressing the HIN
2050: ZERO Fatal and
Serious Injury Crashes
on Phoenix Streets
&
An internal City of Phoenix RSAP Working Group worked together over the past 13 months to develop
this Plan. To continue this important work and implement the RSAP, the City has shifted gears and
formally established a Vision Zero Task Force Framework.
The Vision Zero Task Force is organized into a three-tiered system that includes a network of department
liaisons, sponsors, and members of the community. The framework includes: the Executive Task
Force, the Roadway Safety Action Plan (RSAP) Implementation Team, and the Community Advisory
Committee. City of Phoenix administration, management, department sponsors, and liasons
are included in Tier 1 and 2 who will serve as department leads responsible for implementation
of the RSAP. Departments considered for inclusion are Community & Economic Development,
Mayor and City Council Offices, Fire, Housing, Human Services, Information Technology Services,
VISION ZERO TASK FORCE
A Path Forward
78
Neighborhood Services, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Development, Police, Public Transit,
and Street Transportation.
Tier 1: The Executive Task Force will offer overarching guidance and direction on the implementation of
the RSAP. This includes reviewing and approving quarterly, and annual RSAP updates created by the
RSAP Implementation Team and assisting with presentations to the Community Advisory Committee
and City Council as needed. The final role of the Executive Task Force is to ensure Department
Liaisons are assisting with RSAP Implementation Team objectives.
Meeting Cadence: Quarterly
Composition: A Deputy City Manager, executive Street Transportation Department (STR) staff, the
project team lead from the RSAP Implementation Team, a Council or Mayor’s Office representative,
and Department Sponsors.
Tier 2: RSAP Implementation Team, will be responsible for carrying out and tracking progress of the
RSAP Implementation Plan. They will work with the Executive Task Force to provide quarterly Vision
Zero updates to the Community Advisory Committee related to the status of the City’s Vision Zero
goal and incorporate recommendations from the Executive Task Force and Community Advisory
Committee into the RSAP. The RSAP Implementation Team will work with relevant Department
Liaisons on related projects and work to create the annual Vision Zero status update.
Meeting Cadence: Monthly
Composition: The Street Transportation Department Deputy Director, a Principal Planner related
to pedestrian safety, a Community and Public Engagement Team member or Directors Office
representative, and Department Liaisons.
Tier 3: Community Advisory Committee, will review quarterly updates from the RSAP Implementation
Team, provide feedback and recommendations regarding the action plan to both the RSAP
Implementation Team and Executive Task Force, request future agenda items, and coordinate with
related City Council Offices.
Meeting Cadence: Quarterly
Composition: 11 members of the public (1 per council district and 3 by mayoral appointment from key
stakeholder groups).
79
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
PERFORMANCE REVIEW CYCLE
The performance review cycle ties the different pieces of the implementation plan together in
systematic, transparent, and adaptable process that has distinct deliverables. Part of this cycle is
the developing and delivering the annual RSAP status report. An annual report is proposed due to
the nature of crash data collection, project delivery, and post-project analysis. Supporting this effort
will be updating the HIN every three years, based on the previous 5-years of crash data (Strategy
GN.01B). This analysis will be included in the report accordingly.
The Vision Zero Task Force will utilize existing and new tools, such as the crash data dashboard,
to collect, track, and analyze data to understand the status of performance metrics. Information
will be shared through the Vision Zero Task Force to determine if modifications to the Plan and/or
performance measures should occur.
The annual RSAP status report is anticipated to include the following elements:
•
Vision Zero Performance Metrics (baseline & benchmark data)
•
Map illustrating projects and status of addressing the HIN
•
Examples of completed safety improvements
•
Strategy success stories
•
Refresh of “The Facts”
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT PHOENIX.GOV/ROADSAFETY
A Path Forward
80
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
vii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
APPENDICIES
APPEDNIX A: PHOENIX CRASH SAFETY REVIEW USING MAG RTSIMS DATA
APPEDNIX B: HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
APPEDNIX C: ROAD SAFETY TOOLBOXES
VIII
XCVII
CII
vii
viii
Appendicies
APPENDIX A:
PHOENIX CRASH SAFETY REVIEW
USING MAG RTSIMS DATA
FINAL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
Y2K Engineering, LLC
Project No. 21-059B
1921 S. Alma School Rd, Ste 204, Mesa, AZ 85210
480.696.1701
info@y2keng.com
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
GENERAL TRENDS .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
CRASHES BY MONTH ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK ............................................................................................................................................ 11
CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY .............................................................................................................................................. 12
CRASHES BY LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................. 12
BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................................................... 16
TRENDS BY PERSON TYPE .............................................................................................................................................. 17
PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
BICYCLISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20
OLDER DRIVERS (Age 65 and Older) ............................................................................................................................. 22
YOUNGER DRIVERS (Age 24 and Younger) .................................................................................................................. 24
TRENDS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES ................................................................................................ 26
KA CRASHES BY COLLISION MANNER .......................................................................................................................... 26
KA CRASHES BY MONTH ................................................................................................................................................. 27
KA CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK....................................................................................................................................... 27
KA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY ........................................................................................................................................ 28
KA CRASHES BY LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................ 28
KA CRASHES BY BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................................................................ 30
COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL SAFETY TRENDS ........................................................................... 31
PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
BICYCLISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
OLDER DRIVERS (65 and older) ..................................................................................................................................... 37
YOUNGER DRIVERS (24 and below) .............................................................................................................................. 38
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RTSIMS Query Outputs
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of Crashes per Year and Collision Manner ..................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes per Year and Collision Manner .................................... 10
Table 3: High Crash Risk Intersections (Intersection Safety Score) ....................................................................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: City of Phoenix Population Comparison to State and County ................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Total Number of Crashes per Year and Injury Severity (Local and Arterial Roads) .............................. 8
Figure 3: Total Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes per Year (Local and Arterial Roads) .................... 8
Figure 4: Number of Crashes by Month (2015-2019) ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5: Number of Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes by Month (2015-2019)..................................................... 11
Figure 6: Number of Crashes by Day of the Week (2015-2019) ............................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Share of Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019 ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Number of Crashes by Hour of the Day and Light Condition (2015-2019) .......................................... 12
Figure 9: Crash Location Relative to Junctions, by Year .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Injury Severity of Intersection-Related Crashes ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Collision Manner of Intersection-Related Crashes ................................................................................. 13
Figure 12: High-Crash Intersections (Top 20 Intersection Safety Score) .............................................................. 15
Figure 13: Number of Crashes Involving Impaired Drivers, by Hour ...................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Number of Crashes Involving Unrestrained Drivers, by Year and Injury Severity ............................ 16
Figure 15: Speed-Related Collisions, by Year and Injury Severity .......................................................................... 17
Figure 16: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year ................................................................... 18
Figure 17: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year............................................................... 18
Figure 18: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Month ............................................................................ 19
Figure 19: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Hour .............................................................................. 19
Figure 20: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Year ........................................................................ 20
Figure 21: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Collision Manner (2015-2019) ........................... 20
Figure 22: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Month ................................................................................ 21
Figure 23: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Hour ................................................................................... 21
Figure 24: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, 2015-2019 ............................................................ 22
Figure 25: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Year ............................................................ 22
Figure 26: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Month .......................................................................... 23
Figure 27: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Hour ............................................................................ 23
Figure 28: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, 2015-2019 (N=62,512) .................................. 24
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page iii
Figure 29: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Year ....................................................... 24
Figure 30: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Month..................................................................... 25
Figure 31: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Hour ....................................................................... 25
Figure 32: Crashes by Collision Manner and Severity, 2015-2019 .......................................................................... 26
Figure 33: Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, by Month, 2015-2019 ................................................... 27
Figure 34: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Day of the Week ................................................... 27
Figure 35: Share of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019 ..................................... 28
Figure 36: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Hour and Lighting Condition ............................ 28
Figure 37: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Relation to the Intersection .............................. 29
Figure 38: Number of Intersection-Related Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Collision Manner ........... 29
Figure 39: Frequency of Unrestrained Driving and Speed Violation in KA Crashes ............................................ 30
Figure 40: Total Crashes Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix .......................... 31
Figure 41: Crash Severity Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix (2015-2018) .. 32
Figure 42: Fatal Crashes Comparison of Arizona, Maricopa County, and City of Phoenix ................................ 32
Figure 43: Total Number of Fatalities (Persons) per Year Comparison, Arizona and City of Phoenix ............ 32
Figure 44: 2019 Fatalities and Percent Changes From 2018, by State (Person-Level). ...................................... 33
Figure 45: Percentage of Total Fatalities Involving Pedestrians, by State (Persons) ......................................... 34
Figure 46: Share of Total Fatalities Who Were Pedestrians, Comparison across Geographies ....................... 34
Figure 47: Pedestrian Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies ......................................................... 35
Figure 48: Severity of Pedestrian Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018) ............................... 35
Figure 49: Bicycle Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies ................................................................ 36
Figure 50: Severity of Bicycle Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018) ...................................... 36
Figure 51: Older Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix ....................................................... 37
Figure 52: Severity of Older Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018) .......................................... 37
Figure 53: Younger Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix .................................................. 38
Figure 54: Severity of Younger Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018) ..................................... 38
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Phoenix is currently in the process of developing a Comprehensive Roadway Safety Action Plan,
which will further shape the City’s planning efforts in roadway safety. This project involves a review of
current safety trends, existing programs and processes, and public/stakeholder involvement to create a
vision and plan for the future. This memorandum is intended to provide a preliminary overview of historical
crash trends within the City of Phoenix within the past five years. In later stages of this project, a dynamic
crash dashboard will be developed to provide enhanced abilities in data analytics and reporting.
In the initial stages of this project, crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) software tool for crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information
Management System (RTSIMS). This report uses existing tools to conduct a safety analysis of the past five
years, and compares trends to regional and statewide data. The following key findings are based on a
review of RTSIMS crash data from 2015 to 2019:
•
An annual average 30,376 crashes per year were reported during the five year study period. This
equates to 83 crashes per day.
•
Crashes on arterial and local roadways in the City of Phoenix increased by a rate of about 4.4% per
year. This trend suggests that the crash frequency increased at a higher rate than the City’s
population, which in the same period grew 1.5% per year, on average.
•
Most crashes result in no injury (70%), approximately one-quarter result in possible or minor injury
(27%), 2.6% result in serious injury, and 0.6% result in fatal injury. This equates to two serious injury
crashes occurring each day, and one fatal crash occurring every other day.
•
The percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained generally consistent over the past
five years; however the percentage of no injury crashes has steadily increased over time.
•
For all crash severities, rear end crashes were the most common collision manner, followed by left-
turn crashes. These two crash types account for about half of all crashes.
•
For fatal and serious injury crashes, the “Other” collision manner was reported most frequent
(25%), which is commonly selected for crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Other frequent
crash types for fatal and serious injury crashes were left-turn (23%) and angle (21%).
•
Crashes involving unrestrained drivers (i.e, lack of seatbelt or helmet use) have reduced in
frequency.
•
Due to lack of protection on impact, pedestrians and bicyclists (vulnerable users) are more
frequently seriously injured when involved in motor vehicle crashes. In the City of Phoenix, crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians represent nearly half (48%) of all fatal crashes.
•
A greater share of pedestrian crashes is occurring in Phoenix compared to other agencies within
the MAG Region. Phoenix represents 36% of Maricopa County’s population and about 43% of the
County’s local and arterial road crashes; however, 63% of County crashes involving pedestrians
occurred on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
•
Bicyclist crashes are occurring at a greater rate in Phoenix than in other agencies within the MAG
Region. About 43% of all crashes involving bicyclists in Maricopa County occurred on City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
•
For all crash severities, the majority of crashes occur during daylight hours (71%), with the
remaining 29% of crashes occurring during dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
•
A correlation exists between injury severity and lighting condition; fatal and serious injury crashes
occurred more frequently during dawn, dusk, and dark conditions (45%) compared to daylight
conditions (55%).
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page v
MAG RTSIMS tool provided the ability to retrieve data quickly for numerous Citywide statistics. During the
analysis process, several discrepancies were identified when comparing to past Phoenix data, which is
common when comparing different datasets. The City of Phoenix conducts a robust data scrubbing process
each year, which confirms crashes exist within the City of Phoenix boundaries, omits freeway crashes, and
reviews characteristics of crashes in detail to correct the manner of collision if originally mis-coded. The
RTSIMS crash data is not scrubbed, and comes directly from ADOT ACIS. These differences, along with
variations in the querying process, are acknowledged as part of this report. This data contained in this
report is intended to provide preliminary information; later stages of this project will modernize the existing
City of Phoenix crash analysis process to improve and enhance data analytics and visualization.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 6
INTRODUCTION
The City of Phoenix is currently in the process of developing a Comprehensive Roadway Safety Action Plan,
which will further shape the City’s planning efforts in roadway safety. This project involves a review of
current safety trends, existing programs and processes, and public/stakeholder involvement to create a
vision and plan for the future. This memorandum is intended to provide a preliminary overview of historical
crash trends within the City of Phoenix within the past five years. Through the development of the project,
a dynamic crash dashboard will be developed to provide enhanced abilities in data analytics and reporting.
In the initial stages of the project, crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) software tool for crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information
Management System (RTSIMS).
The City of Phoenix prepares comprehensive collision summary reports each year, documenting the past
year of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle-related crashes. This report uses existing tools (RTSIMS) to
conduct a supplementary safety analysis of the past five years, and compare trends to regional and
statewide data.
Crash data within the City of Phoenix was obtained for the past five years through the RTSIMS tool, from
January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. At the time of the analysis, 2020 crash data was not available. The
RTSIMS platform compiles historical crash data from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS) crash
database maintained by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The RTSIMS data excludes
freeways, highways, and ramps; only arterial, collector, and local roadways are included. RTSIMS refers to
this group as “Arterial and Local Roads”. This naming refers to roadway classification and does not imply
roadway ownership. The results of traffic safety data queries may differ slightly based on data source,
filtering assumptions, modifications to raw data, and/or query techniques. The RTSIMS safety review is
intended to identify trends and inform decisions to support roadway safety.
Due to the limited sample size of fatal crashes, fatal and serious injury crashes were combined to analyze
trends in critical crashes. Unlike less severe crashes, the most common collision manner for fatal and
serious injury crashes is “Other”, which primarily represents bicyclist and pedestrian crashes, followed by
left-turn and angle crashes. It was also observed that KA crashes are overrepresented in non-daylight
conditions.
According to the US Census Bureau Annual Population Estimates (Figure 1), the City of Phoenix’s
population has grown about 6% during the five years under study, from 2015 to 2019. In 2020, the City of
Phoenix’s residents represented 23% of Arizona’s population and 36% of Maricopa County’s Population.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 7
Figure 1: City of Phoenix Population Comparison to State and County
(Source: US Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of Resident Population)
GENERAL TRENDS
Since 2015, the total number of crashes within the City of Phoenix has been steadily increasing, with a total
of 31,827 crashes occurring in 2019 on the City’s local and arterial roadway network. Figure 2 shows the
number of crashes by injury severity for each year in the analysis period. The percentage of fatal crashes
has stayed relatively constant, ranging from 0.5% to 0.7% of all crashes. The percentage of serious injury
crashes varied between 2.1% and 3.2% of fatal crashes. The combined minor injury and possible injury
ranged has steadily decreased over the past five years, from 30.7% (2015) to 23.8% (2019). The share of no
injury crashes has increased over the past five years, from 66.0% (2015) to 73.6% (2019). This data suggests
a slight downward trend in the severity of crashes.
Figure 3 shows the number of fatal and serious injury crashes from 2015 to 2019, which combined are
trending towards fewer crashes since 2016.
6.83
6.94
7.04
7.16
7.28
4.17
4.26
4.33
4.40
4.49
1.58
1.61
1.63
1.65
1.68
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Population (Millions)
Arizona
Maricopa County
City of Phoenix
+6.6%
+7.5%
+6.1%
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 8
Figure 2: Total Number of Crashes per Year and Injury Severity (Local and Arterial Roads)
Figure 3: Total Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes per Year (Local and Arterial Roads)
17,828;
66.0%
21,019;
68.0%
21,263;
68.4%
22,269;
71.8%
23,423;
73.6%
5,508; 20.4%
5,018; 16.2%
5,139; 16.5%
4,400; 14.2%
4,509; 14.2%
2,769; 10.3%
3,707; 12.0%
3,627; 11.7%
3,378; 10.9%
3,058; 9.6%
746; 2.8%
976; 3.2%
875; 2.8%
749; 2.4%
665; 2.1%
155; 0.6%
192; 0.6%
202; 0.6%
230; 0.7%
172; 0.5%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
No Injury
Possible Injury
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
746
976
875
749
665
155
192
202
230
172
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
Serious Injury
Fatal
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 9
Crash data from 2020 was not available through RTSIMS at the time of this report. Based on a preliminary
review of 2020 crash data, total number of crashes decreased by about 20% from 2019 crashes, which is
presumed to be related to lower vehicle miles travelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The share of
fatal and incapacitating injury crashes remained generally consistent with the previous five years; however,
the share of no injury crashes followed the same positive trend (increasing from 73.6% in 2019 to 74.2% in
2020). Preliminary 2021 crash data, obtained through the Phoenix Police Department Vehicle Crimes Unit
(VCU), indicate that there were 114 fatal crashes during the first six months of 2021.
Table 1 shows the distribution of crashes on City of Phoenix local and arterial roads by collision manner for
the past five years. The most frequently-reported crash types were rear-end crashes (29% of all reported
crashes) followed by left-turn crashes (23% of all crashes). Together, rear-end and left-turn crashes
represent about half of all crashes.
Table 1: Number of Crashes per Year and Collision Manner
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
%
Rear-end (Front-To-Rear)
8,319
9,144
9,002
8,811
8,870
44,146
29.1%
Left Turn
5,864
6,658
7,070
7,120
7,678
34,390
22.6%
Angle (Front to Side) (Other Than Left Turn)
5,246
5,434
5,448
5,434
5,404
26,966
17.8%
Sideswipe, Same Direction
3,259
4,176
4,149
4,374
4,602
20,560
13.5%
Single Vehicle
2,045
2,223
2,192
2,224
2,191
10,875
7.2%
Other (Includes Pedestrians and Bicyclists)
1,002
1,309
1,324
1,116
1,046
5,797
3.8%
Head-on (Front-To-Front) (Other Than Left Turn)
488
666
673
696
743
3,266
2.2%
Sideswipe, Opposite Direction
349
556
616
625
645
2,791
1.8%
Rear-To-Rear
163
430
277
230
195
1,295
< 1 %
Rear-To-Side
161
183
193
193
208
938
< 1%
Unknown
110
133
162
203
245
853
< 1%
Total
27,006 30,912 31,106 31,026 31,827 151,877
Note: The City of Phoenix uses a data scrubbing process to improve consistency of coding for collision manner. For
example, the City of Phoenix defines left-turn crashes as involving vehicles originally traveling in the opposing
(parallel) direction. If a crash involves a left-turning movement, but the vehicles originate in perpendicular paths,
the collision is defined as an angle crash. The results of Table 1 were summarized using RTSIMS data, which does
not involve the City of Phoenix scrubbing process. Therefore, these results vary from City of Phoenix scrubbed data,
which identifies that the leading manner of collision is rear-end crashes, followed by angle crashes, then left-turn
crashes.
Table 2 shows the number of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes per year, as well as the injury severity.
Pedestrian crashes have been slowly increasing over the past five years, while bicyclist crashes have been
decreasing. An initial review of 2020 data indicates consistency with these trends.
Over the five-year period, pedestrians were involved in an average of 86 fatal crashes per year, and bicyclists
were involved in an average of 8 fatal crashes per year. Combined, crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists represent nearly half (48.6%) of all fatal crashes. Preliminary 2021 crash data, obtained through
the Phoenix Police Department VCU, indicate that there a total of 114 fatal crashes reported in the first six
months of 2021, 52 (45.6%) of which involved pedestrians, and 4 (3.5%) of which involved bicyclists.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 10
Table 2: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes per Year and Collision Manner
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
Bicyclists
438
485
470
384
298
2,075
No Injury
35
35
17
14
0
101
Possible Injury
157
151
152
129
118
707
Minor injuries
185
219
235
186
147
972
Serious Injury
53
71
52
52
26
254
Fatal
8
9
14
3
7
41
Pedestrians
617
771
813
825
820
3,846
No Injury
30
24
9
9
0
72
Possible Injury
153
164
194
186
247
944
Minor injuries
247
306
319
332
347
1,551
Serious Injury
127
189
197
187
148
848
Fatal
60
88
94
111
78
431
All Crashes
27,006
30,912
31,106
31,026
31,827
151,877
CRASHES BY MONTH
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the frequency of crashes in the City of Phoenix (arterial and local roads) by
month. The month-to-month trends are consistent between all crashes, serious injury crashes, and fatal
crashes. March registered the highest number of crashes, including fatal and injury crashes. The month with
the fewest reported crashes was July, which correlates with lower summer traffic volumes. Lower traffic
volumes in June and July are often associated with school breaks, seasonal resident travel, lower
pedestrian and bicyclist activity, and lower traffic volumes in general due to the high temperatures.
Figure 4: Number of Crashes by Month (2015-2019)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Temperature (oF)
Number of Crashes
All crashes
Average Temperature* (⁰F)
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 11
Figure 5: Number of Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes by Month (2015-2019)
CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK
Figure 6 shows the distribution of crashes by weekday. Crashes occur most frequently on Fridays, while the
fewest crashes occur on Sundays. Fatal crashes occur most often on Saturdays and Sundays, and occur
less frequently on Mondays.
Figure 6: Number of Crashes by Day of the Week (2015-2019)
332
348
409
398
328
276
275
294
291
377
369
314
80
77
102
83
71
84
65
78
67
85
75
84
Number of Crashes
Serious injury
Fatal
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Fatal and Serious Injury
All Crashes
Serious injury
Fatal
All crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 12
CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY
Figure 7 shows that the majority of
crashes
(71%)
occurred
under
daylight conditions, with 29% of
crashes occurring during dawn,
dusk, or dark conditions.
Figure 8 shows how the crashes are
distributed by lighting conditions
over the course of the day. In
addition to the AM peak around 7 to
8 AM, a large number of crashes
occur during the PM peak from 3 to 6
PM.
Crashes involving dawn and dusk
conditions were limited between 4
to 7 AM and 4 to 7 PM, respectively.
Figure 7: Share of Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019
Figure 8: Number of Crashes by Hour of the Day and Light Condition (2015-2019)
CRASHES BY LOCATION
To classify a crash’s relation to the junction, crashes were separated by Junction Type as either an
Intersection/Interchange crash or a Non-Intersection/Non-Interchange crash. Figure 9 shows where the
location type of crashes that occurred during the study period of 2015 to 2019.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
Number of Crashes
HOUR
Dark
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not Available
23.6%
1.6%
< 1%
1.5%
70.7%
2.2%
< 1% (Not Available)
Light Condition (N=151,845)
Dark- Lighted
Dark- Not lighted
Dark- Unknown lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not available
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 13
Figure 9: Crash Location Relative to Junctions, by Year
Figure 10 shows the injury severity between the three location types. In general, crashes are slightly more
severe at intersections and interchanges, compared to segment collisions, which correlates with the
greater frequency and types of collisions/conflict points possible.
Figure 10: Injury Severity of Intersection/Interchange-Related Crashes
The collision manner of intersection and interchange crashes is shown in Figure 11. The three most
common crash types at intersections are left-turns, rear-ends, and angle crashes, respectively.
Figure 11: Collision Manner of Intersection/Interchange-Related Crashes
53%
51%
52%
50%
52%
47%
49%
48%
50%
48%
2015
(N=27,006)
2016
(N=30,912)
2017
(N=31,106)
2018
(N=31,026)
2019
(N=31,827)
Intersection/Interchange
Non-interchange and Non-intersection
73%
14%
10%
2%
<1%
Non-interchange and
non-intersection
(N=73,799)
67%
18%
12%
3% <1%
Intersection/ Interchange
(N=78,078)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
1,139
1,263
3,279
3,467
7,827
17,146
20,647
23,310
Sideswipe opposite direction
Head on
Single vehicle
Other
Sideswipe same direction
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Rear end
Left turn
Number of Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 14
To rank the intersections based on a holistic safety analysis, the MAG’s network screening methodology
was used to classify the City of Phoenix’s intersections per their safety score. The scoring methodology
combines three safety attributes on the intersection, including crash frequency, crash severity, and crash
type. The three factors are weighted together for the final Intersection Safety Score, with crash severity as
50%, crash frequency as 25%, and crash type as 50% of the weighting. Table 3 and Figure 12 show the Top
20 intersections with the highest Intersection Safety Score within the City of Phoenix.
The intersections with the greatest crash risk exist at 1) 75th Avenue and Indian School Road, 2) 67th Avenue
and Indian School Road, and 3) 67th Avenue and McDowell Road. Formal Road Safety Assessments (RSA)
have been conducted at 10 of the Top 20 high crash risk intersections.
Table 3: High Crash Risk Intersections (Intersection Safety Score)
Rank,
City of
Phoenix
Rank,
MAG
Region
RSA
Conducted?
Location
#
Crashes
Crash
Frequency
Score (CF)
Crash
Severity
Score (CS)
Crash
Type
Score (CT)
Final
Score
1
1
2015*,2021* 75th Ave & Indian School Rd
251
1.06
1.36
1.29
1.26
2
2
2013, 2015*,
2021*
67th Ave & Indian School Rd
273
1.15
1.32
1.18
1.24
3
3
2016
67th Ave & McDowell Rd
246
1.04
1.30
1.27
1.23
4
4
99th Ave & Lower Buckeye Rd
316
1.33
1.23
0.91
1.17
5
6
51st Ave & McDowell Rd
201
0.85
1.09
1.23
1.06
6
8
43rd Ave & Bethany Home Rd
194
0.82
1.08
1.16
1.03
7
9
2021*
75th Ave & McDowell Rd
215
0.91
1.07
0.97
1.01
8
10
2019*
27th Ave & Camelback Rd
203
0.86
1.07
0.97
1.00
9
13
7th Ave & Indian School Rd
191
0.81
0.97
1.10
0.96
10
14
75th Ave & Thomas Rd
192
0.81
1.01
1.01
0.96
11
15
35th Ave & Bethany Home Rd
194
0.82
0.99
1.04
0.96
12
16
2018
43rd Ave & Peoria Ave
196
0.83
1.06
0.89
0.96
13
17
2021
35th Ave & Glendale Ave
188
0.79
0.99
1.05
0.96
14
18
2021
24th St & Baseline Rd
204
0.86
1.00
0.92
0.95
15
19
2013
51st Ave & Indian School Rd
193
0.81
0.96
1.03
0.94
16
21
43rd Ave & Northern Ave
186
0.79
0.95
0.97
0.91
17
23
43rd Ave & McDowell Rd
184
0.78
0.97
0.90
0.91
18
24
2021*
83rd Ave & Indian School Rd
170
0.72
0.95
1.00
0.90
19
27
43rd Ave & Glendale Ave
190
0.80
0.94
0.82
0.88
20
28
2018
35th Ave & Bell Rd
150
0.63
0.89
1.08
0.87
Note: *Location was studied as part of a corridor RSA.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 15
Figure 12: High-Crash Intersections (Top 20 Intersection Safety Score)
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 16
BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS
In the period of 2015 to 2019, alcohol and drug-impaired drivers were responsible for 7,487 crashes, which
represents 5% of all crashes on local and arterial roads in the City of Phoenix. However, of all 4,962 fatal and
serious injury crashes, 1,117 (22%) were associated with impaired drivers. Figure 13 shows the distribution
of crashes involving impaired drivers (alcohol, drugs) by the hour of the day. Unlike the total number of
crashes that show two distinct peaks of crashes over the AM and PM traffic peaks (Figure 8), crashes
involving impaired drivers are mostly concentrated during the late hours of the night (7 PM to 3 AM).
Figure 13: Number of Crashes Involving Impaired Drivers, by Hour
During the five years analyzed in this report, the total number of crashes involving unrestrained drivers
show a steady decline. From 2015 to 2019, unrestrained driver crashes have reduced by approximately 20%.
Figure 14 shows the injury severity of such crashes over the years. On average, about 7% of unrestrained
driver crashes are fatal crashes, which is a significantly larger share compared to all crashes.
Figure 14: Number of Crashes Involving Unrestrained Drivers, by Year and Injury Severity
433
453
568
320
212
142
143
117
109
108
99
108
106
153
220
296
352
398
469
533
546
575
546
481
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Number of Crashes
309
250
264
252
266
191
163
164
123
138
251
270
249
234
206
115
110
120
96
100
63
61
46
61
40
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
No injury
Possible injury
Non-incapacitating injury
Incapacitating injury
Fatal
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 17
Figure 15 shows the severity associated with speed-related crashes across the study period. While on
average about 70% of speed-related crashes result in no injury, close to 2% of such crashes result in serious
injury or fatality.
Figure 15: Speed-Related Collisions, by Year and Injury Severity
TRENDS BY PERSON TYPE
This sub-section of the report further explores crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, older drivers, and
younger drivers. The analysis period is from 2015 to 2019. Pedestrian and bicyclists are considered to be
vulnerable roadway users; as there is little to no protection in collisions with motor vehicles. Crashes
involving pedestrians and bicyclists are more likely to result in critical injuries.
PEDESTRIANS
Figure 16 shows the injury severity of crashes involving pedestrians on the City of Phoenix’s local and
arterial roads from 2015 to 2019. While most (70%) motor-vehicle crashes result in no injury, that is not the
case for crashes that involve pedestrians. Rather, 11% of crashes involving pedestrians were fatal and 22%
resulted in serious injuries. In the five studied years, the number of crashes involving pedestrians trended
upward, with 2019 crashes representing a 33% increase from 2015.
9,894
10,772
10,947
11,181
10,844
2,985
2,826
2,764
2,552
2,598
1,600
1,871
1,935
1,798
1,719
260
282
244
186
190
46
35
37
42
37
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
No Injury
Possible Injury
Minor injury
Major injury
Fatal
Note: Violation considered was “Speed too fast for conditions”.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 18
Figure 16: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year
Figure 17 shows the collision manner for the crashes involving pedestrians. As most of the collision manner
categories developed for the Arizona Crash Report form are oriented towards motor vehicles, the most
common collision manner reported on pedestrian crashes was “Other”, which is often selected by the
responding police officer for crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists.
Figure 17: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year
30; 4.9%
24; 3.1%
9; 1.1%
153; 24.8%
164; 21.4%
194; 23.9%
186; 22.5%
247; 30.1%
247; 40.0%
306; 39.7%
319; 39.2%
332; 40.2%
347; 42.3%
127; 20.6%
189; 24.5%
197; 24.2%
187; 22.7%
148; 18.0%
60; 9.7%
88; 11.4%
94; 11.6%
111; 13.5%
78; 9.5%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
31
9
10
7
2
6
5
2
0
0
1923
585
323
224
91
72
71
41
10
3
420
1
7
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Other
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Left turn
Head-on
Unknown
Rear-end
Sideswipe same direction
Sideswipe opposite direction
Rear-to-side
Rear-to-rear
Number of Crashes
No injury
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
9; 1.1%
0; 0%
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 19
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the distribution of pedestrian crashes by month and by hour, respectively.
The months with the highest frequency of crashes involving pedestrians are November and December. The
hours with the highest frequency of crashes involving pedestrians occur in the evening, from 6:00 pm to
9:00 pm.
Figure 18: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Month
Figure 19: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Hour
355
300
365
341
282
239
226
271
294
371
401
401
Number of Crashes
80
56
46
33
48
69
173
204
144
122
116
107
106
114
172
229
232
243
343
337
316
241
197
118
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Number of Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 20
BICYCLISTS
Similar to pedestrian crashes, crashes involving bicyclists registered higher rates of fatalities and serious
injuries, with virtually no crashes being reported as property damage only (Figure 20). During the past five
years, the number of bicycle-related crashes have trended downward. From 2015 to 2019, the number of
crashes involving bicyclists has reduced by 32%.
Figure 20: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Year
Figure 21 shows the collision manner for crashes involving bicyclists. As it was observed for pedestrian
crashes, the most common collision manner was “Other”. However, for crashes involving bicyclists, a
significant share of crashes was a result of angle crashes.
Figure 21: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Collision Manner (2015-2019)
35; 8.0%
35; 7.2%
17; 3.6%
14; 3.6%
0
157; 35.8%
151; 31.1%
152; 32.3%
129; 33.6%
118; 39.6%
185; 42.2%
219; 45.2%
235; 50.0%
186; 48.4%
147; 49.3%
53; 12.1%
71; 14.6%;
52; 11.1%
52; 13.5%
26; 8.7%
8; 1.8%
9; 1.9%
14; 3.0%
3; 0.8%
7; 2.3%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Share of Bicyclist Crashes
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
29
51
6
5
5
1
1
2
1
817
761
152
73
52
36
21
19
1
1
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Left turn
Sideswipe same direction
Head-on
Rear-end
Unknown
Sideswipe opposite direction
Rear-to-side
Rear-to-rear
Number of Crashes
No injury
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
0
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 21
Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the distribution of crashes involving bicyclists by month and by hour,
respectively. The month with the highest number of crashes involving bicyclists was March. The highest
number of crashes involving bicyclists correlates with vehicular morning and afternoon peak hours.
Figure 22: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Month
Figure 23: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Hour
178
184
197
194
186
138
132
182
186
189
169
140
Number of Crashes
19
6
5
8
9
33
82
150
105
86
96
97
107
106
161
166
202
192
144
100
80
61
34
26
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Number of Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 22
OLDER DRIVERS (Age 65 and Older)
Older drivers (age 65 and older) were involved in 20,425 (13%) of all incidents reported in the City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads from 2015 to 2019. Figure 24 shows the injury severity of those crashes.
Figure 24: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, 2015-2019
The most common collision manner of crashes involving older drivers were rear-end and left-turn crashes
are shown in Figure 25. Figure 26 shows the distribution of older driver crashes by month and Figure 27
shows the distribution by hour of the day. The month with the highest number of crashes involving older
drivers was March. The greatest frequency of older driver crashes occurs in the afternoon, from 2pm to 4pm.
Figure 25: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Year
70%
16%
11%
2.6% 0.6%
All Crashes (N=151,877)
67%
17%
12%
2.8% 0.7%
Older Drivers (N=20,425)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
3,670
3,230
2,717
2,787
245
277
195
267
116
119
1,769
2,050
1,604
327
351
174
177
88
57
18
20
12
28
26
0
50
9
11
1
0
0
1
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Rear-end
Left turn
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Sideswipe same direction
Other
Single-vehicle
Head-on
Sideswipe opposite direction
Rear-to-rear
Rear-to-side
Unknown
Number of Crashes
No injury crashes
Injury crashes
Fatal crashes
12
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 23
Figure 26: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Month
Figure 27: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Hour
1,687
1,767
1,912
1,705
1,613
1,426
1,444
1,697
1,685
1,859
1,770
1,860
Number of Crashes
90
35
36
33
59
186
467
1,000
1,146
1,168
1,321
1,468
1,639
1,609
1,820
1,976
1,826
1,614
1,183
702
449
298
201
99
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Number of Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 24
YOUNGER DRIVERS (Age 24 and Younger)
Younger drivers (age 24 and below) were involved in 62,512 (41%) of all incidents reported in the City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads from 2015-2019. Figure 28 shows the injury severity of those crashes.
Figure 28: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, 2015-2019 (N=62,512)
Figure 29: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Year
The most common collision manners of crashes involving younger drivers were rear-end and left-turn
crashes (Figure 29). Figure 30 shows the distribution of younger driver crashes by month and Figure 31
shows the distribution by hour of the day. The month with the highest number of crashes involving younger
drivers was March. An increase in crash frequency was associated with the AM and PM peaks of vehicular
travel.
70%
16%
11%
2.6% 0.6%
All Crashes (N=151,877)
70%
17%
11%
2.3%
0.5%
Younger Driver (N=62,512)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
13,661
10,645
7,358
6,409
2,438
729
705
793
413
258
102
5,264
5,992
3,932
879
988
694
514
210
147
35
47
12
63
51
8
27
109
21
2
0
0
7
Rear-end
Left turn
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Sideswipe same direction
Single-vehicle
Other
Head-on
Sideswipe opposite direction
Rear-to-rear
Rear-to-side
Unknown
Number of Crashes
Non injury crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 25
Figure 30: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Month
Figure 31: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Hour
4,975
5,225
5,685
5,496
5,180
4,604
4,383
5,494
5,317
5,516
5,380
5,258
Number of Crashes
827
586
602
408
471
814
1,850
4,119
3,062
1,980
2,036
2,557
3,285
3,319
4,353
5,606
5,916
6,007
4,519
2,854
2,357
2,115
1,728
1,142
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Number of Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 26
TRENDS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
This analysis uses the KABCO scale of crash severity, where “K” denotes a fatal crash, “A” is a serious injury
crash, “B” is a minor injury crash, “C” is a possible injury crash, and “O” is a property damage-only crash.
This subsection of the report further details crashes that resulted in at least one serious injury or fatality,
and this sub-set of crashes are referred to as “KA” or “KSI” Crashes. A review of critical crashes can identify
key trends for further investigation. Compared to reviewing fatal crashes only, reviewing the combination
of fatal and serious injury crashes provides a greater sample size and reduces the volatility between years.
KA CRASHES BY COLLISION MANNER
Figure 32 compares the collision manner of KA crashes with crashes that resulted in no injury, possible
injury, or minor injuries (BCO crashes). The most common collision manner of BCO crashes is rear-end
crashes, while the most common collision manner for KA crashes is “Other”. It is important here to note
that the “Other” category is often used to describe the collision manner of crashes involving pedestrians
(Figure 17) and crashes involving bicyclists (Figure 21). The second and third most common collision
manners for KA crashes are left-turn and angle crashes, respectively.
Figure 32: Crashes by Collision Manner and Severity, 2015-2019
5%
7%
23%
18%
2%
30%
14%
2%
25%
11%
23%
21%
5%
10%
3%
1%
Other
Single vehicle
Left turn
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Head on
Rear end
Sideswipe same direction
Sideswipe opposite direction
No injury, possible injury, and non-incapacitating injury crashes (N=146,915)
KA crashes (N=4,962)
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 27
KA CRASHES BY MONTH
Figure 33 shows the distribution of KA crashes by month in the period of 2015 to 2019. Consistent with
overall crash trends, the month with the highest number of fatal crashes was March and the lowest number
of fatal crashes was observed in July.
Figure 33: Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, by Month, 2015-2019
KA CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK
Figure 34 shows the distribution of fatal and serious injury crashes by day of the week. The day with the
highest frequency of serious crashes was Friday, and Sunday was the day with the lowest frequency of KA
crashes.
Figure 34: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Day of the Week
412
425
511
481
399
360
340
372
358
462
444
398
Number of KA Crashes
552
646
718
767
805
823
651
Number of KA Crashes
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 28
KA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY
When analyzing all crashes in the City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads together,
only 26% of them occur in dark conditions
(Figure 7). However, 40% of KA crashes were
reported to have occurred in dark conditions.
Figure 35 shows that KA crashes are
overrepresented in non-daylight conditions.
Figure 35: Share of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes by
Light Condition, 2015-2019
Figure 36: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Hour and Lighting Condition
KA CRASHES BY LOCATION
The same criteria to determine the relationship to the closest junction applied to all crashes was applied
to KA crashes. Figure 37 shows the crash location by year; about 50% of KA crashes were related to
intersections or interchanges.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Number of KA Crashes
Dark
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not available
32.7%
3.1%
4.1%
2.1%
55.3%
2.3%
< 1%
Light Condition (N=4,962)
Dark- Lighted
Dark - Not lighted
Dark- Unknown lighting
Dawn
Daylight
Dusk
Not available
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 29
Figure 37: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Relation to the Intersection
When comparing the collision manner on intersection-related serious crashes (Figure 38) and all crashes
(Figure 11), it can be seen that while rear-end crashes are the second most common intersection-related
crashes, they represent less than 10% of serious crashes. The most common collision manner of
intersection-related KA crashes were left-turn and angle crashes.
Figure 38: Number of Intersection/Interchange-Related Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Collision Manner
56%
51%
53%
47%
53%
44%
49%
47%
53%
47%
2015 (N=901)
2016 (N=1,168) 2017 (N=1,077)
2018 (N=979)
2019 (N=837)
Intersection/Interchange
Non-intersection/Non-Interchange
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
1%
4%
3%
2%
4%
3%
7%
6%
5%
5%
7%
10%
8%
10%
6%
8%
14%
18%
16%
18%
18%
29%
29%
27%
28%
29%
34%
34%
37%
34%
34%
2 0 1 5
( N = 5 0 3 )
2 0 1 6
( N = 5 9 6 )
2 0 1 7
( N = 5 6 6 )
2 0 1 8
( N = 4 6 4 )
2 0 1 9
( N = 4 4 5 )
Left turn
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
Other
Rear end
Single vehicle
Head on
Sideswipe same direction
Sideswipe opposite direction
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 30
KA CRASHES BY BEHAVIOR
Figure 39 depicts the frequency of unrestrained driving and speed violation in serious injury and fatal injury
crashes. Crashes involving unrestrained drivers represent 16% of KA crashes, and speed-related crashes
represent 29% of KA crashes.
Figure 39: Frequency of Unrestrained Driving and Speed Violation in KA Crashes
19.8%
14.6%
15.4%
16.0%
16.7%
35.1%
28.8%
28.0%
25.8%
30.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
All KA Crashes
Unrestrained Driver
Speed violation
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 31
COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL SAFETY TRENDS
Nationwide summaries of all crashes are available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) Annual Report Tables. NHTSA reports on a yearly basis crash summaries by diverse aspects, such
as injury severity, first harmful event, and collision manner.
The Arizona Strategic Traffic Safety Plan (ADOT STSP), published in October 2019, summarizes crash data
from the ACIS database from 2009 to 2018. The crash statistics in the ADOT STSP are primarily reported at
the person-level, which varies from the RTSIMS reporting, which is primarily at the crash-level. Furthermore,
the ADOT STSP does not make any distinction between local roads and freeways while RTSIMS reports (for
the purpose of this summary) focus on local and arterial roads only. For the purposes of this comparison,
statewide data at the crash-level was retrieved from the ACIS database.
From 2015 to 2018, 43% of the MAG Region’s local and arterial road collisions were registered in the City of
Phoenix (Figure 40). In terms of population, City of Phoenix residents represent 36% of Maricopa County’s
population. Figure 41 compares the injury severity of collisions reported in the state of Arizona, MAG Region
local and arterial roads, and City of Phoenix local and arterial roads. The results indicate that the fatality
rate (at the crash level) is rather similar among the geographies; from 2015 to 2018, 0.6% of all crashes
reported on local and arterial roads were fatal crashes, both in the City of Phoenix and in the MAG Region,
at the state level, about 0.7% of all reported crashes were fatal.
Figure 40: Total Crashes Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix
116,609
126,845
127,534
127,086
129,782
64,284
71,357
71,172
70,764
27,006
30,912
31,106
31,026
31,827
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
AZ - All Roads
MAG - Local and Arterial Roads
Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
↑11%
from 2015
↑10%
from 2015
↑18%
from 2015
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 32
Figure 41: Crash Severity Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix (2015-2018)
In the same period, fatal crashes in the City of Phoenix corresponded to 46.6% of the MAG Region’s fatal
crashes. Figure 42 shows a similar comparison for fatal crashes registered on the two areas, in addition to
the total crashes in the state of Arizona. Figure 43 shows the number of fatalities (person-level) registered
per year in the state of Arizona and the City of Phoenix. During the five years under study, fatalities on the
City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads represented 21% of all Arizona’s traffic-related fatalities. This
percentage is slightly lower than the share of Arizona residents living in Phoenix in the same period (23%).
*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to
2018. Data from 2019 was not available for comparison.
Figure 42: Fatal Crashes Comparison of Arizona, Maricopa County, and City of Phoenix
Figure 43: Total Number of Fatalities (Persons) per Year Comparison, Arizona and City of Phoenix
69%
15%
12%
3% 0.7%
Arizona - All Roads
(N=489,074)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
69%
16%
11%
3% 0.6%
MAG - Local and
Arterials
(N=277,577)
68%
17%
11%
3% 0.6%
Phoenix - Local and
Arterials (N=120,050)
810
865
948
916
911
351
435
418
467
155
192
202
230
172
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019*
Number of Crashes
AZ - All Roads
MAG - Local and Arterial Roads
Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
897
952
998
1,011
980
166
201
212
245
180
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Individuals
Arizona - All Roads
City of Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 33
From 2018 to 2019, the number of fatalities in Arizona decreased by 3%. Fatalities in the City of Phoenix
(local and arterial roads) decreased by 26% from 2018 to 2019 (Figure 43); however, the year-to-year
fluctuation in this data does not indicate a clear trend. National statistics on 2019 fatalities and percent
change trends from 2018 are shown in Figure 44.
Figure 44: 2019 Fatalities and Percent Changes From 2018, by State (Person-Level).
(Source: FARS Data, NHTSA Graph)
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 34
PEDESTRIANS
A large share of traffic fatalities involve pedestrians. Figure 45 shows that the State of Arizona was above
the national average, with pedestrians accounting for approximately 22% of 2019 fatalities. In the City of
Phoenix, the share of fatalities that is represented by pedestrians grew from 37% in 2015 to 44% in 2019
(Figure 46).
Figure 45: Percentage of Total Fatalities Involving Pedestrians, by State (Persons)
Source: FARS Data, NHTSA Graph
*Note: Maricopa County information obtained from ACIS database.
Figure 46: Share of Total Fatalities Who Were Pedestrians, Comparison across Geographies
15%
16%
16%
17%
17%
18%
20%
23%
24%
22%
26%
28%
31%
34%
30%
37%
44%
45%
46%
44%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Share of Total Fatalities
US - All Roads
Arizona - All Roads
Maricopa County* - All Roads
Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 35
Although the MAG STSP data does not exclude freeway crashes, an analysis of the data found that 98% of
total pedestrian crashes in the 10-year studied period (2009-2018) occurred off-freeway, on the local and
arterial roadway network. The analysis also found that the same percentage was true for bicycle-related
crashes. Therefore; the MAG STSP and RTSIMS datasets are reasonably similar for comparison purposes.
As shown in Figure 47, The percentage of pedestrian-related crashes was found to be 1.1% in all United
States, 1.1% in the State of Arizona, 1.7% in the MAG region, and 2.5% in the City of Phoenix.
Phoenix represents 36% of the County’s population and about 43% of local and arterial road crashes;
however, 63% of Maricopa County’s pedestrian-related crashes occurred in the City of Phoenix’s local and
arterial roads.
*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data from
2019 was not available for comparison.
Figure 47: Pedestrian Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies
In terms of injury severity, the distribution of pedestrian-related crashes is very similar in the MAG Region
and the City of Phoenix (Figure 48). The majority of crashes (63%) of both datasets result in possible or
minor injury, while nearly one-quarter (22-23%) result in serious injury, and about 12% result in fatal injury.
Only a very small portion of pedestrian-related crashes result in no injuries (2-3%).
Figure 48: Severity of Pedestrian Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018)
1.1%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
0.8%
1.1%
1.2%
1.3%
1.3%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
2.3%
2.5%
2.6%
2.7%
2.6%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Share of All Crashes
US - All Roads
Arizona - All Roads
MAG All Roads
Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
*
3%
23%
38%
21%
15%
Arizona - All Roads
(N=5,470)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
3%
24%
39%
22%
12%
MAG - All Roads
(N=4,803)
2%
23%
40%
23%
12%
Phoenix - Local
and Arterials
(N=3,026)
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 36
BICYCLISTS
As shown in Figure 49, the percentage of crashes involving bicyclists was similar between the two areas,
with an average of 1.5% of total crashes in the MAG Region and 1.5% in the City of Phoenix. The injury
severity distribution of bicyclist-related crashes is also similar between the two areas, as shown in Figure
50. The majority of crashes (78-79%) of both datasets result in possible or minor injury, 13% result in serious
injury, and 2% result in fatal injury. About 6-7% of bicyclist-related crashes resulted in no injuries.
*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data
from 2019 was not available for comparison.
Figure 49: Bicycle Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies
Figure 50: Severity of Bicycle Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018)
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.2%
0.9%
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Share of All Crashes
US - All Roads
Arizona - All Roads
MAG All Roads
Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
*
7%
29%
49%
13%
2.2%
Arizona - All Roads
(N=5,101)
7%
31%
47%
13%
2.0%
MAG - All Roads
(N=4,185)
6%
33%
46%
13%
1.9%
Phoenix - Local and
Arterials (N=1,777)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 37
OLDER DRIVERS (65 and older)
Other vulnerable user groups were also analyzed, including older drivers and younger drivers. Figure 51
compares the number of crashes involving older drivers on all roads of the MAG Region and City of Phoenix’s
local and arterial roads. Approximately 28% of the older driver crashes in the MAG Region were registered
on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
*Note: 2019 data was not available for the MAG Region per its Strategic Transportation Safety Plan.
Figure 51: Older Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix
Figure 52 shows a breakdown by injury severity for crashes on local and arterial roads involving older
drivers in the period of 2015-2018. Compared to crashes involving all age groups, the percentage of fatal
and serious injury crashes remained the same, with a slight shift from no injury to possible and minor injury
crashes. The trends of older drivers are quite similar between the MAG Region and City of Phoenix.
Figure 52: Severity of Older Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018)
13,098
14,222
14,712
15,244
3,547
4,087
4,107
4,279
4,405
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Number of Crashes
Older Driver Crashes - MAG All Roads
Older Driver Crashes - Phoenix Local and Arterial Roads
*
67%
17%
12%
3% 0.6%
MAG (N=57,276)
65%
18%
13%
3% 0.7%
Phoenix (N=16,020)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 38
YOUNGER DRIVERS (24 and below)
Figure 53 compares the number of crashes involving younger drivers on all roads of the MAG Region and
City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads. Younger driver crashes on the City of Phoenix’s local and arterial
roads represented about 31% of crashes involving younger drivers in the MAG Region.
*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data from
2019 was not available for comparison.
Figure 53: Younger Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix
Figure 54 shows that the severity of crashes on local and arterial roads involving younger drivers was similar
in both geographies. In addition, the younger driver crashes are generally consistent with the overall crash
summaries of each area for all age groups.
Figure 54: Severity of Younger Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018)
38,098
41,849
41,230
40,718
11,250
12,897
12,828
12,594
12,944
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019*
Number of Crashes
Young Driver Crashes - MAG All Roads
Young Driver Crashes - Phoenix Local and Arterials
70%
16%
12%
2%
0.4%
MAG (161,895)
70%
17%
11%
2%
0.5%
Phoenix (N=49,569)
No injury
Possible injury
Minor injury
Serious injury
Fatal
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 39
CONCLUSION
Crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) software tool for
crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information Management System (RTSIMS). This report
used existing tools to conduct a safety analysis of the past five years, and compared trends to regional and
statewide data. The following key findings are based on a review of RTSIMS crash data from 2015 to 2019:
•
An annual average 30,376 crashes per year were reported during the five year study period. This
equates to 83 crashes per day.
•
Crashes on arterial and local roadways in the City of Phoenix increased by a rate of about 4.4% per
year. This trend suggests that the crash frequency increased at a higher rate than the City’s
population, which in the same period grew 1.5% per year, on average.
•
Most crashes result in no injury (70%), approximately one-quarter result in possible or minor injury
(27%), 2.6% result in serious injury, and 0.6% result in fatal injury. This equates to two serious injury
crashes occurring each day, and one fatal crash occurring every other day.
•
The percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained generally consistent over the past
five years; however the percentage of no injury crashes has steadily increased over time.
•
Rear end crashes were the most common collision manner, followed by left-turn crashes. These
two crash types account for about half of all crashes.
•
For fatal and serious injury crashes, the “Other” collision manner was reported most frequent
(25%), which is commonly selected for crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Other frequent
crash types for fatal and serious injury crashes were left-turn (23%) and angle (21%).
•
Crashes involving unrestrained drivers (i.e, lack of seatbelt, helmet use) have reduced in frequency.
•
Due to lack of protection on impact, pedestrians and bicyclists (vulnerable users) are more
frequently seriously injured when involved in motor vehicle crashes. In the City of Phoenix, crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians represent nearly half (48%) of all fatal crashes.
•
A greater share of pedestrian crashes is occurring in Phoenix compared to other agencies within
the MAG Region. Phoenix represents 36% of Maricopa County’s population and about 43% of the
County’s local and arterial road crashes; however, 63% of County crashes involving pedestrians
occurred on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
•
Bicyclist crashes are occurring at a greater rate in Phoenix than in other agencies within the MAG
Region. About 43% of all crashes involving bicyclists in Maricopa County occurred on City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
•
For all crash severities, the majority of crashes occur during daylight hours (71%), with the
remaining 29% of crashes occurring during dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
•
A correlation exists between injury severity and lighting condition; fatal and serious injury crashes
occurred more frequently during dawn, dusk, and dark conditions (45%) compared to daylight
conditions (55%).
The MAG RTSIMS tool provided the ability to retrieve data quickly for numerous Citywide statistics. During
the analysis process, several discrepancies were identified when comparing to past Phoenix data, which is
common when comparing different datasets. The City of Phoenix conducts a robust data scrubbing process
each year, which confirms crashes exist within the City of Phoenix boundaries, omits freeway crashes, and
reviews characteristics of crashes in detail to correct the manner of collision if originally mis-coded. The
RTSIMS crash data is not scrubbed, and comes directly from ADOT ACIS. These differences, along with
variations in the querying process, are acknowledged as part of this report. This data contained in this
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 40
report is intended to provide preliminary information; later stages of this project will modernize the existing
City of Phoenix crash analysis process to improve and enhance data analytics and visualization.
RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 41
APPENDIX A: RTSIMS QUERY OUTPUTS
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Year (Phoenix)
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
30K
35K
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Year
14,120
166
2015
27,006
9,023
155
14,688
201
2016
30,912
9,701
192
14,463
212
2017
31,106
9,641
202
12,637
245
2018
31,026
8,527
230
12,008
180
2019
31,827
8,232
172
1
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Year
(Phoenix)
0K
4K
8K
12K
16K
20K
24K
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
17,828
5,508
2,769
746
155
0
27,006
2016
21,019
5,018
3,707
976
192
0
30,912
2017
21,263
5,139
3,627
875
202
0
31,106
2018
22,269
4,400
3,378
749
230
0
31,026
2019
23,423
4,509
3,058
665
172
0
31,827
2
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Month
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
0K
2K
4K
6K
8K
10K
12K
14K
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Month
5,668
87
January
12,337
3,781
80
5,602
83
February
12,553
3,726
77
6,320
107
March
13,809
4,188
102
5,978
88
April
13,146
3,948
83
5,679
75
May
12,474
3,761
71
5,035
86
June
11,359
3,334
84
4,901
67
July
10,920
3,239
65
5,732
83
August
13,199
3,800
78
5,698
68
September
12,736
3,786
67
6,009
93
October
13,267
4,028
85
5,789
80
November
13,065
3,825
75
5,505
87
December
13,012
3,708
84
3
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Weekday
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Weekday (Phoenix)
0K
4K
8K
12K
16K
20K
24K
28K
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Weekday
6,163
165
Sunday
13,603
3,924
148
9,677
104
Monday
21,920
6,501
97
10,925
128
Tuesday
24,139
7,352
128
11,067
124
Wednesday
23,994
7,462
115
11,059
162
Thursday
24,394
7,367
151
11,430
157
Friday
26,020
7,533
153
7,595
164
Saturday
17,807
4,985
159
4
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Hour
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
0K
2K
4K
6K
8K
10K
12K
14K
16K
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
686
45
0
1,846
492
43
515
49
1
1,438
357
43
603
34
2
1,581
415
31
384
15
3
1,133
282
15
492
26
4
1,424
367
24
1,123
24
5
2,481
791
24
2,551
48
6
5,128
1,709
46
5,498
22
7
10,326
3,447
22
4,081
18
8
8,515
2,684
17
3,008
27
9
5,832
1,949
21
2,995
21
10
5,866
1,962
20
3,454
24
11
6,934
2,247
23
3,902
22
12
8,150
2,553
22
3,847
28
13
8,296
2,485
28
4,396
32
14
10,377
2,924
30
5,222
34
15
13,166
3,529
33
5,662
50
16
14,120
3,817
48
5,387
48
17
13,608
3,668
47
4,493
68
18
10,005
2,944
67
2,799
88
19
6,286
1,875
81
5
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
2,270
91
20
5,054
1,584
88
1,994
88
21
4,345
1,332
81
1,553
56
22
3,508
1,027
51
1,001
46
23
2,458
684
46
6
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
30K
35K
40K
45K
UNKNOWN
SINGLE_VEHICLE
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
REAR_TO_SIDE
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_END
OTHER
LEFT_TURN
HEAD_ON
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left
turn)
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Collision Manner
267
23
UNKNOWN
853
208
21
3,301
129
SINGLE_VEHICLE
10,875
2,824
114
3,071
13
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
20,560
2,312
11
801
5
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
2,791
530
4
123
0
REAR_TO_SIDE
938
88
0
483
0
REAR_TO_REAR
1,295
315
0
18,618
43
REAR_END
44,146
12,372
42
3,718
504
OTHER
5,797
3,264
491
20,044
123
LEFT_TURN
34,390
12,247
117
2,226
50
HEAD_ON
3,266
1,340
43
15,264
114
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
26,966
9,624
108
7
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Collision
Manner (Phoenix)
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
30K
35K
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
HEAD_ON
LEFT_TURN
OTHER
REAR_END
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_TO_SIDE
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SINGLE_VEHICLE
UNKNOWN
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Collision Manner
Unknown
Total
UNKNOWN
624
92
83
33
21
0
853
SINGLE_VEHICLE
7,937
1,092
1,296
436
114
0
10,875
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DI
RECTION
18,237
1,434
741
137
11
0
20,560
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSIT
E_DIRECTION
2,257
273
206
51
4
0
2,791
REAR_TO_SIDE
850
51
32
5
0
0
938
REAR_TO_REAR
980
214
87
14
0
0
1,295
REAR_END
31,732
8,394
3,519
459
42
0
44,146
OTHER
2,042
1,118
1,464
682
491
0
5,797
LEFT_TURN
22,026
6,375
4,824
1,048
117
0
34,390
HEAD_ON
1,883
547
568
225
43
0
3,266
ANGLE (front to side)
(other than left turn)
17,234
4,984
3,719
921
108
0
26,966
8
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Age
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Age (Phoenix)
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-94
95-99
100-104
110-114
115-119
250-254
255-259
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Age
10,327
79
0-4
15,012
5,044
58
9,807
72
5-9
13,433
4,610
57
9,808
74
10-14
13,047
4,686
66
24,805
275
15-19
41,762
13,697
216
28,302
352
20-24
52,790
16,849
312
24,645
283
25-29
46,706
14,698
255
19,859
212
30-34
37,610
12,038
194
17,208
207
35-39
32,390
10,307
189
14,790
159
40-44
28,351
9,012
150
14,531
153
45-49
27,132
8,924
146
13,036
192
50-54
24,501
8,072
186
10,821
153
55-59
21,184
6,869
148
8,482
138
60-64
15,723
5,305
136
6,159
93
65-69
11,171
3,798
91
4,168
64
70-74
7,282
2,520
64
2,594
57
75-79
4,441
1,567
55
1,510
31
80-84
2,528
887
31
755
21
85-89
1,327
465
20
225
9
90-94
386
134
8
40
1
95-99
60
23
1
9
Note: This data reflects the age of Driver #1.
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Age
8
1
100-104
4
2
1
441
22
110-114
1,088
260
22
2,842
178
115-119
2,525
1,137
163
58
0
250-254
151
38
0
8,987
45
255-259
32,424
6,618
43
10
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Sex
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Sex (Phoenix)
0K
40K
80K
120K
160K
200K
240K
F
M
U
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Sex
3,885
45
18,466
3,093
43
111,383
937
F
188,984
63,102
841
117,777
1,731
M
221,819
70,564
1,581
1,163
158
U
3,759
801
147
11
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Injury Severity (Phoenix)
0K
20K
40K
60K
80K
100K
120K
O
C
B
A
K
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
105,802
0
0
35,153
0
C
24,574
24,574
0
25,533
0
B
16,539
16,539
0
6,710
0
A
4,011
4,011
0
520
1,004
K
951
0
951
12
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Month
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Month
874
11
January
1,687
556
11
885
14
February
1,767
575
14
1,004
14
March
1,912
619
12
925
7
April
1,705
590
7
881
11
May
1,613
556
11
748
13
June
1,426
457
12
759
9
July
1,444
463
9
856
9
August
1,697
536
9
854
14
September
1,685
539
14
955
18
October
1,859
595
18
864
7
November
1,770
560
7
914
14
December
1,860
589
14
13
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Month
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Month
2,538
33
January
4,975
1,579
31
2,477
29
February
5,225
1,567
23
2,749
38
March
5,685
1,724
35
2,627
30
April
5,496
1,607
29
2,471
30
May
5,180
1,557
28
2,195
28
June
4,604
1,386
26
2,053
17
July
4,383
1,297
15
2,556
29
August
5,494
1,587
26
2,563
15
September
5,317
1,618
15
2,686
30
October
5,516
1,703
22
2,536
26
November
5,380
1,576
24
2,375
28
December
5,258
1,501
26
14
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Month
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Month
342
40
January
355
310
40
293
35
February
300
260
35
372
45
March
365
314
44
313
35
April
341
294
35
269
34
May
282
240
32
227
37
June
239
200
36
209
31
July
226
192
30
261
30
August
271
237
29
284
35
September
294
254
34
362
40
October
371
325
40
403
38
November
401
361
37
387
39
December
401
356
39
15
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Month
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
0
40
80
120
160
200
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Month
169
4
January
178
163
4
172
0
February
184
169
0
188
6
March
197
182
6
184
5
April
194
179
5
179
2
May
186
175
2
129
3
June
138
128
3
129
1
July
132
128
1
174
3
August
182
169
3
175
6
September
186
171
6
184
3
October
189
177
3
162
6
November
169
158
6
138
2
December
140
134
2
16
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Hour
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
46
2
0
90
30
2
14
2
1
35
10
2
25
0
2
36
19
0
14
0
3
33
10
0
24
4
4
59
15
4
117
2
5
186
72
2
280
4
6
467
170
4
652
3
7
1,000
373
3
629
5
8
1,146
399
5
616
4
9
1,168
408
4
734
8
10
1,321
468
8
849
5
11
1,468
504
4
893
9
12
1,639
569
9
818
4
13
1,609
501
4
811
15
14
1,820
521
14
877
6
15
1,976
571
6
848
7
16
1,826
535
7
777
17
17
1,614
471
17
611
12
18
1,183
402
11
386
11
19
702
246
11
17
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
226
10
20
449
153
10
138
5
21
298
96
5
88
2
22
201
61
2
46
4
23
99
31
4
18
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Hour
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
359
18
0
827
233
16
266
20
1
586
165
14
282
11
2
602
180
8
179
3
3
408
123
3
193
8
4
471
138
6
428
7
5
814
274
7
1,022
12
6
1,850
654
11
2,294
8
7
4,119
1,383
8
1,599
7
8
3,062
990
6
1,078
14
9
1,980
660
10
1,122
10
10
2,036
696
10
1,359
12
11
2,557
846
11
1,649
10
12
3,285
1,031
10
1,634
10
13
3,319
1,015
10
1,995
13
14
4,353
1,212
12
2,417
12
15
5,606
1,547
11
2,542
12
16
5,916
1,634
12
2,468
10
17
6,007
1,592
9
2,114
15
18
4,519
1,310
15
1,356
27
19
2,854
824
23
19
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
1,066
24
20
2,357
703
21
1,089
28
21
2,115
672
28
786
24
22
1,728
484
21
529
18
23
1,142
336
18
20
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Hour
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
63
23
0
80
57
23
46
16
1
56
39
16
44
12
2
46
34
12
31
7
3
33
26
7
44
7
4
48
41
7
61
11
5
69
58
11
165
18
6
173
152
18
237
7
7
204
194
7
154
4
8
144
139
4
124
9
9
122
113
9
118
3
10
116
113
2
116
3
11
107
97
3
117
2
12
106
101
2
122
6
13
114
106
6
184
7
14
172
163
6
230
6
15
229
218
6
239
8
16
232
216
8
252
11
17
243
224
11
329
41
18
343
296
41
304
58
19
337
278
56
21
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
263
62
20
316
245
60
197
53
21
241
184
53
169
40
22
197
156
38
113
25
23
118
93
25
22
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Hour
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
15
4
0
19
15
4
4
1
1
6
4
1
4
0
2
5
4
0
5
3
3
8
5
3
8
1
4
9
8
1
28
2
5
33
28
2
81
3
6
82
76
3
148
0
7
150
141
0
102
0
8
105
101
0
88
1
9
86
85
1
93
1
10
96
92
1
91
4
11
97
89
4
102
0
12
107
102
0
97
3
13
106
96
3
155
3
14
161
152
3
154
2
15
166
153
2
193
3
16
202
190
3
191
1
17
192
183
1
138
0
18
144
137
0
96
2
19
100
91
2
23
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Hour
72
3
20
80
70
3
56
2
21
61
55
2
36
1
22
34
31
1
26
1
23
26
25
1
24
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
UNKNOWN
SINGLE_VEHICLE
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
REAR_TO_SIDE
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_END
OTHER
LEFT_TURN
HEAD_ON
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left
turn)
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Collision Manner
26
1
UNKNOWN
50
20
1
198
10
SINGLE_VEHICLE
460
174
9
431
0
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
3,114
327
0
155
1
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
356
88
1
27
0
REAR_TO_SIDE
137
18
0
96
0
REAR_TO_REAR
173
57
0
2,774
12
REAR_END
5,451
1,769
12
441
51
OTHER
646
351
50
3,430
28
LEFT_TURN
5,308
2,050
28
346
11
HEAD_ON
383
177
11
2,595
27
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
4,347
1,604
26
25
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
0K
4K
8K
12K
16K
20K
UNKNOWN
SINGLE_VEHICLE
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
REAR_TO_SIDE
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_END
OTHER
LEFT_TURN
HEAD_ON
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left
turn)
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Collision Manner
75
9
UNKNOWN
156
47
7
1,210
36
SINGLE_VEHICLE
3,453
988
27
1,240
10
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
7,296
879
8
344
3
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
1,005
210
2
50
0
REAR_TO_SIDE
293
35
0
240
0
REAR_TO_REAR
560
147
0
8,162
13
REAR_END
18,937
5,264
12
902
116
OTHER
1,532
694
109
10,079
66
LEFT_TURN
16,700
5,992
63
915
25
HEAD_ON
1,240
514
21
6,609
55
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
11,341
3,932
51
26
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
UNKNOWN
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
REAR_TO_SIDE
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_END
OTHER
LEFT_TURN
HEAD_ON
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left
turn)
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Collision Manner
98
2
UNKNOWN
95
91
2
82
0
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
76
71
0
47
0
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
43
41
0
10
0
REAR_TO_SIDE
10
10
0
3
0
REAR_TO_REAR
3
3
0
113
1
REAR_END
79
72
1
2,076
427
OTHER
2,374
1,923
420
394
8
LEFT_TURN
340
323
7
250
0
HEAD_ON
231
224
0
649
1
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
595
585
1
27
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
UNKNOWN
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
REAR_TO_SIDE
REAR_TO_REAR
REAR_END
OTHER
LEFT_TURN
HEAD_ON
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left
turn)
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Collision Manner
21
0
UNKNOWN
22
21
0
77
0
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION
78
73
0
19
0
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION
21
19
0
1
0
REAR_TO_SIDE
2
1
0
1
0
REAR_TO_REAR
1
1
0
38
0
REAR_END
37
36
0
836
41
OTHER
887
817
41
159
0
LEFT_TURN
158
152
0
54
0
HEAD_ON
57
52
0
777
0
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
812
761
0
28
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by
Injury Severity (Phoenix)
A
2.8%
B
12.3%
C
17.4%
K
0.7%
O
66.8%
Total:
100.0%
All Crashes
A
9.9%
B
39.2%
C
49.9%
K
1.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Injury Crashes
A
0.0%
B
0.0%
C
0.0%
K
100.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Fatal Crashes
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
13,652
0
0
5,248
0
C
3,545
3,545
0
4,127
0
B
2,518
2,518
0
1,044
0
A
572
572
0
100
141
K
138
0
138
29
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by
Injury Severity (Phoenix)
A
2.3%
B
10.8%
C
16.8%
K
0.5%
O
69.6%
Total:
100.0%
All Crashes
A
9.3%
B
37.5%
C
52.3%
K
1.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Injury Crashes
A
0.0%
B
0.0%
C
0.0%
K
100.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Fatal Crashes
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
43,511
0
0
15,597
0
C
10,472
10,472
0
11,170
0
B
6,776
6,776
0
2,773
0
A
1,454
1,454
0
286
333
K
300
0
300
30
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by
Injury Severity (Phoenix)
A
22.0%
B
40.3%
C
24.5%
K
11.2%
O
1.9%
Total:
100.0%
All Crashes
A
26.2%
B
44.7%
C
27.4%
K
1.7%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Injury Crashes
A
0.0%
B
0.0%
C
0.0%
K
100.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Fatal Crashes
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
72
0
0
1,021
0
C
944
944
0
1,664
0
B
1,551
1,551
0
974
0
A
848
848
0
63
439
K
431
0
431
31
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Injury
Severity (Phoenix)
A
12.2%
B
46.8%
C
34.1%
K
2.0%
O
4.9%
Total:
100.0%
All Crashes
A
13.2%
B
50.5%
C
36.2%
K
0.1%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Injury Crashes
A
0.0%
B
0.0%
C
0.0%
K
100.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Fatal Crashes
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
101
0
0
718
0
C
707
707
0
1,001
0
B
972
972
0
262
0
A
254
254
0
2
41
K
41
0
41
32
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
2,273
732
403
112
27
0
3,547
2016
2,604
750
559
146
28
0
4,087
2017
2,691
713
552
120
31
0
4,107
2018
2,932
687
519
111
30
0
4,279
2019
3,152
663
485
83
22
0
4,405
33
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes
by Year (Phoenix)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
7,302
2,448
1,163
285
52
0
11,250
2016
8,758
2,150
1,552
378
59
0
12,897
2017
8,773
2,179
1,501
313
62
0
12,828
2018
9,089
1,859
1,334
240
72
0
12,594
2019
9,589
1,836
1,226
238
55
0
12,944
34
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
30
153
247
127
60
0
617
2016
24
164
306
189
88
0
771
2017
9
194
319
197
94
0
813
2018
9
186
332
187
111
0
825
2019
0
247
347
148
78
0
820
35
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
35
157
185
53
8
0
438
2016
35
151
219
71
9
0
485
2017
17
152
235
52
14
0
470
2018
14
129
186
52
3
0
384
2019
0
118
147
26
7
0
298
36
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Year
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes by Year (Phoenix)
0K
4K
8K
12K
16K
20K
24K
28K
32K
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Year
13,604
147
2015
25,962
8,605
137
14,343
175
2016
30,195
9,393
167
14,120
185
2017
30,426
9,330
175
12,196
197
2018
30,130
8,148
182
11,620
155
2019
30,847
7,897
147
37
7/19/2021
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
Year
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
All Arterials and Local Roads Truck Involved Crashes by Year (Phoenix)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total
Fatalities
Year
1,433
19
2015
3,218
884
17
746
19
2016
2,487
511
19
847
15
2017
2,543
557
15
1,347
18
2018
3,807
905
18
1,431
18
2019
4,683
986
15
38
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes by
Injury Severity (Phoenix)
A
2.5%
B
10.6%
C
16.3%
K
0.5%
O
70.1%
Total:
100.0%
All Crashes
A
9.6%
B
37.3%
C
52.3%
K
0.7%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Injury Crashes
A
0.0%
B
0.0%
C
0.0%
K
100.0%
O
0.0%
Total:
100.0%
Fatal Crashes
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
All
Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
Total
Injuries
Total Fatalities
Injury Severity
0
0
O
103,379
0
0
34,446
0
C
23,984
23,984
0
24,602
0
B
15,709
15,709
0
6,343
0
A
3,680
3,680
0
492
859
K
808
0
808
42
Safety Analysis Report
7/19/2021
No Injury
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes
by Year (Phoenix)
0K
4K
8K
12K
16K
20K
24K
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown
Years:
2015,2016,2017,2018,2019
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Injury
Fatal
Year
Unknown
Total
2015
17,220
5,347
2,589
669
137
0
25,962
2016
20,635
4,930
3,558
905
167
0
30,195
2017
20,921
5,051
3,468
811
175
0
30,426
2018
21,800
4,275
3,200
673
182
0
30,130
2019
22,803
4,381
2,894
622
147
0
30,847
44
Safety Analysis Report
7/21/2021
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
Hour
Number of Crashes
Alcohol Impaired Drivers, 2015-2019
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Incapacitating
Fatal
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Hour
Total Total
43
42
0
0
394
83
108
670
39
71
0
1
399
105
104
718
86
47
0
2
522
135
122
912
40
27
0
3
271
52
93
483
18
19
0
4
151
56
70
314
13
10
0
5
104
51
49
227
16
18
0
6
95
41
37
207
18
5
0
7
95
17
25
160
7
11
0
8
65
26
30
139
16
4
0
9
69
28
26
143
11
7
0
10
63
20
39
140
11
7
0
11
100
27
19
164
4
6
0
12
79
29
29
147
2
6
0
13
121
30
67
226
30
4
0
14
179
87
42
342
33
7
0
15
273
59
76
448
50
19
0
16
316
103
87
575
42
21
0
17
376
121
148
708
68
38
0
18
479
147
140
872
45
(Phoenix)
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Hour
Total Total
99
70
0
19
472
135
158
934
69
91
0
20
472
164
176
972
80
96
0
21
529
158
155
1,018
99
70
0
22
489
139
156
953
67
61
0
23
404
112
149
793
Filters:
TrafficUnit.UnitType = DRIVER
Person.Physical = ALCOHOL
Year
Between
2015
2019
46
Safety Analysis Report
7/21/2021
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
Hour
Number of Crashes
Impaired Drivers 2015 - 2019
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Incapacitating
Fatal
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Hour
Total Total
29
26
0
0
259
51
68
433
28
40
0
1
261
59
65
453
50
30
0
2
327
79
82
568
26
17
0
3
182
34
61
320
13
13
0
4
107
38
41
212
7
10
0
5
70
29
26
142
11
16
0
6
65
25
26
143
11
7
0
7
59
20
20
117
7
7
0
8
54
18
23
109
12
9
0
9
48
20
19
108
10
4
0
10
49
16
20
99
9
6
0
11
60
19
14
108
8
6
0
12
52
19
21
106
4
10
0
13
77
21
41
153
16
12
0
14
117
48
27
220
23
10
0
15
172
38
53
296
32
21
0
16
185
58
56
352
23
15
0
17
210
67
83
398
36
29
0
18
265
72
67
469
47
(Phoenix)
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Hour
Total Total
54
46
0
19
265
75
93
533
42
59
0
20
269
84
92
546
45
62
0
21
296
83
89
575
57
40
0
22
279
79
91
546
33
36
0
23
260
61
91
481
Filters:
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Year
Between
2015
2019
Person.Physical = ALCOHOL,DRUGS
48
7/21/2021
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
Collision Manner
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
Signalized Intersection Left Turn and Angle Collisions 2015 - 2019
0K
2K
4K
6K
8K
10K
12K
LEFT_TURN
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
Incapacitating
Fatal
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Collision Manner
TotalTotal
656
72
0
LEFT_TURN
10,555
3,555
2,880
17,718
445
44
0
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)
6,523
2,244
1,751
11,007
Filters:
Incident.CollisionManner = ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn),LEFT_TURN
TrafficUnit.ControlType =
TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL,FLASHING_TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL,SIGNAL
Year
Between
2015
2019
49
(Phoenix)
7/21/2021
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
Speed-Related Collisions 2015 - 2019
0K
2K
4K
6K
8K
10K
12K
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating
Fatal
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Year
Total Total
268
48
0
2015
9,974
3,017
1,631
14,938
297
39
0
2016
10,894
2,860
1,902
15,992
261
41
0
2017
11,084
2,795
1,967
16,148
199
54
0
2018
11,282
2,580
1,818
15,933
201
51
0
2019
10,980
2,623
1,743
15,598
Filters:
Person.Violation = SPEED_TO_FAST_FOR_CONDITIONS,EXCEEDED_LAWFUL_SPEED
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Year
Between
2015
2019
50
(Phoenix)
7/21/2021
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
Year
Number of Crashes
Safety Analysis Report
Unrestrained Driver Collisions 2015 - 2019
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Incapacitating
Fatal
No
Injury
Possible
Injury
Non-
Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
Unknown
Year
Total Total
115
63
0
2015
309
191
251
929
110
61
0
2016
250
163
270
854
120
46
0
2017
264
164
249
843
96
61
0
2018
252
123
234
766
100
40
0
2019
266
138
206
750
Filters:
Year
Between
2015
2019
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Person.SafetyDevice = None Used
51
(Phoenix)
xcvii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
BACKGROUND
Development of the High Injury Network (HIN), or the
mapping of corridors where high numbers of people have
been killed and severely injured in traffic crashes, is a tool for
road safety initiatives. This approach will help city staff focus
limited resources on what’s needed and where so that funds
can be invested in the areas that are most impacted by death
and injury. Further data analysis of roadway characteristics
along the HIN will allow for identification and assignment of
APPENDIX B: HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
appropriate design solutions.
The HIN was and should continue to be used during the public engagement process to build greater
public and political buy-in for changes. The HIN may also be used to inform decisions during cross-
departmental collaboration and about prioritizing investments, safe street improvements, education,
and police enforcement.
CITY OF PHOENIX HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) METHODOLOGY
The City of Phoenix’s HIN used a 5-year historical data set (2016-2020) from the ADOT statewide
crash database that included 5,473 motor vehicles crashes that resulted in serious injury or death
(KSI). This data was separated into the two non-overlapping categories of Signalized Intersections
(150-foot circular buffer from the center of intersections with a traffic signal or HAWK beacon) and
Corridors (linear arterial and collector roadway segments).
From this dataset, it was brought into ESRI ArcGIS and location codes and joining exercises were
done to connect crash data points to roads/corridors or at intersections. Once this was done, crashes
per mile for corridors and crashes per intersection were calculated. The final stage was using the
ESRI statistics to understand the standard deviation of crashes per mile and crashes per intersection.
Standard deviation is a measure of how spread out a set of data is. The greater frequency of KSI
crashes, the higher the standard deviation, which indicates the farther away the location is from the
city-wide average. Locations with zero KSI crashes were included in their respective datasets.
After identifying the standard deviation of the crashes per mile and crashes per intersection, a
classification analysis in ESRI was done that grouped the crashes per mile via its standard deviation
into 5 groups.
xcviii
Appendicies
AOnce the output from the data analysis was mapped, the RSAP project management team reviewed
outcomes and decided to include signalized Intersections with 6 or more KSI crashes (standard
deviation > 1.98) and corridors with 12 or more KSI crashes per mile (standard deviation > 2.17) on
the HIN. fter identifying the standard deviation of the crashes per mile and crashes per intersection, a
classification analysis in ESRI was done that grouped the crashes per mile via its standard deviation
into 5 groups.
Intersections
The City of Phoenix HIN identifies 68 signalized intersections with the highest propensity of KSI
crashes. This group represents less than 6% of Phoenix’s signalized intersections and 12% of all KSI
crashes.
TABLE 1 : ALPHABETIZED LIST OF NOV 2021 HIN INTERSECTIONS
Location
Location (Cont)
Location (Cont)
3RD AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
23RD AVE & DEER VALLEY RD
43RD AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
3RD ST & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
27TH AVE & BEARDSLEY RD
43RD AVE & VAN BUREN ST
7TH AVE & BELL RD
27TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD
44TH ST & WASHINGTON ST
7TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD
27TH AVE & DEER VALLEY RD
48TH ST & BASELINE RD
7TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
27TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
48TH ST & CHANDLER BLVD
7TH ST & BROADWAY RD
27TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD
48TH ST & MCDOWELL RD
7TH ST & CAVE CREEK RD
28TH DR & CACTUS RD
51ST AVE & MCDOWELL RD
7TH ST & NORTHERN AVE
32ND ST & THOMAS RD
51ST AVE & THOMAS Rd
15TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
35TH AVE & BELL RD
51ST AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
16TH ST & BROADWAY RD
35TH AVE & BETHANY HOME RD
51ST AVE & UNION HILLS DR
16TH ST & SOUTHERN AVE
35TH AVE & BROADWAY RD
59TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & BELL RD
35TH AVE & DUNLAP AVE
59TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD
19TH AVE & CACTUS RD
35TH AVE & GLENDALE AVE
67TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD
19TH AVE & CAMELBACK RD
35TH AVE & LOWER BUCKEYE RD
67TH AVE & OSBORN RD
19TH AVE & DUNLAP AVE
35TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE
67TH AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & GLENDALE AVE
35TH AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
75TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD
19TH AVE & GREENWAY RD
39TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE
75TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
43RD AVE & BETHANY HOME RD
75TH AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & NORTHERN AVE
43RD AVE & MARYLAND AVE
83RD AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & PEORIA AVE
43RD AVE & MCDOWELL RD
83RD AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE
43RD AVE & NORTHERN AVE
CAVE CREEK RD & GREENWAY PKWY
19TH AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
43RD AVE & PEORIA AVE
-
xcix
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Segments
The City of Phoenix HIN identifies 87 roadway segments that have the highest propensity of KSI
crashes. This group represents less than 3% of Phoenix’s roads and 12% of all KSI crashes. A map of
the HIN is provided below:
c
Appendicies
HIN PROJECT CONSOLIDATION AND CROSS CHECK
Step 1: There were an original 155 locations (intersections and segments) on the HIN. After a review
of intersecting, connecting, related, or contiguous locations that included review of projects that were
recently completed, in process, or programmed the 155 locations were consolidated to 98 Projects.
It is noted that there are some locations that did not move forward to projects based on need to hold
due to upcoming projects or study efforts.
Step 2: Once the 98 Projects were identified, a high-level project type was assigned: Intersection
Improvement, Corridor, or Corridor and Intersection Improvement. The Corridor and Intersection
Improvement project type indicates that there was a consolidation of an intersection and a segment
from the HIN.
Step 3: RSAP Equity Analysis and SS4A Underserved Communities (Federal40 Initiative) were
evaluated next. Of the 98 Projects, 61 are identified in BOTH the RSAP Equity Analysis and the SS4A
Underserved Communities. To determine if the Project was included in the RSAP Equity Analysis
and SS4A Underserved Communities, a spatial review was completed. If a Project was either fully
included, adjacent - one side of street, or at least one corner (intersections) of the RSAP Equity
Analysis and SS4A Underserved Communities, the result is a ‘yes.’
17 of the 98 Projects (not in the 61) are identified as part of the SS4A Underserved Communities, but
not in the RSAP Equity Analysis. 2 of the 98 Projects (not in the 61) are identified as part of RSAP
Equity Analysis, but not in the SS4A Underserved Communities. And 17 Projects are not identified
in either.
Step 4: Understanding that this information will be used to consider projects for the SS4A grant
application (2022) and to develop the implementation plan, the next step reviewed a series of capital
and operation programs that include: the Phoenix Street Transportation CIP, Phoenix T2050 Major
Arterial Program, Phoenix T2050 Mobility Areas, and the MAG Momentum 2050 plan. Phoenix staff
also conducted a manual review of the project list to determine if any were recently completed,
partially completed, or programmed. Projects that were substantially completed as of August 2022
were removed.
HIN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
To determine which locations should be prioritized and implemented, two factors were applied per
type of project category: Intersections, Segments, and Composite (Segments + Intersections).
First, the locations were rank ordered by the amount of KSI crashes in that project type group, then
the group was divided into thirds: Tiers 1, 2, and 3.
ci
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Then, within each Tier group, the locations were prioritized if it is part of an area of need determined
by the Phoenix RSAP Equity Analysis. If the location is either fully in, adjacent – one side, or at least
one corner (intersections), it is noted as a ‘yes’.
Phoenix staff also conducted a manual review of the project list to determine if any were recently
completed, partially completed, or programmed. Projects that were substantially completed as of
August 2022 were removed.
THE HIN AS A ROAD SAFETY TOOL
A high-level review of potential contributing factors and roadway characteristics along the HIN was
performed during development of the Road Safety Action Plan. Further site specific evaluation may
be required for identification and assignment of appropriate solutions at these high risk locations.
The HIN should be updated every three years based on the most recent five years of crash data
and continue to be used to inform decisions during cross-departmental collaboration and about
prioritizing investments, safe street improvements, education, and police enforcement. The HIN is one
of several tools and strategies the city will use to improve road safety. Locations outside of the HIN
will not be precluded from funding and implementation of safety improvements
cii
Appendicies
APPENDIX C: ROAD SAFETY TOOLBOXES
BACKGROUND
To support the implementation of various strategies
presented in this Plan, the City of Phoenix will utilize proven
best practices, guidelines, toolkits, and handbooks from
external organizations that include the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). These resources are collectively referred to
as toolboxes. Several toolboxes have been identified that relate to the Strategies in this Plan and
are organized by Focus Area. They are to be used to support advancing the RSAP strategies, apply
proven engineering, enforcement, education, and evaluation designs and methods, and as quick
references to determine how to best approach and solve a traffic safety issues within the city. This is
not an exhaustive list of resources that apply to road safety.
GENERAL STRATEGIES
Lessons Learned from Development of Vision Zero Action Plans, FHWA-SA-20-073, January 2021.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA-SA-20-073_Lessons_Learned_from_Development_of_Vision_Zero_Action_Plans.pdf
The FHWA assisted in the development of Vision Zero Action Plans (VZAPs) for two communities—City
of Daly City (California) and Macon-Bibb County (Georgia). The VZAPs serve as a framework that
details goals, objectives, and action items, using the Safe System Approach to the extent possible, to
implement the safety programs that will guide each community toward zero fatalities. The Transportation
Safety Planning and the Zero Deaths Vision: A Guide for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
Local Communities served as a guiding document in the processes. The purpose of this report is to
summarize and generalize the two communities’ plan-development processes. This report also includes
information on opportunities, challenges and lessons learned.
Strategies to Coordinate Zero Deaths Efforts for State and Local Agencies, FHWA-SA-20-061, November 2020.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/Strategies_for_VZ_Coordination_112020.pdf
The document is designed to help State and local agencies foster and build stronger relationships
that support coordinated zero deaths efforts. The document describes work toward the Safe System
Approach for reaching the zero deaths goal, including managing speed for safety, strengthening safety
ciii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
culture, and leveraging data and community input to prioritize changes.
Transportation Safety Planning and the Zero Deaths Vision: A Guide for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
Local Communities, FHWA-SA-18-024, August 2018.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa18024/MPOLocalSafetyPlanGuide_508compliant.pdf
This document provides references to key information for metropolitan planning organizations and
local communities to understand the safety planning process and develop their own local or regional
safety plan.
Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, FHWA-SA-21-065, May 2021
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf
The Safe System approach acknowledges that humans make mistakes and, importantly, are vulnerable
to the forces that occur during a crash. By focusing on eliminating fatal and serious injuries the Safe
System approach inherently places a priority on pedestrians and bicyclists, who are at a higher risk of
fatal or serious injury than a person driving or traveling in a motor vehicle. The purpose of this primer is
to provide transportation agencies a baseline understanding of the Safe System approach and how it
relates to bicycle and pedestrian safety.
A Strategic Approach to Transforming Traffic Safety Culture to Reduce Deaths and Injuries NCHRP Web-Only Document
252, 2018
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25286#
A strategic approach to transform traffic safety culture should leverage the values and change the
beliefs of all relevant traffic safety stakeholders across the social environment. The purpose of this
report is to provide state agencies responsible for traffic safety (and their traditional, as well as non-
traditional, traffic safety partners) with guidance for a strategic approach to transform the traffic safety
culture of road users and stakeholders. The goal is to use this approach to sustain improvements in
traffic safety for all road users, including non-motorized users.
Traffic Safety Culture Primer, Montana DOT, August 2019
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/tsc/TSC_PRIMER/PRIMER.pdf
This primer provides a definition of traffic safety culture and explain how it influences road user behavior
and traffic safety. With this understanding, traffic safety stakeholders can communicate to colleagues,
existing and new partners, and leaders about its importance. Ultimately, growing a positive traffic safety
culture needs to be integrated into safety planning processes including Strategic Highway Safety Plans
civ
Appendicies
(among others). The report defines traffic safety culture as a system of beliefs about traffic safety. A
basic model is presented that shows the relationship between belief systems and behaviors, which can
affect traffic safety.
Guidance for Evaluating Traffic Safety Culture Strategies, FHWA/MT-21-001/8882-309-14, January 2021
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/55813/dot_55813_DS1.pdf
This report summarizes a project that conducted a literature review of current practices in the evaluation
of traffic safety culture strategies. This review focused on transportation safety literature but also
extended to evaluating safety culture in other public health sectors. A description of the literature was
provided as a report, which was also converted to a journal submission. A separate resource document
was created to provide traffic safety stakeholders with guidance about the steps and conditions that are
necessary for the evaluation of traffic safety culture strategies.
A Primer for Traffic Safety Culture, ITE Journal, May 2014
https://westerntransportationinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ITEJMay_TrafficSafetyCulturePrimer_Ward_Otto_linkenbach.pdf
In November 2013, ITE Journal reported on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ participation in the
first National Roadway Safety Culture Summit that took place in August 2013. The article, “Partnering
Across Disciplines for Traffic Culture Change” detailed the summit’s focus on the impact safety culture
has on roadway crashes and how that culture can contribute to eliminating fatalities and serious
injuries on roadways. The summit concluded with a call to action to create a toolkit, best practices,
and guidance on models for measuring behavior and changes for reliability, validity, and interventions.
Work is ongoing to develop a common, tangible definition of traffic safety culture and the associated
materials to help promote it.
Sustainable & Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths, World Resources Institute, 2015.
https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/sustainable-safe.pdf
This report is to facilitate the application of the Safe System approach to road safety. It provides an
overview of the concepts and evidence behind a Safe System, discusses the relevance of this approach
to low- and middle-income countries, and the wider benefits to health and the environment, and
presents practical guidance that can be applied to develop a strategy and action plan to reduce traffic
deaths while also achieving broader sustainability goals. The guidance focuses on action areas that
have been shown to save lives and reduce serious injuries.
cv
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
Safe Systems: Guiding Principles and International Applications, CSCRS-R7, Collaborative Sciences Center for Road
Safety, Chapel Hill, NC, June 2019
https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CSCRS_R3_Final-Report.pdf
This report examines the state-of-the-practice in Safe Systems. It is divided into two sections. The first
examines the concept of Safe Systems, focusing on our emerging understanding of crash causation, as
well as how this understanding may be applied to integrate safety considerations into transportation
practice in the United States. The second presents a review of the practices of the four countries
with the most established Safe Systems programs— Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, and New
Zealand—and details how each has structured their approach to road safety around Safe Systems
principles.
Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash Locations, FHWA-HRT-17-106, April 2018.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17106/17106.pdf
This guidebook documents methods and examples used to identify or prioritize high pedestrian
crash sites to assist State and local agencies in identifying high pedestrian crash locations such as
intersections (points), segments, facilities, and areas. The process of identifying high pedestrian crash
locations results in a prioritized list of potential locations on the roadway system that could benefit
from safety improvement projects. Discusses performance measures and provides information on six
different screening methods for identifying high pedestrian crash locations
FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, FHWA-SA-06-06, 2006
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf
The purpose of this document is to provide a foundation for public agencies to draw upon when
developing their own Road Safety Audit (RSA) policies and procedures and when conducting RSAs
within their jurisdiction. The availability of a consistent guideline is anticipated to lead to a better
understanding of the core concepts of RSAs and to promote their use. An RSA program can range
from something very simple to the full integration of safety into every stage of each project.
BEHAVIOR RELATED STRATEGIES
Arizona Department of Transportation Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines, 2006
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/adot-traffic-safety-for-school-area-guidelines.pdf
Provides guidelines for school zone traffic control and enforcement for Arizona. The guidelines are
cvi
Appendicies
published by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and apply to the entire Arizona Highway
System. These guidelines are applicable to school officials (public and private), school planners, traffic
engineers, police, and other public safety personnel throughout Arizona. They identify the role for local
officials, parents, and school officials in school area traffic control.
Bicycle Safety Education for Children From a Developmental and Learning Perspective, DOT HS 811 880, January 2014
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/bicycle_safety_education_for_children-811880.pdf
The purpose of this literature review is two-fold. First, this report describes the nature of children and
adolescents’ bicycle injuries in addition to understanding the types of programs that exist and their
effectiveness. Second, this report explores the psychological domains related to riding a bicycle in
childhood and adolescence such as motor skill development, cognitive development, brain development,
and risk-taking and social influences. Understanding how each of these interacts with children’s abilities
to learn and ride a bicycle safely in traffic allows researchers and safety practitioners to design more
effective bicycle education programs to teach children and adolescents how to safely negotiate traffic
as bicyclists.
Cycling Savvy Empowerment for Unlimited Travel – Online website
https://cyclingsavvy.org/
Cycling Savvy is a program of the American Bicycling Education Association. Their mission is to provide
programs and resources for the education of bicyclists as drivers of vehicles, and bicycling-related
education for traffic engineers, transportation planners, law enforcement professionals, educators, and
the general public. Various educational courses are available from this website, including i-person and
online courses.
Automated Enforcement Program Checklist For Red Light Cameras and Automated Speed Enforcement, May 2021
https://www.iihs.org/media/431e551b-3f64-4591-8e30-ad35a069f41f/cF4n4g/News/2021/050621%20auto%20enforcement/AE-checklist-
May-2021.pdf
Two-page checklist created by AAA, Advocates for Highway Safety, GOHS, IIHS-ILD and NSC. The
checklist provides a minimum list of considerations to help an agency follow best practices. The
goal is to operate a successful program that reduces crashes and prevents deaths and injuries while
maintaining strong public support.
Noteworthy Speed Management Practices, FHWA-SA-20-047, August 2020
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa20047/fhwasa20047.pdf
cvii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
This report provides an avenue of information for practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies
which highlight noteworthy practices over a range of speed management issues. The case study
strategies include Strategic Speed Management Program; Self-Enforcing Roadways; Setting Credible
Speed Limits; High Visibility Enforcement; Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras;
Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes; Consistent Speed Limit for Vulnerable Road Users;
and Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits.
FHWA Website, Noteworthy Speed Management Practices: Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras,
September 2020
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa20047/sec6.cfm
A case study to show how the implementation of safety camera was implemented in New York City,
along with some of the key takeaways and lessons learned. New York City faced typical oppositions
to safety cameras such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They successfully instituted a
safety camera program in school zones through several strategies.
Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, FHWA, January 2005
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa05002.pdf
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) have developed this operational guideline for use by State and local agencies for the
implementation and operation of red light camera systems. The purpose of these guidelines is to assist
jurisdictions who are considering the implementation of red light camera systems and help them avoid
inconsistent or incorrect application of such systems. The information contained in this document is
intended to foster discussions and initiatives that will improve intersection safety by reducing crashes
due to red light running. This document is not a regulatory requirement and the decision to use red light
cameras is a matter for local decision-makers.
Evaluation of NHTSA Distracted Driving Demonstration Projects in Connecticut and New York, DOT HS 811 635, March
2014
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811635_eval_nhtsa_distracted_driving_demo_proj_comm_ct_and_ny.pdf
The communities of Hartford, Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York, implemented year-long campaigns
to test whether NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement (HVE) model could be applied to reduce two
specific forms of distracted driving – driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone or texting. The
HVE model applies strong laws, vigorous targeted law enforcement, extensive media that emphasizes
the enforcement, and evaluation. Both sites conducted 4 waves of enforcement between April 2010
and April 2011. NHTSA developed and bought TV and radio spots featuring the tag line Phone in One
Hand, Ticket in the Other. Both sites generated ample earned media. Police wrote 100 to 200 citations
cviii
Appendicies
per 10,000 population for each wave in each site. The results show that high-visibility enforcement
campaigns can reduce the number of people who use hand-held cell phones while driving.
“See Me AZ” Public Safety Campaign: MAG online website
https://azmag.gov/Programs/Transportation/Safety-Programs/See-Me-AZ
“See Me AZ” seeks to raise awareness of pedestrian and motorist laws and change the behaviors
that lead to pedestrian and cyclist crashes and fatalities. Provides regional resources for improving
pedestrian and bicyclist safety in the region, including YouTube campaign ads, video testimonials,
safety tips for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and relevant crash data visualizations.
NHTSA Traffic Safety Marketing Website
https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/
Online site that contains marketing materials for numerous topics relating to traffic safety including
Bicycle Safety, Distracted Driving, Drowsy Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Drunk Driving, Motorcycle
Safety, Older Driver Safety, Pedestrian Safety, Speed Prevention, Teen Safety and Vehicle Safety.
Specific safety campaign materials are provided within each safety topic area that may include
pamphlets, videos, as well as guidebooks for the campaign. Some materials are available in Spanish.
NHTSA Website: High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Toolkit
https://www.nhtsa.gov/enforcement-justice-services/high-visibility-enforcement-hve-toolkit
Provides information on types of enforcement (Saturation Patrol, Wave, Integrated Enforcement,
and Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement), placement of HVE, visibility elements, training and measuring
effectiveness. Also provides information on publicity methods for HVE, implementation and resources
in an online website. In addition, NHTSA provides template materials (press releases, talking points,
posters, etc.), for the following individual program areas: Impaired Driving; Occupant Protection; Speed/
Aggressive Driving; and Distracted Driving.
Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three Keys to Renewed Focus and Success, IACP Impaired Driving Subcommittee
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/impaired_driving_guidebook-three_keys_to_renewed_focus_and_success.pdf
This Guidebook is intended to serve as a guide to law enforcement executives on how to most
effectively renew their efforts to eliminate impaired driving on our roadways. The Subcommittee came
to agreement that success lies in three key areas, and this Guidebook has a section dedicated to each:
(1) Law Enforcement Leadership; (2) Criminal Justice Collaboration; and (3) Effective Communication
Strategies.
cix
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS STRATEGIES
School Site Planning, Design, and Transportation, Informational Report, ITE Technical Committee TENC-105-01, June
2013
https://ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDetail?iProductCode=IR-137-E
Provides information to aid school and local officials, engineers, architects, planners, and developers
in creating walkable, community-based schools. A major emphasis is on the design of new schools
for maximum walkability, traffic safety, and efficiency. This report also addresses these issues for the
improvement or redevelopment of existing school sites.
Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on Arizona Highways, SPR-756, September 2019
https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/pdf/spr756.pdf
The focus of this Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) research was to: investigate the safety
and operational impacts of the PHB installations that have occurred on Arizona’s state highways (higher-
speed roads) to understand their impacts on vehicles and pedestrians; investigate the relationship
between crashes at PHB locations and the spacing from nearby signalized intersections; investigate
the relationship between crashes at PHB locations and other roadway characteristics; and determine
whether modifications to ADOT guidance are needed to advise ADOT on site selection and use of
PHBs.
Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rapid Flashing Beacons, FHWA-HRT-16-040, July 2016
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/16040/16040.pdf
This report documents an FHWA project that includes four studies that investigated how characteristics
of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) affected the
likelihood of drivers yielding to a pedestrian. The results of this project supported the development of two
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices official interpretations for the RRFB: Official Interpretation
#4(09)-41 (I)—Additional Flash Pattern for RRFBs and Official Interpretation #4(09)-58 (I)—Placement
of RRFB Units Above Sign. (1–3) The overall 96 percent high yielding for PHBs identified in this research,
along with findings from previous studies, support the use of this device at a variety of locations, such
as on high-speed roads, wide roads, and at residential intersections.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing (RRFB) Countermeasure Tech Sheet, June 2018
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_RRFB_508compliant.pdf
Two-page technical sheet on the application of RRFBs. Developed as part of the FHWA STEP program.
cx
Appendicies
Interim Approval 21 – Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Crosswalks, FHWA, March 2018
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia21/index.htm
Provides requirements, guidance, and options for the optional use of the RRFBs under the terms of the
Interim Approval. (The next edition of the MUTCD is expected to contain requirements, guidance and
options for the design and use of RRFBs, and at that time the IA will be archived.)
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA-SA-17-072, July 2018
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf
This document provides guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in
selecting countermeasures. By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, agencies can address a
significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-
making guidelines. Provides a Countermeasure Selection Table for uncontrolled intersections based
on posted speed limit, ADT and roadway configuration. Also provides a table listing the safety issues
addressed by countermeasure type.
Pedestrian Lighting Primer, FHWA-SA-21-087, April 2022
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/docs/Pedestrian_Lighting_Primer_Final.pdf
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) primer to used be a resource for transportation practitioners
interested in the safety and security benefits of pedestrian lighting as well as lighting design
considerations at locations with existing or future pedestrian activity. Presents a summary of existing
research indicating the benefits of lighting for improving pedestrian safety, citing studies that resulted in
CMFs that quantify reductions in the number of vehicle/pedestrian crashes due to lighting, provides an
overview of the pedestrian lighting design process, and presents a lighting design example that depicts
a typical scenario for pedestrian lighting facilities.
Research Report: Street Lighting for Pedestrian Safety, FHWA-SA-20-062, December 2020.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/docs/StreetLightingPedestrianSafety.pdf
This document details three separate experiments used to form pedestrian lighting recommendations
that consider the visibility needs of both children and adults. In the first study, participant drivers were
evaluated on their ability to detect the presence of child-sized pedestrians under variations of luminaire
type (2200 K, 4000 K, and 5000 K), mounting height (road scale and ped scale), as well as variations in
luminance and illuminance of the visual target. A second experiment evaluated the ability for walking
pedestrians (adults and children) to detect hazards in their path under the same lighting conditions used
in the first experiment. The final experiment evaluated the abilities of adults and children to determine
cxi
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
when it would be no longer safe to cross a mid-block crosswalk as vehicles approach under varying
lighting conditions. The outcomes of this research are presented as recommendations for crosswalk
lighting design to include considerations for children, depending on pedestrian volume and road class.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists, FHWA-SA-20-042, September 2020
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa20042.pdf
This guide is intended to support agencies that are interested in conducting pedestrian- and bicycle-
focused RSAs and includes information on safety risks for both modes, the RSA process, necessary
data, and the roles and responsibilities of the RSA Team. Also included are updated prompt lists for
pedestrians and bicyclists to use in the field. This guide will aid practitioners understand pedestrian
and bicyclist issues in their jurisdiction and potentially achieve other goals in addition to safety, like
enhancing quality of life, improving community health, or increasing pedestrian and bicycle mode
share. Describes overview of the 8-step RSA process.
Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-22-017, April 2022.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22017.pdf
The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and
design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero fatalities and serious injuries while
improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. The primary intersection types discussed in this
guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections,
Reduced Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced
Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). This guide also includes
discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and
alternative intersections, describes countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings
at intersections, and summarizes the application of intersection analysis methods for the safety and
mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists.
NCHRP 926 - Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections, 2020
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25808
NCHRP Research Report 926 provides a succinct process for selecting intersection designs and
operational treatments that provide safety benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the most appropriate
situation for their application. The Guide provides a step-by-step process for selecting intersection
safety treatments based on site conditions, effectiveness, level of public process, and their potential
to reduce certain common pedestrian and bicycle crash types. The appendix is a Countermeasure
Glossary documenting 34 pedestrian and bicycle intersection safety countermeasures with two-page
cxii
Appendicies
listings of key information for each. Also provides design trade-off of safety countermeasures.
Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, BIKESAFE, FHWA (originally published 2006)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/
The Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System is intended to provide practitioners
with the latest information available for improving the safety and mobility of those who bike. The
online tools provide the user with a list of possible engineering, education, or enforcement treatments
to improve bicycle safety and/or mobility based on user input about a specific location. Provides
countermeasure list, selection tool and selection matrices as well as case studies and resources.
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Tool, PEDSAFE, FHWA (originally published 2004)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
The FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) is an interactive
tool for reviewing pedestrian safety countermeasures at intersections and along the network. PEDSAFE
includes intersection features or countermeasures such as RRFBs, PHBs, countdown timers at pedestrian
signals, and curb design. A total of 67 engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures are
discussed. The treatments and programs selected for inclusion in this on-line document are those that
have been in place for an extended period of time and/or have proven effective. New countermeasures
continue to be developed, implemented, and evaluated.
Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA, 2019
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf
This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions
about tradeoffs relating to the selection of bikeway types. The report highlights linkages between the
bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors
and considerations in a practical process-oriented way. It draws on research where available and
emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. Provides
bicyclist design user profiles and a chart that relates preferred bikeway type to ADT and motorist speed.
FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, May 2015
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf
Outlines planning considerations for separated bike lanes (also sometimes called “cycle tracks” or
“protected bike lanes”) and provides a menu of design options covering typical one and two-way
scenarios. It highlights different options for providing separation, while also documenting midblock
cxiii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
design considerations for driveways, transit stops, accessible parking, and loading zones. It provides
detailed intersection design information covering topics such as turning movement operations,
signalization, signage, and on-road markings. Case studies highlight best practices and lessons learned
throughout the document.
Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, FHWA-SA-21-065, May 2021
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf
The Safe System approach acknowledges that humans make mistakes and, importantly, are vulnerable
to the forces that occur during a crash. By focusing on eliminating fatal and serious injuries the Safe
System approach inherently places a priority on pedestrians and bicyclists, who are at a higher risk of
fatal or serious injury than a person driving or traveling in a motor vehicle. The purpose of this primer
is to provide transportation agencies a baseline understanding of the Safe System approach and how
it relates to bicycle and pedestrian safety. Topics include, safe speeds, safe roads, safe vehicles, safe
road users and post-crash care.
Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway April 2016 Safety Professionals, DOT HS 812 258,
April 2016
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812258-Peds_Bike_Primer.pdf
This primer is intended for highway safety professionals, including State Highway Safety Officials,
as well as their partners and grantees, as a reference for an integrated and comprehensive effort
to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and support broader transportation-related goals. The
primer summarizes the most promising infrastructure treatments and behavioral programs available
for addressing specific safety problems and highlights how these approaches can be combined and
implemented. It identifies opportunities for various agencies to collaborate and combine their respective
approaches and funding for a more comprehensive program. It also offers real-world examples of what
States and local jurisdictions are doing to address pedestrian and bicycle issues in a comprehensive
manner. Finally, the primer includes descriptions of key concepts and definitions of common terms
and acronyms to help readers understand the essentials of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues when
discussing and collaborating with diverse partners to develop comprehensive programs.
Maricopa Association of Governments Shade and Thermal Comfort Online Website
https://azmag.gov/Programs/Transportation/Active-Transportation/Active-Transportation-Plan/Active-Transportation-Toolbox/Pedestrian-
Infrastructure/Shade-and-Thermal-Comfort
Provides recommendations on shade design considerations, that are based on weather data collected
over the period 2005–2015 for the afternoon hours, defined as noon through 6pm. Summer months
in this analysis are considered May through October. Provides several shade examples involving
cxiv
Appendicies
landscape trees and structures. Quantifies a thermally comfortable pedestrian route (Developed by
ASU researchers.)
Urban and Community Forestry 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization, Arizona Department of Forestry and
Fire Management, 2016.
https://dffm.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/2016_AZ_STPP_Report_2017-01-06.pdf
This report summarizes the intent, methodology, and results of the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization
analysis of the Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) at the Arizona Department of Forestry
and Fire Management (DFFM). The purpose of the analysis was to assess existing urban forests in
Arizona’s communities and identify shade tree planting needs.
INTERSECTION STRATEGIES
AASHTO Highway Safety Manual User Guide, August 2014
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/nchrp17-50_userguide.pdf
The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is the premier guidance document for incorporating quantitative
safety analysis in the highway transportation project planning and development processes. The
HSM includes predictive methods for infrastructure improvement project alternative analysis and
development/design, including: (1) the use of national safety performance functions (models) developed
to predict crashes by severity specific facility types and base conditions; and (2) associated crash
modification factors (CMFs) to estimate the potential effects of design alternatives or changes from
base conditions. The second edition of the HSM is expected to be published by AASHTO in 2022.
Screening Your Network to Improve Roadway Safety Performance – Getting Started
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa17008/fhwasa17008.pdf
A 5-page FHWA document to describe a network screening in a five steps process. Network screening
provides documentation and justification for prioritizing safety needs. The five steps are: 1. Establish
a focus; 2. Identify the types of sites or facilities to be screened; 3. Select performance measures; 4.
Choose a screening method; and 5. Screen and evaluate results. This is provided as part of the Every
Day Counts (EDC) program.
Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance, FHWA-SA-20-001,
March 2021
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/FHWA-SA-20-001_Maximizing_HSI_Performance_508.pdf
cxv
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
This guide presents fundamental analytical methods and a conceptual framework for maximizing the
effectiveness of the HSIP by increasing the individual performance of its projects. To address fatal and
serious-injury crashes, agencies should focus on the change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, rather
than all crashes or all injuries, when selecting projects and should prioritize and select projects using
quantitative methods such as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) when possible. While intended primarily for
State agencies, the guide contains helpful information that can be used by local agencies
Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide (UIIG) Toolkit, Online website maintained by ITE, 2015
https://toolkits.ite.org/uiig/
The purpose of the UIIG is to assist and guide users through the process of evaluating their unsignalized
intersections and identifying opportunities to enhance their safety and operational performance. The
contents of the UIIG are presented under two sections: information and Toolkit. The Information section
provides important background material related to the types, users, common problems and treatments,
and general considerations associated with unsignalized intersections. The Toolkit provides a number
of resources to assist the user in: (1) collecting data on the existing conditions and characteristics of the
intersection; and (2) identifying potential treatments that may improve the safety and mobility at the
intersection.
MAG Left Turn Crash Mitigation Implementation Template & Guidance, May 2018
https://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MagContent/LT-Crash-Mitigation-Implementation-Template-Guidance.pdf
The overall goal of this guidance is to help address the “Eliminate Deaths and Serious Injuries Related to
Crashes at Intersections” Action Area in the MAG STSP by assessing intersection safety improvements
as they relate to creating positive offsets at left-turn lanes. The specific objective is to provide technical
guidance to local agencies in identifying locations with left-turn safety concerns and in mitigating these
issues, with a focus on improving negative offsets at opposing left-turn lanes. The guidelines were
developed assuming agencies have limited staff, resources, and data. Important left-turn safety issues
can be identified efficiently through aerial photography (e.g. Maricopa County aerials, Google Maps),
with field reviews as needed.
Applying Transportation Asset Management to Traffic Signals: A Primer, FHWA-HOP-20-048, January 2022
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop20048/fhwahop20048.pdf
This primer provides information for applying transportation asset management (TAM) principles to
traffic signals assets. It also describes how transportation agencies can benefit from including traffic
signals in their asset management planning and integrating asset management practices for traffic
signal assets. This primer provides information for transportation agencies responsible for: (1) Managing
and maintaining traffic signals. (2) Improving asset management practices. (3) Planning new traffic
cxvi
Appendicies
signal assets and understanding the long-term responsibility (and cost) involved.
The Evolution of ITS in Transportation Asset Management, ENT-2020-4, May 2020
https://enterprise.prog.org/wp-content/uploads/ENT-ITS-Asset-Mgmt-final-report.pdf
The report summarizes the current state of ITS asset management, both in the ENTERPRISE member
agencies and across North America, and to describe the attributes and criteria being used to effectively
support ITS asset management. ENTERPRISE pooled-fund study for the Michigan DOT.
Evolving and Phasing Out Legacy ITS Devices and Systems Final Report, ENT-2019-2, October 2019
https://enterprise.prog.org/Projects/2019/ENT_PhasingOutLegacyITS_Report_FINAL_Oct2019.pdf
This project documented nearly 60 case studies, including decision factors, criteria, approaches,
and tools agencies use to help guide decision-making when evolving and phasing out ITS devices
and systems. Based on the case studies, a set of criteria and applicable tools was developed for ten
common ITS devices and systems. These criteria are intended to assist agencies with identifying and
navigating through multiple considerations while assessing ITS devices and systems to determine
potential evolutions or eliminations.
Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, FTA-FL-26-7012-00, July 2017
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf
Provides a compendium of best practices to help transportation professionals improve pedestrian and
bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating, planning for, and implementing
improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. In addition to covering key concepts such as
access sheds, connected networks, and station area comfort, safety, and legibility, the manual covers
needs specific to pedestrians, such as complete sidewalks and safe, convenient crossings, and to
bicyclists, such as bicycle parking and on-transit accommodations.
Designing for Transit A Guide for Supporting Public Transit Through Complete Streets, Monterey-Salinas Transit, 2020
https://mst.org/wp-content/media/DesigningForTransit-2020-Edition.pdf
The guide addresses bus stops, which are the most fundamental infrastructure element of transit service.
The bus stops section covers the minimum required dimensions for a bus to stop and for the sidewalk
and curb space at the bus stop to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant access to
the bus. The guide also addresses where and how bus stops interact with the street network to inform
where around an intersection to place a stop, or what choices to make when placing a stop away from
an intersection (including in suburban and rural areas). This section also addresses minimum street
dimensions for accommodating buses and providing other transit-supportive or priority treatments
cxvii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
along roadways. Furthermore, the guide addresses access between bus stops and the places people
want to go, for pedestrians, including people with disabilities, and bicyclists.
Signalized Intersections Informational Guide, Second Edition, FHWA-SA-13-027, July 2013
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa13027.pdf
This document serves as an introduction to and guide for evaluating the safety, design, and operations
of signalized intersections. It also provides tools to deliver better balanced solutions for all users. It takes
a holistic approach to signalized intersections and considers the safety and operational implications
of a particular treatment on all system users (e.g., motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users).
Readers will find the tools and information necessary to make insightful intersection assessments and
to understand the impacts of potential improvement measures.
Decision-Making Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing, NCHRP 284, 2020
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25905/decision-making-guide-for-traffic-signal-phasing
The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s NCHRP Web-Only Document 284:
Decision-Making Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing is designed to give professionals designing or
operating signalized intersections the tools they need to provide safe and efficient overall operations,
considering both crash risk and movement delays. The guide synthesizes existing best practices as
well as new information from the accompanying research effort (NCHRP 03- 118). This guide covers
right-turn, left turn, and pedestrian phasing mode and sequence concepts. Concept definitions and best
practices are provided for right-turn and pedestrian phasing mode and sequence. For left-turn phasing,
this guide summarizes the concepts / existing best practices and includes additional information from
the accompanying research effort (NCHRP 03-118). The guide presents safety performance functions
(SPFs) and crash modification factors (CMFs) for left-turn phasing modes as well as charts to determine
the operational impact of each phase mode. A methodology for combining the effect of safety and
operations of the various left-turn phase modes is also provided in this guide.
Leading Pedestrian Interval – FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure, FHWA-SA-21-032, October 2018
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int.cfm
FHWA Webpage for LPI as a Proven Safety Countermeasures, providing the typical duration and safety
benefits.
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide – Leading Pedestrian Interval, September 2013
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/
Provides information on the application, benefits, and consideration with the use of LPI, as well as ways
cxviii
Appendicies
to increase the effectiveness, along with three references on LPI studies.
SDOT Policy for Leading Pedestrian intervals, Seattle Department of Transportation, April 2019
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SDOT%20Policy%20on%20Leading%20Pedestrian%20Intervals%20
-%20Signed.pdf
This policy applies to the selection of locations and implementation of LPI within the public right of way
within the City of Seattle. Includes selection criteria, schedule, and design guidelines for LPI application.
Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals: An ITE Recommended Practice, 2020
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/traffic-engineering/traffic-signal-change-and-clearance-intervals/2020
Guidance on yellow change and red clearance intervals for signalized intersections. The goal of this
guidance is to create a consensus methodology for calculating and evaluating traffic signal change
intervals that can be consistently implemented by transportation agencies. The recommendations
presented are intended to yield reasonable times for the yellow change and red clearance intervals
for traffic signals, assisting transportation professionals in enhancing intersection safety, maintaining
reasonable traffic flow, and providing for movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The calculation
methodology in the report is based on the extended kinematic equation. The report provides guidance
for applying the methodology and for selecting input values for both through and turning movements
at signalized intersections. Input values include perception-reaction time, approach speed, deceleration
rate, approach grade, intersection width, vehicle length, and conflicting movement start-up delay.
Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, By Douglas E. Noble, P.E., PTOE (F), ITE
Journal, March 2020.
https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=20D7513D-BD0A-5BEF-5751-1C87F61F551B
An ITE Journal article that summarizes the ITE Recommended Practice adopted by ITE.
A Methodology and Case Study: Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Implementing Automated Traffic Signal
Performance, FHWA-HOP-20-003, June 2020
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop20003/fhwahop20003.pdf
This primer describes a methodology to evaluate the benefits and costs of objectives- and performance-
based traffic signal operations and maintenance. The methodology includes a quantitative component
supported by a subjective analysis. The intent of the methodology is to describe advantages and
disadvantages of using a performance-based traffic signal monitoring process, executed through the
automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM), when compared to the traditional approaches
of monitoring and retiming traffic signals.
cxix
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
ITS Strategic Plan 2012, Maricopa Association of Governments, December 2012
https://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/ITS_2013-01-10_2012-ITS-Strategic-Plan.pdf
Provides ITS Strategic Plan and goals for the MAG Region. The MAG ITS Strategic Plan provides a
framework, a set of regional ITS priorities and a strategy for focusing available funding toward achieving
regional mobility and safety objectives, as well as continuing to support local agencies in deploying
and enhancing their ITS programs.
Benefits of Adaptive Traffic Control Deployments – A Review of Evaluation Studies, NCHRP 20-07, TASK 414, November
2019
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07_Task414FinalReport.pdf
Study conducted for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. This is a comprehensive analysis
of ATCSs deployed and evaluated in the US and allows a detailed analysis of ATCS deployments and
investigation of numerous criteria important for ATCS deployments and evaluation. Relevant data
are collected through literature reviews and surveys of deploying agencies and used to populate a
database of Assessment Tool for Adaptive Traffic Control ((AT)2C). The main purpose of the (AT)2C is to
help practitioners and researchers to identify, compare, assess, and monitor statistics of relevant ATCS
technologies, mainly from the perspective of their field benefits achieved in the field. The last sections
of the report give a sample of analyses that can be performed in this direction.
A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing Intersections, FHWA-SA-21-008, January
2021.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ssi/fhwasa21008.pdf
This report presents a Safe System for Intersections (SSI) method that intersection planners and
designers can readily implement, that dovetails with the typical U.S. project development process,
and that uses commonly available project-level data. The SSI method is presented in the context of a
Stage 1 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), at the scoping phase of project development. The method
incorporates concepts of conflict point identification and classification, exposure, kinetic energy transfer,
conflict point severity, and intersection movement complexity. Application of the SSI method results in
multiple measures of effectiveness (MOEs) and a set of SSI scores that characterize the extent to which
an intersection alternative in a given context aligns with the principles of kinetic energy management
and a Safe System. The SSI MOEs and SSI scores can serve as additional safety metrics to inform the
process of screening alternatives and identifying an optimal solution for an intersection. The report
includes an overview of Safe System concepts and principles, a detailed description of the SSI method,
example project applications, and a future vision for the method.
cxx
Appendicies
Low-Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections, FHWA-SA-09-020, July, 2020.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa09020.pdf
This document presents information on suggested effective, low-cost intersection countermeasures
developed using intersection safety research results and input from an intersection safety expert panel.
These low-cost countermeasures can be applied to a large number of intersections with a high frequency
of crashes using a systematic approach. The net impact of such an approach can produce significant
reductions in statewide intersection crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries. Low-cost countermeasures
are defined as those ranging from $1,000 to $50,000 per intersection. The countermeasures include
signing and pavement marking, J-turn treatments, traffic signal countermeasures, lighting, high friction
surfaces and speed reductions.
ROADWAY SEGMENT STRATEGIES
FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: Corridor Access Management, 2012
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/corridor_access_mgmt.cfm
One-page pdf that provides a listing of access management strategies (including raised medians that
preclude across-roadway movements), and a crash modification factor of 25 to 31% in fatal and injury
crashes along urban/suburban arterials.
Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Corridor Access Management, FHWA-SA-15-005,
Updated July 2020
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15005.pdf
This Technical Summary was prepared to assist transportation professionals with decisions pertaining
to Corridor Access Management, including planning, permitting, design, selection, and implementation.
This document provides a substantive overview of important access-related issues: safety performance
(i.e. crashes), effects on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and community and business economic
impacts.
Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Executive Summary: Corridor Access Management,
FHWA-SA-15-006
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15006.pdf
Four-page document to summarize the FHWA report and highlight the key points with respect to
access management and summarizes CMFs for medians for access management..
cxxi
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022
State of the Practice in Highway Access Management: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRP Synthesis 404, 2010
https://accessmanagement.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nchrp_syn_404.pdf
This synthesis reports how various agencies have acted on the various components of an access
management program, what have been barriers to action, and how new efforts might improve
implementation of access management strategies. Primary focus areas considered are legal and
legislative bases, contents of policies and programs, implementation aspects, reported effectiveness of
program implementation, and profiles of contemporary practice. The emphasis is placed on states, but
counties, municipalities, and metropolitan planning organizations are also considered.
State Best Practice Policy for Medians, FHWA Safety Program, FHWA-SA-11-019, 2013
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa11019/fhwasa11019.pdf
FHWA’s Safety Office has promoted the evidence-based safety benefits of raised medians (or refuge
areas). This flyer highlights three agencies that have implemented policies and plans that promote the
inclusion of raised medians: the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Four-
page pamphlet
2014 Median Handbook, Florida DOT, Updated October 2017
https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/systems/systems-management/sm-old-files/am-and-si/fdot-
median-handbook-sept-2014-edits-10-25-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=401841d5_2
The purpose of this document is to guide the professional through the existing rules, standards and
procedures, as well as to provide current national guidance on the best ways to plan for medians and
median openings. It is a comprehensive guide to allow the professional to make the best decisions
on median planning. The primary thrust of this handbook is the unsignalized median opening. Even
though much of this material can be used with signalized intersection planning. Includes information
on medians for access management and landscaping and sight distance issues.
FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: Medians and Pedestrian Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas,
FHWA-SA-12-011, 2012
https://www.eesi.org/files/cs-fhwa_medians.pdf
Two-page write-up on the benefits of raised medians and pedestrian crossing islands as proven Safety
Countermeasures.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ped_medians.cfm
cxxii
Appendicies
One page write-up and crash modification factor for the reduction of pedestrian crashes.
FHWA Lighting Handbook, August 2012
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.pdf
Provides guidance to designers and State, city, and town officials concerning the application of
roadway lighting. Supplementing and referring to other resources developed by AASHTO, IES, and
CIE this document contains information on: Policy and Guidance – discussing references, policy, and
recommendations used by FHWA in evaluating and administering funds for roadway and street lighting
projects; Basic Terms and Concepts; Warranting Criteria – including various warranting methods
available when considering lighting; Lighting Impacts – (both positive and negative) of lighting
systems and ways to control and mitigate; Application Considerations; and Other Systems and Issues
– discussing additional lighting and non-lighting elements impacting the roadway user.
Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting Design, FHWA-
SA-18-035, May 2018
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/Module3Workbook_021219.pdf
Participant workbook for Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop, Module 3: Street
and Roadway Lighting Design. Module 3 covers lighting design criteria, calculations, field measurements,
and light pollution. Other modules include Module 1: Roadway Lighting Design Overview, Module
2: Lighting Hardware and Light Source Considerations for Roadway Lighting, and Module 4: Other
Roadway Lighting Topics. The modules for the FHWA Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting
Workshop can be found at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/
A Path Forward
81